News
Guest Comment: Whither GVR?
By Mac Gearhart
Now is that time of year when GVR membership elects members to the Board of Directors to set direction for this valuable organization.
It is the right time to assess what members want GVR to be. Chairing the development of the GVR Strategic Plan for 2007 gave me the opportunity to look at what GVR is doing today and future trends.
Trends affecting GVR are called out in the Strategic Plan (available at www.gvrec.org) and include the following:
GVR membership will continue to increase for another decade or so until the final lots are built out. The age distribution appears to be relatively stable into the future as younger people replace departing elders. Our largest auditorium was built in a time of smaller membership and no plans exist for expansion.
Studies indicate that each age group is more active than before: today’s 70 year old is more active than yesterday’s. Even without growth, there will be more and longer use of facilities.
Construction and energy costs are and will continue to rise faster than the CPI. The cost of maintaining what we have will increase faster than current bylaws permit the Board to raise dues.
Planned centers at Canoa Ranch and Las Campanas cannot be built to the planned size within funds assessed to the developer. Space per member will decline.
Interests change with both new and old members. New technology, such as the digital camera and the camera club, drives some of this growth. Other emerging technologies cannot be predicted.
The board tries to keep abreast of membership needs, but there has been no comprehensive needs assessment in 8 years due to cost for an accurate survey.
Legislated requirements increase the costs of maintaining facilities. We cannot simply remodel an aging facility; we often have to expand it to conform to the latest standards. With our aging facilities, this is a common requirement.
Security and safety issues are becoming more common as the surrounding area urbanizes. While vandalism and thefts have not been a major issue, they may increase requiring additional security.
Four potential directions
There are four potential directions that GVR could take. The first is to strive for excellence of facilities and programs beyond our current levels. This option is applicable to a private club where members join and leave based upon perceived cost/benefit. This is not the case for GVR, making this option inappropriate.
The second option would be to adapt to changes in needs of the membership at the same level of service. This option recognizes the changing needs of members and that to serve current and future members, we need to revise and potentially expand facilities.
Dues change to reflect changing costs of operation and improvement.
The third option is to react to member demands, holding down costs by reducing service until funding becomes available. This is essentially what the current board is managing. Interest groups such as clubs request features, facilities, or programs.
The requests are placed in a list, prioritized, and dealt with as funds are available. A wait of three years is normal, some wait four or more years, some valid projects don’t make it high enough in priority to ever gain funding.
Current demands make it nearly impossible to look to future needs. This approach serves the most vocal, but not all the members.
The final option focuses on dues rather than capabilities, holding dues down without regard to changing needs and costs.
As maintenance and energy costs rise at a faster rate than dues, this will result in obsolescence of facilities, reduced usability and eventually in the decline and closing of facilities.
The new board will have to make the decisions as to which direction GVR will follow. I have looked at the candidates for the board, heard their answers to questions, and my conclusion is that three of them are especially well qualified to make the right decisions to maintain GVR as an asset to its members.
The backgrounds and capabilities of Eddie Peabody, Altie Metcalf, and Jim Molski can serve the membership well in overcoming the future challenges. In fact, they are all well qualified to chair the board.
Mac Gearhart and his wife Pat moved to Green Valley in 2003 from Albuquerque, N.M. As an IBM data specialist, he lived all over the United States. He chaired GVR’s Strategic Planning Committee and served on its Community Planning Committee.
It is the right time to assess what members want GVR to be. Chairing the development of the GVR Strategic Plan for 2007 gave me the opportunity to look at what GVR is doing today and future trends.
Trends affecting GVR are called out in the Strategic Plan (available at www.gvrec.org) and include the following:
Planned centers at Canoa Ranch and Las Campanas cannot be built to the planned size within funds assessed to the developer. Space per member will decline.
Four potential directions
There are four potential directions that GVR could take. The first is to strive for excellence of facilities and programs beyond our current levels. This option is applicable to a private club where members join and leave based upon perceived cost/benefit. This is not the case for GVR, making this option inappropriate.
The second option would be to adapt to changes in needs of the membership at the same level of service. This option recognizes the changing needs of members and that to serve current and future members, we need to revise and potentially expand facilities.
Dues change to reflect changing costs of operation and improvement.
The third option is to react to member demands, holding down costs by reducing service until funding becomes available. This is essentially what the current board is managing. Interest groups such as clubs request features, facilities, or programs.
The requests are placed in a list, prioritized, and dealt with as funds are available. A wait of three years is normal, some wait four or more years, some valid projects don’t make it high enough in priority to ever gain funding.
Current demands make it nearly impossible to look to future needs. This approach serves the most vocal, but not all the members.
The final option focuses on dues rather than capabilities, holding dues down without regard to changing needs and costs.
As maintenance and energy costs rise at a faster rate than dues, this will result in obsolescence of facilities, reduced usability and eventually in the decline and closing of facilities.
The new board will have to make the decisions as to which direction GVR will follow. I have looked at the candidates for the board, heard their answers to questions, and my conclusion is that three of them are especially well qualified to make the right decisions to maintain GVR as an asset to its members.
The backgrounds and capabilities of Eddie Peabody, Altie Metcalf, and Jim Molski can serve the membership well in overcoming the future challenges. In fact, they are all well qualified to chair the board.
Mac Gearhart and his wife Pat moved to Green Valley in 2003 from Albuquerque, N.M. As an IBM data specialist, he lived all over the United States. He chaired GVR’s Strategic Planning Committee and served on its Community Planning Committee.
Copyright © 2010 - Green Valley News and Sun