{"id":1802,"date":"2015-11-04T01:51:44","date_gmt":"2015-11-04T01:51:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gc-poa-realnewsandinformation.com\/?page_id=1802"},"modified":"2015-11-04T01:51:44","modified_gmt":"2015-11-04T01:51:44","slug":"meeting-summary-102015","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/gc-poa-realnewsandinformation.com\/?page_id=1802","title":{"rendered":"Meeting Summary 10\/20\/15"},"content":{"rendered":"

Contents<\/strong><\/span><\/span>
\n 1. Nomination Process<\/span>
\n 2. Annual Assessment Structure Review<\/span>
\n 3. Holiday Fund
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

If you have not already read it, please see the Board summary found here: October 2015<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Comments below are in addition to that summary.<\/p>\n

Nomination Process<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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\u2019s observations, and, when asked, he agreed to chair the committee.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Annual Assessment Structure Review<\/strong><\/p>\n

Just so everybody is on the same page, the \u201cannual assessment\u201d is referred to by many people as our annual dues.<\/p>\n

The Board summary noted the following:<\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

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).<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The proposed change would tie the level of each lot\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Additional information<\/span>: 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.<\/p>\n