Board of Directors On-Line Meeting October 22, 2015

meeting, , , , ,

This meeting is scheduled to be opened at 7:30 pm on October 22, 2015 by President Phyllis Cavanaugh. It is an open meeting under the Association rules and state law. All members are invited to attend, and may comment on the proceedings at specified times. It will be conducted via the comment section below.

The agenda below contains a number of items, which for efficiency may be handled more than one at a time at the President’s discretion. After one or more items are opened and motions are made, a period of discussion by Board members will follow. Then the President will open discussion to all members who wish to comment, after which she will call for a vote by Board members on any pending motion.

On the meeting page you will need to refresh the page to see what comments have been added since the last time you reloaded or refreshed the page. If you “Reply” to a comment, your response will be shown under the comment you replied to. To append a “top level” comment at the end of the list of comments, go to the bottom of the page and enter it in the comment box there. Be sure to include your name as anonymous comments will be deleted. Finally, all participants are reminded that this forum is unmoderated at present, so members are expected to observe the same rules and courtesy they would follow at a live in-person meeting.

Documents relevant to the meeting include the updated draft 2016 budget,  the updated Treasurer ‘s report, the Road Committee report, the 2016 Road maintenance contract, and the Lot 28 ARR.

Agenda:

  • Open the meeting (Cavanaugh)
  • Treasurer’s Report and draft budget for 2016 (Crouch)
  • Discuss the reserve fund with the intent to set a reasonable limit to the amount that is needed to be available for road emergencies. (Cavanaugh)
  • Discuss the option of reducing or eliminating dues for one year by using any excess funds that may available. (Cavanaugh)
  • Architectural Review Committee: Lot 28 ARR (Levin)
  • Windmill Committee Report (Brown)
  • Road Committee Report (Crouch)
  • Secretary’s Report (Levin)
  • Adjournment

 [Comments are closed.]

369 thoughts on “Board of Directors On-Line Meeting October 22, 2015”

  5. We have a quorum with 3 members present at this time. Joel Levin is at an event in Tucson and will be connecting as soon as possible. Louise Novak will not be able to attend until tomorrow due to computer issues.

    The first item on the agenda is the Treasurer’s Report. Are there any questions or comments about the Treasurer’s Report.

  7. Treasurer’s Report
    October 22, 2015

    Since the treasurer’s report ending September 30, 2105, which is posted on the website, the following changes have occurred:
    Past due accounts (30-119 days) have dropped to $437.78, a reduction of $165.12
    Delinquent accounts (120+) have dropped to $2,499.86, a reduction of $595.49 for a total reduction overall of $760.61.
    One of these was an account with a lien. I went to Bisbee on the 20th and filed the lien release. FYI, the County has raised their fees by $1. All liens and lien releases are not $10 each.
    The following bills were paid so far this month:
    Adele Crouch for listing packets, one lien release filing, postage to mail notices of liens via certified/return receipt mail $58.55
    Property Insurance and Volunteer Accident Insurance $2,443.
    Moorhead pump for repairs to the trough $334.04
    Total expenses so far this month are $2,835.54
    Total income this month is $760.61. The current balance in the operating account is $17,006.22

  8. Please only board member’s comment first, and then we will set time aside for property owner’s questions. Thank you and thanks for being here!

  12. Thank you Adele. I don’t have any questions about the treasurer’s report, do you want to comment on the budget at this time? I suggest we wait on a vote to approve the budget until we have a chance to discuss the items on the agenda that may have an impact on the budget. I suggest we table any budget discussion until later in the meeting. Does the board agree with this?

    ALSO, are there comments or questions from property owner’s at this time regarding the Treasurer’s report?

  17. The next item of discussion is the following:
    Discuss the reserve fund with the intent to set a reasonable limit to the amount that is needed to be available for road emergencies. (Cavanaugh)

  18. I have given this considerable thought. Taking the “predicted El Nino” into consideration. I would not feel comfortable with a cap of less than $20k. My reasoning being, this is enough to cover 1 year of road maintenance plus one extra long grade should the winter be as wet as the forecast is calling for. This would leave a little over $8k in the account that is above the cap.

