By Ken Phillis, October 21, 2021
The BOD spent property owners’ money to sway the election to a yes vote when there was the vote for the Declarations a few years ago. Now they did the same thing pushing for a yes vote on assessments. They used property owners’ money to sway an election. Shameful.
Those who lean toward a no vote understand the assessment should be increased, however, not without a concrete mechanism to ensure the money will be spent where they say they are going to spend it. Obviously, that has not worked well since there are over 40 million dollars in deferred maintenance and many poor financial decisions made which have wasted millions of property owners’ money. The latest one is the trash truck lease deal. Try getting the information on that one. I have, and no answers/figures yet.
Historically the BOD has voted as a block supporting poor financial deals in the past. Trying to obtain a supermajority to stop the BOD from squandering property owners’ money has a snowballs chance in hades.
I attended the recent town hall meeting and submitted a 3×5 card as that was the procedure for anyone with questions. They did not get to my questions and unfortunately, I was not able to discuss my questions with a BOD member after the meeting. My wife’s 93-year-old mother was visiting and we needed to get back to our home. Is there anyone who can honestly answer the following questions? Since the trash truck deal is a lease, how long is the lease? What is the cost to renew the lease? How much was the annual cost to repair the trucks we already had? The original cost of the lease was 1.2 million (at least that’s what was being stated) then there was the news of a $400,000 “overrun”. If this is true, how does a lease agreement/deal have a $400,000 overrun?
The yes voters have continued to lambast those who want culpability and accountability for the money being spent. So what they (the yes voters) are willing to do is open their wallets and allow a system/management style (which has failed to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to the property owners) to continue with the same failed system/management style. Again, those who are wanting a secure safeguard of where the money is supposed to be spent do know and agree there needs to be an increase….however not without that safeguard.
* * *
Thank you for reading. If you like, please comment below.We love to hear your opinion, but comments must be made using your first and last real name, or they will not be accepted. If you would like to submit an article for publication, please contact us through this website. Be sure to bookmark this website.
Gene Garner
10/21/2021 — 2:21 pm
The Declaration, Article X Section 4 would have been the best option;
Section 4. Special Assessments for Capital Improvements with Vote of Members.
In addition to the annual assessments authorized by Section 3 hereof, the Association may request and levy a special assessment limited in time and specifically for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of any construction or reconstruction, unexpected repair or replacement of the water system, the sewer system, and the ways of access for vehicles and roads and streets within The Properties, even though the roads and streets may have been dedicated to the public, and also other capital improvements upon or additions to the Common Properties, including the necessary fixtures and personal property related thereto, provided that any such assessment shall have the assent of 51% of the votes of each class of members who are voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for this purpose, written notice of which shall be sent to all members at least thirty (30) days in advance and shall set forth the purpose of the meeting, duration of the special assessment, and the specifics of the project. Amended effective August 1, 2013
I know the above is difficult to read-it’s one sentence written by a lawyer.
“The specifics of the project”-that’s the reason the “Special Assessments” was not a choice, it limited how the BOD could spend our money.—Gene
Tom Blakeman
10/22/2021 — 7:12 am
Gene is 100% correct. The fact that they don’t want to do this approach is because they really haven’t taken the time to research and identify actual “construction or reconstruction “ needs and plan them out. The fifty year old water lines for example that break all the time should be replaced in large sections all over the original West side. But it is far easier to just have more money in the kitty and keep doing more and more patchwork repairs as they happen. More money in the kitty means more fun projects too like boondoggle remote read water meters which are totally unnecessary, more executive salaries and perks and basically more of the mismanagement which has been going on for decades.
Lloyd Sherman
10/22/2021 — 11:13 am
While I continue to support the NEED for an assessment increase, as has been pointed out, this should have been proposed as Special Assessments based on need on a project-by-project basis. That way we know exactly how the money will be spent. The old adage of “how do you eat an elephant?”, applies here. The answer is one bite at a time.
The rollout of this has been nothing short of a hot mess. We’ve gone from discussions of INFRASTRUCTURE to PRIORITY PROJECTS to now language that includes salaries. Projects could, or could not, be INFRASTRUCTURE. Salaries certainly are not and should not be a part of an assessment increase for INFRASTRUCTURE.
Now that property owners are able to see the budget, it shows us we are essentially going to see no revenue growth next year, golf going from a loss of around $500K in 2021 to $2.2 Mil loss in 2022, and a compensation line that indicates we are going to increase salaries and benefits by $3 million in 2022.
So somebody please explain to me how you remain static in revenue generation, increase compensation by $3 million a year (every year + future increases), and increase operating expenses, while spending millions on INFRASTRUCTURE. I don’t know about you but this doesn’t sound like a sustainable business plan to me.
Also keep in mind that the fee schedule was approved with increases in a significant number of categories.
So while I supported the NEED for an assessment increase, my vote went to a solid NO as the details of this plan rolled out. Those who voted early are more than likely going to wish they had waited to send in their ballots.
Marcy Mermel
10/22/2021 — 11:44 am
I’m with you – in its current offering, it’s a NO for me!
Cathleen Richardson
11/01/2021 — 1:39 pm
Who is counting the votes? The POA? They bought YES signs at the property owners expense. Did they buy any NO signs for those wanting to put them out? No, they did not. Continuing to increase monthly fees is not the answer. Restructuring expenses and salaries is an acceptable doable answer. I also do not see why our road signs that are in good condition need replacing simply because they changed the look of the signs. That cost us in new signs and manpower to replace signs on our roads. Also, why close the pool so early this year? Many residents would still be using it. It was built for the residents, but the residents have no vote on running it. Voting NO.