Review Of The Business Plan

THE 2010 FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT ON

REVIEW OF THE BUSINESS PLAN

COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Chair: James P. Howard, II, Long Reach
Vice-Chair: Alan Romack, Owen Brown
Ed Coleman, Long Reach
Roger Hultgren, Harper's Choice
Ryan McCarthy, Wilde Lake
Dan Woodruff, Dorsey's Search

COLUMBIA, MARYLAND
APRIL 12, 2010

The 2010 Financial Advisory Committee

Cynthia Coyle
Chair, Planning and Strategy Committee
Columbia Association, Inc.
10221 Wincopin Circle
Columbia, Maryland 21044

April 12, 2010

Dear Ms. Coyle:

Please accept the attached report from the 2010 Financial Advisory Committee on “Review of
the Business Plan.”

As always, members of the Financial Advisory Committee are available for future consultation
regarding this report or other matters the Board of Directors or the Planning and Strategy
Committee may require. The other committee members and I sincerely appreciate the
opportunity to have served the Columbia Association and residents of Columbia as members of
the Financial Advisory Committee and on their behalf, I remain,

Very respectfully,

James P. Howard, II
Chair, Financial Advisory Committee

Review of the Business Plan 1

Introduction
The Columbia Association (CA) Board of Directors charged the Financial Advisory Committee
(Committee) with reviewing and commenting on the “Business Plan: A Blueprint to the Future
for the Columbia Association” (Plan). That Plan is a portion of CA’s “Proposed Fiscal Year 2011
& Proposed Conditional Fiscal Year 2012 Progression Plan”.

The Business Plan is found on pages 39 through 93 of the Progression Plan. The Committee’s
comments are limited to those pages.

Recommendations
The Committee recommends that the proposed Business Plan (as distributed in the Progression
Plan) be corrected and updated in the master copy and the online copy to correct factual,
computational, grammatical, and word usage errors before any further distribution is made. A
detailed list of corrections that the Committee feels are necessary are in the body and Appendix
III of this report.

The committee recommends that this document not leave the draft phase without a major
restructuring of the document. As guidance for this restructuring, the Committee has the
following suggestions:

• Rewrite the Business Plan section utilizing the sample business plan outline found in
Appendix I of this report;

• Extract the strategic goals out of the Business Plan and place them in a new strategic
plan, following the outline suggested in Appendix II of this report.

The Committee hopes that reconfiguring the current Business Plan into these separate documents
will provide two tight documents that can be tied to the budget documents in a more relevant
manner and communicate clearly the important message that these documents need to convey.

The Committee urges the CA Board and management to ensure that the new documents are as
readable, concise, and communication-friendly as possible in order to reach all of CA’s
stakeholders.

Finally, the Committee suggests that future documents be subjected to a thorough review process
to ensure factual accuracy and correct grammar and word usage in published materials.

General Comment
The Committee’s general comment on, and concern with, the Business Plan is that the Plan does
not inform the reader of how the business operations of CA relate to its budget. In short, the Plan
lacks measurable objectives, and corresponding metrics that explain how progress toward
achieving those objectives will be measured.


After wading through the more than 50 pages that constitute the Plan, it appears that the main
purpose of the Plan, as first revealed on page 70, is “to develop marketing plans that show people
what they get for their basic investment.” In other words, it appears that CA is about to embark
on a public relations campaign to try to convince people they are getting a good deal. The
Committee believes that CA should concentrate first and foremost on providing a good deal,
rather than expending energy trying to convince people they are getting good value for their
money. We do not see prominent reference in the Plan that the CA Board and management are
dedicating themselves, as an integral part of how they will do business, to strive to provide good
value to Columbia’s assessment and fee payers. While some might say that such a commitment
is a given, we believe it would be imperative to state up-front and clearly that CA intends to
work diligently to provide good value to its customers.

