Contents
1. Nomination Process
2. Annual Assessment Structure Review
3. Holiday Fund

If you have not already read it, please see the Board summary found here: October 2015

Comments below are in addition to that summary.

Nomination Process

It was noted in the Board summary that a sub-committee was formed to look at the nominating process and provide suggestions for improvement. This resulted from comments made by Les Stuewer. Paraphrasing his comments, he felt that aspects of this year’s process were not handled as well as they could have been and that it would benefit from an independent review. And he is the one who suggested that a committee be formed to that end. Joe Bastian made comments that indicated he agreed with some of Les’s observations, and, when asked, he agreed to chair the committee.

Nobody on the Board objected to the formation of the committee. However, both Don Lummus and Bill Colton commented that, since few people wrote the Board expressing concerns, they felt that the vast majority of residents were very happy with the entire process and the way the announcements and timing were handled. No other directors offered significant comments.

Annual Assessment Structure Review

Just so everybody is on the same page, the “annual assessment” is referred to by many people as our annual dues.

The Board summary noted the following:

Evaluating the Merits of Graduated Dues: Les Stuewer reported that an advisory committee has been established and the first meeting held. The committee is evaluating pros and cons of changes in the assessment structure.

This committee is examining the idea of changing our annual assessment, which is currently a fixed amount, to an amount that is tied to property tax values (which are set by the county assessor).

Since the inception of this community, the annual assessment has been a fixed amount for every developed lot and is currently at $2,468 per year. Undeveloped lots pay 75% of the amount paid by developed lots.

The proposed change would tie the level of each lot’s assessment to its assessed tax value. The higher your tax value, the higher your proportional share of the total annual assessment collected each year. In essence, owners of higher valued homes would pay a larger amount each year than owners of lower valued homes.

This idea was raised by a resident in the September community meeting, and the Board decided that it should be examined further; hence this committee.

Additional information: In general conversation outside of the Board meetings, I have heard two arguments supporting this concept. Please note that I am not judging these arguments nor am I saying that any of these claims are true. Nor am I offering counter arguments at this point in time. Rather, I am simply passing on what I have heard to help people understand why this is being examined.

• The amount of the annual assessment has a greater effect on the marketing and sale of lower valued homes than on high value homes. As to why? It is claimed that a high annual assessment makes lower valued homes less competitive when compared to similar homes outside the gates which have lower assessments (or none at all). Therefore, lowering the annual assessment will make our lower value homes more marketable to those buyers who cannot afford or otherwise do not wish to pay a higher annual assessment. In effect, owners of higher value homes would be subsidizing lower value homes to make them more marketable.

• Those who own more valuable homes can afford to pay more than those with homes of lower value. Therefore, those property owners should be responsible for a greater share of the cost of running the community. And this would be consistent with the methodology used for collecting property taxes.

I got the impression that this committee will make its report to the Board within the next month.

Holiday Fund

The Board summary indicated that this year’s Holiday Fund will be “operated the same as last year”. For those who do not recall, last year’s contributions were distributed among the gate attendants, the Bland Landscaping personnel and the POA staff (excluding the manager).