  22. I’m here for a few minutes and will be back on line longer term once I’m back home. I had time to post the documents I received earlier today, but not to review them. So I agree with deferring discussion of the budget a while. Meanwhile, when I get home I will upload the remaining documents to this page and the web site.

  23. How many emergency long grades have we had to have since this ranch became an HOA? This is just a question that is crossing my mind.

  24. i don’t agree with the amount, the roads most likely will not wash out to the point they can’t reasonably be fixed. Seems to be an excessive amount to keep in the bank. Frankly, I’m tired of being over taxed.

  25. We currently have $28,371.20 in the reserve fund. This fund is intended to be used for “road repairs or emergency road maintenance that may inadvertently go over budget.” Since we already had another road repair fund, it seems too high an amount to be set aside for this purpose. We need to discuss and assign a reasonable cap on this fund.

  26. Doesn’t a long grade mean grading every road out here? Wouldn’t we just fix the roads that need it.

  28. Thank you for your comment Bill, however, we need to keep this to the board first and then the property owners. I hope you understand!

  30. Margaret, we do at least one long grade every year. Sometimes two, depending on the rains. Bill, yes a long grade is every road on the ranch.

  31. I do agree that we need an emergency fund, but I do not think it needs to include a year of road maintenance since that will already be in our budget. So we would have two years worth of road maintenance. That seems excessive to me.

  35. The second long grade is not in the budget. The budget only allows for one long, and either 2 shorts or one short and a medium.

  36. I do not even think we need two long grades set aside for an emergency in addition to our budget for the roads.

    I am going to make a motion that we have $10,000 as a cap for this fund. Do I have a second?

  39. We have a motion and a second on the table. I think this would be a good place to table the meeting and pick it up tomorrow evening.

    This will give us time to review things and also I would like Joel to e-mail this motion and second out to all members so we can have a larger audience tomorrow when we open. I am calling for a recess at this time and will re-convene tomorrow evening. Thank you to all who attended and please know that we want everyone to have an opportunity to discuss this important issue.

  40. Just a quick note: I will try to open this meeting as close to 6:00 pm tomorrow as I can.
    Thank you again!

  43. Hi Everyone,
    We are re-convening the meeting at 6:00 pm on 10/23/15. Please remember to refresh your page often to see new posts.
    Do we have a quorum of board members present? We must confirm a quorum before we can comment on the open motion.

  48. I’m here. If anyone wants documents submitted to be posted on this page and on the web site, email them to me (and a message via Facebook will get me started faster).

  49. Okay! We have a quorum. I am hopeful that Joel and Louise can join in shortly. I am opening the page for comments from board members first. After comments, approx 6:30 pm, we will open the comments to property owners for 24 hours. I still want to be sure Joel is able to send out an e-mail informing property owners of the discussion so as many as possible can chime in.
    Currently we have a motion to cap the reserve fund at 10,000 from Cavanaugh and a second from Baxter. Comments?

  55. Not yet Greg, I just want to see if Joel has a comment. Then it looks as if we will be able to open to property owners.

  58. Ok, we are now open for comments from property owners.
    I’d like to leave this open for 24 hours so people can have time to review.
    Joel, can you e-mail the motion and second out to all property owners?
    Comments?

    1. I have given this much thought and have reviewed the 2016 budget. I have always been an advocate of having a cap on the reserve account and I still am. However I feel that a cap of $10,000.00 is not sufficient to cover unexpected expenses that may arise from road maintenance and repair. Our road budget will only increase as time goes on. We also have to consider that our roads continue to age as well as contractor costs escalating. I agree with with Greg and not for the obvious that we need to look at the long term and not the short. Quick gains now in reduction of dues or refunding of monies can and I truly feel will come back to bite us in the long run. As long as our dues are not going up and we are not funding the reserve account going forward. It is my opinion that maintaining what we have in the reserve fund will act as a hedge fund to insure we remain financially solvent for several years to come.

  60. I am against this for a number of reasons. The first being I don’t think it is financially prudent for the Board to deplete the reserve account which is for our most important asset, the roads. The POs will be thrilled to have lower or no dues but this good feeling will be short-lived. If we remove all the funds with the exception of $10K and the Board needs to have a special assessment the problems will begin. We have a delinquency issue today, can you imagine doing a special assessment asking POs to pay $100.00, I think the Board will be hard pressed to collect any money. This will leave us with no money to maintain or repair our roads.