On page 45, the Plan says, “The perception challenge is that people feel that governing
associations give them no rate of return on what people feel are exorbitant annual fees paid.” It
appears that this sentence is intended to describe Columbia’s assessment payers. The Committee
believes such an assertion should be supported by some data indicating that the payers are
unhappy. In addition, certainly people get a rate of return on fees. The rate may be lower than
some wish it would be, but it is incorrect to say that people get “no rate of return”. Later, on
page 70, the Plan says that:

The general distrust of governance, while in most cases is not warranted, exists. Resident
investors seem to generally have a basic perception that CA often spends their money on
things that don’t add value to their lives.

Are these assertions supported by empirical evidence? If yes, how widespread is this negative
assessment of CA’s operation and spending? On page 55, the Plan says, “… suffice it to say that
the Columbia Association does an outstanding job of giving residents a viable return on their
investment.” From that comment, it would appear that the CA Board and management disagree
with the perception of residents that they are not getting a good deal. Has the Board and
management considered that residents’ perceptions might be valid? The Plan does not indicate
that the Board and management have made any attempt to discern what the residents of
Columbia think of the services they receive, or that they gave any consideration to the validity of
the negative perception of CA’s services.

The tone of the plan, at points, seems to carve out a large role for CA. For example, on page 84,
the Plan raises the question “will the Association have a more centralized role in determining
planning and zoning issues, or will CA be a vital player in redevelopment of aging areas within
the its [sic] corporate limits?” and, on page 86, “CA might have to become more involved in
Village Center revitalization up to and including buying commercial properties …” CA certainly
has in the past and may in the future be an advocate for the community and represent broad
community concerns before governing bodies, such as the county zoning body, but CA does not
have the authority to determine zoning issues. In addition, raising the possibility of a direct role
in private property—and perhaps ownership of commercial properties—seems to be over-
reaching. The Committee believes CA’s primary organic function is to provide recreational
facilities and to maintain, enhance, and preserve the parks and open space areas of the
community.


This does not minimize CA’s role in keeping Columbia an attractive place to live and work. The
committee believes CA is a vital organization in the community, and that CA’s programs and
services are important in helping to maintain property values.

As a positive, the Committee believes the statement and discussion of goals on pages 51 and 52
are well-stated. The Committee notes that the tone of those goals emphasizes service to people
and enhancement of the community – goals which we believe are in keeping with the CA's
mission statement.

Detailed comments
The proposed Business Plan contains several factual errors and spurious or non-sensical
statements. These include:

• On page 43, the Plan says, “The Columbia Association is a private, non-profit planned
community …” Columbia is the planned community; CA is a private, non-profit
corporation within the planned community of Columbia.

• On page 48, in the table, the percentages for “Percentage of Budget Dedicated to Salaries,
etc” for both FY 2011 and FY 2012 are incorrect. The correct percentages are 41.7 for
FY 2011 and 41.3 for FY 2012 (using $24,720,000 and $25,214,000 for the respective
numerators).

• On page 49, the pie chart appears to represent FY 2011, but the amount for FY
2011contingencies in the table on page 48 is $215,000, while the amount for
contingencies in the pie chart is $185,000. The number $185,000 for contingencies also
appears in the last line on page 49. In the first line of the paragraph below the pie chart,
the Plan says the budget increase from FY 2011 to FY 2012 is 3 percent. The actual
increase is a little more than 2.9 percent; if the plan is to say 3 percent, it should be stated
as “about 3 percent”.

• On page 66, in the second column, line 16, the Plan says the annual charge is about 1.2
percent of median household income, yet on page 81, the figure is given as 0.8 percent of
annual household income (and 0.9 percent of annual household income in Exhibit A-1 on
page 92; however, please note that the Committee has serious reservations with that
exhibit, detailed below).

