Special Maintenance Charge fails to clear first hurdle

The other motion on the ballot at the annual meeting was for a Special
Maintenance Charge of $400, and it failed to pass by a narrow margin. The
39 votes against it overrode the 27 votes in favor of the measure that
sought to raise $86,000 for needed repairs to the signs and fences in the
POA.

Not entirely unexpected, as many of the estimates were rougher than you¹d
hope for numbers of that size. But pulling vendors out here to provide
detailed numbers has proved difficult for the board, especially on short
notice. But as noted on one of the ballots, "Real Budget Numbers" will be
acquired before the next vote on the issue.

Another comment that came up in relation to the issue was "We need to look
into allowing homeowners perform volunteer maintenance: installation of
sprinklers and fence repair, etc." This is a great concept, and one that
would certainly be more cost effective. There is nothing that prevents
property owners from doing any of the needed work. While it won't be
discounted, we do have to face the reality that in the past when calls for
action have gone out, the response has been less than stellar. That doesn't
mean it won't work out, but if we look at history we can't really count on
volunteer labor for critical tasks.  Of course, it would be great if this changed!

Apparently there was some discussion amongst owners about a slight rise in
the maintenance charge over the next two years, as "We need to increase
annual by $60 per year for 2 years" was on several ballots. While this
would certainly be better than no additional funds at all, and would raise
over $13,000 by the end of the second year, it wouldn't be enough to fund
either the fence or new signage in the first year, or probably even by the
end of the second year. So even if the repairs could be done for that
amount you'd be talking about either leaving signage down or the fence
broken up for two years waiting to raise the funds. This doesn't really seem
to be what most people want according to the surveys, as broken signage and
busted up fences don't really contribute to the neighborhood or to our
property values. This would also push out the window for addressing the
dam, which is something the Board would like to do in the 2010 budget cycle.

You can expect to see this issue come up again, although next time it should
be with some firmer numbers and a range of pricing. It needs to be done
faster than two or three years out.