COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002						       July 9, 1979
C00011 ENDMK
C⊗;
					       July 9, 1979

		      Report of the pool committee.

This report supplements the report of May 25, 1979 and addresses four aspects
that were not adequately covered in the previous report.
	
Pool location

The pool committee erred in its belief that the local opposition to the site
near building 17 would be assuaged by a drawing showing how well a pool could
be fitted into this location.  Many of the occupants of facing apartments still
object to this site and accordingly the committee is now favoring the site near
the croquet court.  Having the pool in this location would force us to have a
high fence around the pool.  This would add to the cost but countering this
there would be no need to relocate any service lines and the access problems
during construction would be less.  The lack of any nearby roof structures for
the installation of the solar heating panels is one serious drawback to this
location.  The pool committee is looking into the available techniques for
coping with this problem.  We do not yet have a firm figure for the revised
costs.

Liability Insurance

We have directed an inquiry to the insurance broker who handles the liability
insurance for the NCPH and he has quoted a figure of $420 per year to extend the
present comprehensive liability insurance of four million five hundred thousand
dollars to cover the pool for any and all accidents.  One might question the
adequacy of this amount for the NCPH's Health Care commitments and for the
Sequoian Coach, but it would be quite unrealistic to carry a greater coverage on
a pool than is carried otherwise.

We have also discussed this matter with the Chairman of the Board of Directors
of the NCPH (the Honerable Thomas M. Jenkins) and he has assured us that the
comprehensive liability insurance applies equally to residents and to outsiders.
He also stated that the residents, members of the resident's council, etc., are
not in any way civilly liable for accidents on the property, both, because they
have no vested interest in the assets of the corporation and because they are
not allowed, by law, to participate in the management of the corporation.
Members of the Board of Directors might be held responsible, and they are
covered by separate liability policies for five million dollars each.

Availability of the pool to all residents

Apparently the intent of the committee with respect to the availability of the
pool to all residents was subject to some misinterpretation.  Certainly, the
pool would be available to all residents who elect to pay for this usage and
who are physically capable of using it.

The committee's suggestions as to the method of financing the maintenance was
based on the belief that many residents would object to having to pay for the
pool if they did not make any personal use of it.  Interestingly enough, there
does not seem to be any serious opposition to paying for the Sequoian Coach on
this basis, although the coach with driver certainly costs a great deal more
than the cost of maintaining a pool could conceivably be.  The committee favored
and still favors, charging the users for the use of the pool, just as residents
are now charged for many activities that involve extra cost.  We had suggested
one minor change, charging by the month rather than per usage.  We failed to
mention that there could still be the option for occasional users to pay their
share on a per usage basis.

There is, of course, one other alternative.  If those residents who object
both to having a usage fee and to having the costs borne by all residents
feel strongly enough about the matter, they could contribute to an endowment
fund to provide the needed income to pay for the maintenance.  As a rough
estimate this would require a fund of perhaps $60,000 or $70,000.  The committee
had not previously considered this possibility.

Safety precautions

Several residents have objected to the suggested requirement  that there always
be at least 2 adults present when the pool is being used.  This is a requirement
at many pools (even privately owned ones) and is is usually thought to be a 
wise safety precaution. This does not mean that there must be two users of the
pool or that the second adult be a qualified life guard but merely that there be
someone present who could assist a swimmer by extending a retrieval pole or who
could summon help if he or she was unable to take care of the emmergency.  Many
retirement homes do not even have this requirement and it is certainly not a
forgone conclusion that we should do so.

Addendum

The committee understands that there is an organized group that has been
privately circulating information that they have not make available to the pool
committee and that they have been actively soliciting signatures to a petition
on the basis of this information which may not be complete.

The committee believes that this action has hampered the pool committee in the
performance of its duties and that the active solicitation of signatures (except
as provided for by the Resident's Council's Constitution and By-laws, or as
specifically authorized by the Council) is contrary to the accepted policies at
The Sequoias.