• The table on page 76 lists 10 states that purportedly have low business taxes with the per
capita personal income figures in those states compared to the per capita personal income
figures for 10 states with high educational attainment. Those columns could be re-titled
“Apples” and “Oranges”, because this is a spurious comparison. The cited data are from
Michigan Future, and that organization’s primary emphasis is to promote education as the
key to prosperity. The table on page 76 also contains columns labeled “% Bachelors or
More 25+”. This labeling leaves a lot of work to the reader, which is not a good idea.
The data in those columns are the percentage of the population aged 25 years or older
who have a Bachelor’s degree or higher, and the columns should be labeled to make that


clear. The Plan is trying to make the case that low taxes do not lead to higher per capita
income, but that is quite a stretch. Many factors contribute to per capita income levels in
different areas of the country. Some of those factors are:

◦ the primary emphasis of the Michigan Future organization – educational attainment;

◦ the nature of employment (insurance, banking, financial services, and government in
states with relatively high per capita income, such as Connecticut, Massachusetts,
New York, and Maryland versus small business and agriculture in states with
relatively low per capita incomes, such as Arkansas, Alabama, and South Dakota);

◦ cost of living; and

◦ family size.

• On page 80, the Plan says, “The School Districts, Howard County, and other smaller tax
supported agencies …” There is no separate school district in Howard County nor is
there a smaller tax-supported agency than Howard County. Maryland is a strong county
state. Howard County is the basic tax-supported entity in this area, and the school system
is a component of state and county government.

• On page 81, the Plan says, “… total household price of government services is about .8%
…”. This sentence refers to typical household costs of the CA assessment. CA is not a
government, and the CA assessment does not wholly fund government services.

• On page 82, the percentage for Package Plan in FY 2011 should be 22.2 (not 22.3), and a
note such as “Detail may not add to 100 because of rounding.” should be added.

• There are several problems with the table of data on page 83. First, the FY 2012 total on
page 48 is shown as $61,028,000 but it is shown as $60,872,000 on page 83 (the FY 2011
total on page 48 is the same as on page 83). Second, the salaries and benefits number for
FY 2011 on page 48 is $24,720,000 but it is $24,728,000 on page 83 (the salaries and
benefits numbers on page 48 are the same as on page 83 for the FY 2012 period). Third,
the number for contingencies on page 48 is $215,000 for both years but it is $185,000 for
FY 2011 and $190,000 for FY 2012 on page 83. (As stated earlier, the number of
contingencies for what appears to be FY 2011 is given as $185,000 at two places on page
49.) Fourth, 20 of the 26 percentages in the table are incorrect (interestingly, both
columns of percentages in the Plan are identical, an unlikely occurrence if the
computations were done correctly). The correct percentages, based on the numbers in the
table as given, are:


Item Correct FY 2011 Percentage Correct FY 2012 Percentage
Salaries, etc. 41.7 41.4
Cost of Sales 1.4 (a) 1.4 (a)
Operating Supplies 8.2 8.2
Insurance 1.4 1.4
Fees 6.7 6.8
Rentals 2.0 2.0
Taxes 1.2 (a) 1.2 (a)
Utilities 4.4 (a) 4.3
Repairs & Maintenance 7.1 7.1
Comm. Assoc 4.0 (a) 4.1
Interest Expense 5.6 5.6
Contingencies 0.3 0.3
Capital 15.8 16.2
Total 99.8 (b) 100.0

(a) These percentages were correct in the table in the Plan.
(b) As stated earlier, if this number is listed as 100.0, a note should be added saying that
the detail may not add up to 100 because of rounding.

• On page 83, the Plan says, “Exhibit A-1 indicates … that for the average residential
property in Columbia, property taxes equal about .9% of average household income.”
The table in Exhibit A-1 purports to show that the annual Columbia assessment is about
0.9 percent of annual household income. The CA assessment is not a property tax and
should not be called a tax. Howard County and the State of Maryland impose property
taxes; CA does not. The Committee has additional comments about this exhibit, below.

• On page 88, the Plan says, “This document is a unique way to show how a political
subdivision of the State …”. The context suggests this statement refers to Columbia, but
Columbia is not a political subdivision of the state.

• On page 89, the Plan says that a question facing the future is how important it is for
Columbia to stay in the top ten places to live, and then the Plan says, “If that is a constant
goal, investment in the future and continuing reinvestment in the past is of imminent
need.” The Plan does not explain how one reinvests in the past. The Committee is
curious.

• The table on page 92 (Exhibit A-1, mentioned above) is unnecessary and not plausible.
The table purports to show that the annual CA assessment is about 0.9 percent of annual
household income of Columbia residents. On page 81, the Plan says median annual
income per family in Columbia is $96,836 and the assessment revenue derived from
housing units is about $756 per unit; thus, the CA assessment is about 0.8 percent of a


typical household’s annual income. (On page 66, the Plan says that annual charges are
about 1.2 percent of median household income; that number should be reconciled with
the 0.8 percent figure.) The data in Exhibit A-1 takes one through a set of numbers
(including non-relevant numbers, such as assuming that households at each income level
spend 25 percent of income on their house payment) which seems to assume that
households with income of, for example, $56,660 live in homes assessed at $150,000,
and their CA assessment is 0.9% of income and that households with income of, for
example, $245,500 live in homes assessed at $650,000, and their CA assessment is also
0.9 percent of income. The data used in Exhibit A-1 for family income levels and
corresponding property values are artificial and arbitrary and do not demonstrate or prove
any point. The percentage of household income needed to pay the CA assessment will
vary within and across income brackets. In addition, the portion of the Plan that
references this exhibit tries to convince the reader that the CA assessment is a good deal.
On page 81, the Plan contains data demonstrating that the typical family pays about 0.8
percent of annual income in CA assessment. Why, then, go through all the calculations in
Exhibit A-1 to show that the percentage is 0.9 percent -- more than 0.8 percent? This
exhibit should be deleted.

The Plan is replete with punctuation, grammatical, and spelling errors. It is difficult to take the
Plan seriously because of the errors in language; the document needs a thorough edit. Many of
those errors are included in Appendix III, with the Committee’s suggested corrections.

Conclusion
The Committee believes that this proposed Plan is fraught with problems and that it needs to be
re-worked in line with the Committee’s recommendation on the first page of this report.


Appendix I: Outline of a Business Plan
1. Title Page

2. Index

3. Executive Summary or Casual Reader Rundown—Sumarize in one page or less:

1. Brief background of the CA and its mission;

2. Purpose of this particular document;

3. Intended audience of this particular document; and

4. Key objectives outlined in this document and how they relate to CA's mission.

4. Organization Summary—Summarize the services offered by CA. Explain the
organizational structure of CA and the relevant points where it interfaces with residents,
businesses, investors, and other stakeholders. Could also include how CA’s mission
benefits these groups (maintain or increase property values, promote or protect employee
health, etc.).

5. Objectives—Clearly outline each objective and initiative in the plan, how it relates to
CA’s mission and the appropriate metrics or benchmarks used to measure the
effectiveness of each.

6. Financial Plan—Financial support for stated objectives.

7. Appendix—Additional support.


Appendix II: Outline of a Strategic Plan
1. Overview

1. Vision Statement

2. Mission Statement

3. Values

4. Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats

2. Institutional Priorities (What does the Columbia Association do already?)

1. Open Space Management

1. Goal 1

1. Metric 1

2. Metric 2

3. Etc.

2. Goal 2

1. Metric 1

2. Etc.

2. Sport and Fitness

1. Goal 1

1. Metric 1

2. Etc.

2. Goal 2

3. Etc. for other organizational components

3. Strategic Initiatives

1. Initiative 1

1. Goal 1


1. Metric 1

2. Etc.

2. Etc. for additional initiatives

4. Internal Matters

1. Human Resources

1. Goal 1

1. Metric 1

2. Etc.

2. Etc. for additional goals

2. Information Technology

1. Goal 1

1. Metric

2. Etc.

2. Etc. for additional goals

3. Etc. for additional organizational components

5. Implementation Plan

1. Community involvement

2. Prioritization

3. Resources and Costs

4. Progress reporting


Appendix III: Grammar and spelling errors
The Committee’s comments in this Appendix are limited to word usage, grammar, and spelling
errors in the draft Plan. Some of the fixes listed below would be rendered moot if the corrections
to factual and other errors enumerated in the main body of this report are implemented and if the
Plan were simplified and composed according to the outline in Appendix I; however, if the Plan
retains its current form, the Committee believes the following corrections are needed in the draft
Plan:

• All tables and graphs should have a title and should be listed in the document’s Table of
Contents.

• On page 42, the blue circle contains the term “City Government”. This term is not
applicable to Columbia. The local government is Howard County. An appropriate term
here would be “County Government” or “Local Government”. Also, the main graphic
would be easier to read if the figure with the two people and key was removed, allowing
room to enlarge the main graphic.

• On page 43, line 11, “Community Association” should be “Columbia Association”.

• On page 43, line 15, “blueprints” should be “blueprint”.

• On page 44, line 5 includes an opening quotation mark, but there is no closing quotation
mark.

• On page 45, line 7, includes the words, “... the budget will focus on measuring value, ...”
No performance metrics were provided in the entire Plan to provide any budgetary targets
to substantiate this claim.

• On page 45, line 14, the Plan introduces the term “Zeitgeist”. One of the Committee
members asked six college-educated co-workers 30 - 55 years old what “Zeitgeist” meant
and only one knew. She happened to be a German linguist. If the report audience is
“CA residents” the language needs to simplified, or terms should be defined. This same
applies to the acronym “TQM” which appears on page 62, line 17. This acronym refers
to “Total Quality Management”, which should be spelled-out before the acronym is used.

• On page 46, line 10, should end with a comma, to be consistent with the other bullet
points in this area.

• On page 46, line 15, “Addresses life and property health and safety needs,” probably
should be “Addresses life, property, health, and safety needs,”.

• On page 46, line 16, “Provides information and maintaining …” should be “Provides
information and maintains …”

• On page 47, line 2, “… various services categories …” should be “… various service
categories …”


• On page 47, line 25, there is an extraneous comma before the words “capital outlay”.

• On page 48, line 1, “… facilities, as well as parks and open space.” should be “…
facilities, and parks and open space.”

• On page 48, in the table, there is a space in the column heading “FY 2011” but not in
“FY2012”. One of these should be changed, either delete a space or include one. Also,
in the second line of the table “Day to Day” has no hyphens, when hyphens are included
in other references.

• On page 49, the pie chart should be labeled for the year it represents. From the content, it
appears to represent FY 2011, but the amount for FY 2011contingencies in the table on
page 48 is $215,000, while the amount for contingencies in the pie chart is $185,000. The
$185,000 figure also appears in the last line on page 49.

• On page 49, line 4 (counting the lines in the paragraph below the pie chart), “… increased
costs of suppliers or contractors.” should be “… increased costs from suppliers or
contractors.”

• On page 50, lines 12 and 13, “… plaza improvements and the most expensive, acquire
…” should be “… plaza improvements and (the most expensive) acquire …” or replace
the commas in the series with semi-colons and insert “… plaza improvements and, the
most expensive, acquire …”

• On page 51, lines 15 and 16, the semi-colons should be replaced with commas.

• On page 52, line 1, “… understood that Board’s goals …” should be “… understood that
the Board’s goals …”

• On page 52, line 4, “… Boards goals …” should be “… Board’s goals …”

• On page 54, line 8 through 10, we believe the sentence was meant to be “Partnerships
with Howard County should be developed to improve coordination of land use with
transportation infrastructure and encourage building criteria that reduces the need and
usage of vital resources, especially for CA and governmental services.”

• On page 54, line 27, “… means of refilling vacant positions.” should be “… means of
filling vacant positions.”

• On page 54, lines 27 and 28, “Instead of simply replacing vacant positions, …” should be
“Instead of simply replacing former employees with persons with similar skills, …”

• On page 55, line7, “… facilities and well as enhancing …” should be “… facilities as
well as enhancing …”

• On page 55, lines 21 and 22, the Plan says “… [CA] does an outstanding job of giving
residents a viable return on their investment.” The Plan does not define a baseline nor set


measurable targets for FY 2011 and FY 2012, and it contains no performance metrics by
which one could validate what is a “viable return” for residents.

• On page 56, the chart has two blank columns and then Programs, Services, and Facilities
are lumped together in two columns. The Committee suggests that the blank columns be
removed and that Programs, Services, and Facilities each be listed in separate columns,
so that the reader can easily see which listed item is from which category.

• On page 57, line 10, “… Board of Director’s, and …” should be “… Board of Directors
and …” (two corrections).

• On page 57, line 12, “… highest level of services …” should be “… highest level of
service …” or “… highest levels of service …”

• On page 58, in the lower left circle, “resources” should be “Resources” and in the lower
right circle, “… Residents …” should be “… Residents’ …”

• On page 60, in the middle column of the table, “… wages and benefits, staff will make
…” should be “… wages and benefits. Staff will make …”. Also, a period is needed at
the end of the item.

• On page 61, line 19, “… project manager’s …” should be “… project managers …”.

• On page 61, lines 26 and 27, “… means to paying for services …” should be “… means
of paying for services …” and “… President’s Office provide legal …” should be “…
President’s Office provides legal …”

• On page 62, line 7, “… Element is new and as formed, will …” should be “… Element is
new and, as formed, will …”.

• On page 62, lines 15, “… work done, but to also be allowed …” should be “… work done
and to also be allowed …” or “… work done, but also to allow for participation …”

• On page 62, line 19, “… President’s Bureau would be responsible …” should be “…
President’s Bureau will be responsible …”.

• On page 64, line 3, “… bureau plays, and how together, the bureaus …” should be “…
bureau plays and how, together, the bureaus …”.

• On page 65, in the second column of the table, lines 20 and 21, “… country, Chesapeake
Bay as the life blood …” should be “… country, Chesapeake Bay, as the life blood …”

• On page 66, in the fourth column, line 6, “… laws of the community, and the state”
should be “… laws of the community and state”.

• On page 67, in the fourth column, line 5, “… for building team approach …” should be
“… for building a team approach …”.


• On pages 65 through 67, in the fourth and fifth columns, some sentences lack a period at
the end.

• On page 68, line 5, “… private sector and, will see …” should be “… private sector and
will see …”.

• On page 68, line 6, “… Washington DC and Baltimore …” should be “… Washington,
D.C., and Baltimore …”.

• On page 68, line 8, “… looking for places to live, and will be looking …” should be “…
looking for places to live and will be looking …”.

• On page 69, line 19, “… or, will result …” should be “… or will result …”.

• On page 69, line 20, “… Washington D.C. and Baltimore …” should be “… Washington,
D.C., and Baltimore …”.

• On page 71, line 2 and 3, “… develop plans for; future growth, … structures, and for
maintaining …” should be “… develop plans for: future growth, … structures, and
maintaining …”.

• On page 71, line 4, “… the facts that …” should be “… the fact that …”.

• On page 72, in the table, first column, line 13, “Coordination” should be “coordination”;
lines 21 and 22, “… investor’s properties …” should be “… investors’ properties …”; and
fifth column, line 17, “… investor’s funds …” should be “… investors’ funds …”. In
addition, in the third column, line 18, the Plan says Columbia is the 8th most livable
community in the U. S. On page 81, line 22, the Plan says Columbia is the 7th best
community in the U. S. The sources of those two different rankings should be cited.
Also, it is advisable to use one or the other of those two rankings.

• On page 72, line 2 of the text below the table, “… corridor makes …” should be “…
corridor, makes …”.

• On page 77, line 13, “… challenges, and expect …” should be “… challenges yet expect
…” or “… challenges, and they expect …”.

• On page 77, line 26, remove the period after “work”, or add periods at the end of each
listed item in the other bulleted items on this page, for consistency.

• On page 79, line 16, “ … challenges of today, but are focused …” should be “…
challenges of today but are focused …” or “… challenges of today and are focused …”.

• On page 79, line 18, “… will be extensive, but will have …” should be “… will be
extensive and will have …”.

• On page 80, line 22, “… resident’s abilities …” should be “… residents’ abilities …”.


• On page 81, lines 12 through 17, there are several inconsistent numbers. At one point,
the Plan says that Columbia’s population is about 97,500, which later is said to be made
up of 35,298 households with an average size of 2.53 persons. 35,298 households times
2.53 persons each would produce a total population estimate of 89,304. The figure of
97,500 is not used in the calculations of household expenses for the CA assessment. We
recommend that that number be replaced with 89,304. The 97,500 figure also appears on
page 46, line 7. If the population estimate really is 97,500 and the average household
size is 2.53, then the number of households is 38,538. If the population is 97,500, with
35,298 households, then the average household size is 2.76. Using those alternative
numbers would result in different figures for the daily household and per person costs of
the CA assessment.

• On page 81, line 14, “… government services …” should be “… Columbia Association
services …”.

• On page 81, line 22, “… about 81 cents …” should be “… about 82 cents …” (to be
consistent with the results of the computation in line 17 of this page).

• On page 82, line 1, “… the Community Association …” should be “… the Columbia
Association …”.

• On page 82, line 2, “… recap the projected …” should be “… recap of the projected …”.

• On page 82, line 5, the Plan says that the FY 2011 annual charge revenue is $33.1
million, but on page 81, line 12, the Plan says that the residential annual charge is $26.7
million. The difference between those two numbers should be explained.

• On page 83, lines 20 and 21, “… the City of Troy Michigan dedicates …” should be “…
the City of Troy, Michigan, dedicates …” and “… to payroll, and benefits.” should be “…
to payroll and benefits.”

• On page 83, line 23, “Exhibit A-1” should be “Exhibit A-1, page 92”, to be consistent
with the reference to Exhibit A-2. Although, see the comment in the main body of the
report, where the Committee suggests that this exhibit be removed.

• On page 83, line 26, “Exhibit A-2, page 83 …” should be “Exhibit A-2, page 93 …”.

• On page 84, line 10, “Budgets of today will have to be morphed towards more
socioeconomic, planning, development and building partnerships …” should be “Future
budgets will have to morph toward more socioeconomic planning, developing, and
building partnerships”. Today’s budget is set; it cannot morph. “Socioeconomic” is an
adjective and should be not followed by a comma. The Committee rewrote the sentence
to reflect what we believe was intended.

• On page 84, line 18, “… within the its …” should be “… within its …”.

• On page 87, right hand column, line 9, “… sources that again, reduce …” should be “…


sources that, again, reduce …”.

• On page 89, line 1, “… but some make our lives worse.” should be “… but some may
make our lives worse.”

• On page 89, lines 10 through 12, the semi-colons should be replaced with commas,
unless one inserts a comma between “revitalization” and “to name a few” in line 12.

• On page 89, line 16, “… and other assets, and new costs …” should be “… and other
assets and new costs …”.

• On page 89, lines 27 and 28, the semi-colons in the series should be replaced with
commas.

While not part of the Business Plan, some Committee members also looked at other parts of the
Progression Plan. Many of the tables and graphic displays in other areas are very difficult to
read because of the poor quality of reproduction. The tables on pages 13, 17, 21, 25, and 29 are
examples.

Review Of The Business Plan

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Review Of The Business Plan (20)

More from James Howard (18)

Recently uploaded (20)

Review Of The Business Plan