  61. Bill, thank you for your comment. The next agenda item is a discussion of whether, based on this item, we can lower or eliminate the dues for a time. But we have to agree to a cap first before we can discuss that.

  63. Bill: the next agenda item will see if we would use excess funds generated by this cap to reduce dues for one year.

    Greg: you have a good point — if we save money one year by capping the reserve fund, then the year after we deplete it for an emergency we would have to recover by raising the dues the next year. And have we had or do we anticipate any special assessment problems for some reason besides roads?

  64. There is $58k total funds, correct?

    This would be on top of already budgeted amounts for the roads. Even if a devastating occurrence happened, and all the roads needed to be regraded, the $10k would cover that. Plus, I believe the board has allocated a substantial amount to improve roads. As long as the bid puts together a budget that accounts for road improvements and repairs, as well as general maintenance, this emergency fund would be plenty.

    The fact that the bod has almost $60k in the bank account tells me that the dues are too high. And that’s with delinquencies! I think last I looked they were at just a few thousand, around $2,500…a vast improvement from before. And, thanks. Adele, for that!

  66. Please remember we have had no increases to our dues over the last three years. If we move all this money out of the reserve for the roads and then need to ask for a large special assessment, in my opinion, it will not be received very well. I say leave the funds where they are, continue to manage the current dues and hold them steady and POs will be satisfied. We need money in reserve for our most important asset, I cannot stress this enough.

  68. Joel, our roads are our only major asset. We need to make sure we have sufficient reserves to keep our roads maintained and be able to repair immediately and not wait to “hopefully” collect from POs when we need the $$.

  69. I have given this much thought and have reviewed the 2016 budget. I have always been an advocate of having a cap on the reserve account and I still am. However I feel that a cap of $10,000.00 is not sufficient to cover unexpected expenses that may arise from road maintenance and repair. Our road budget will only increase as time goes on. We also have to consider that our roads continue to age as well as contractor costs escalating. I agree with with Greg and not for the obvious that we need to look at the long term and not the short. Quick gains now in reduction of dues or refunding of monies can and I truly feel will come back to bite us in the long run. As long as our dues are not going up and we are not funding the reserve account going forward. It is my opinion that maintaining what we have in the reserve fund will act as a hedge fund to insure we remain financially solvent for several years to com

  70. Alisa, I agree, Adele has done a great job of managing the past due POs. My feeling is good luck collecting if we ask all POs to pay for a special assessment, the BOD will be waiting years to collect and in the meantime our roads will be the thing that suffers.

  71. I’m confused on this. We have been talking about a dues reduction forever and I know that if we have a budget of $10,000 for the roads, and it is in every ones opinion sufficient to take care of grading, what is the harm of lowering the dues proportionate to a reasonable amount considering we have $60,000 in the accounts right now? I would think that should cover anything unforseen that would happen short of a hurricane. Anything would be reasonable.

  72. I’m signing off, this decision is not fiscally responsible and my opinion this will lead to numerous PO issues and will put undue financial pressures on the association going forward.

  73. It’s kind of a fluid situation. Regardless of the cap, if we had a year or two with combination Monsoon and El Nino based road damage, we could be back down to a low reserve level anyway, which we would have to make up in dues (I’m not expecting we would need a special assessment if we acted in time). The only thing this cap gives us is opportunity for (say) a one-time dues reduction and a smaller buffer of emergency funds. I suspect that the principle of a cap is less important than what value we set it at. If we take no action, it’s as if the cap is at the current level.

    1. Tony and I are in favor of the $10,000 cap on the reserve fund. No matter what is done about association taxes, reducing or skipping payments, it’s important to have a cap. And, now is a good time.

  75. I’m signing off. This is good we are giving property owners 24hrs to respond, I respect everyones views on this matter.

  77. Someone needs to tell me what they expect will happen to the roads that will be so catastrophic that only protecting $60,000 will solve it. We have had a grading schedule in place for years that has seemed to work just fine. Most of the bad spots have been taken care of as far as I can determine. Why can’t a reduction be placed for a calendar year as a trial. We don’t have to make it a large reduction, but even a token one would be appreciated by the membership.

  78. I can’t see a time when we would need more than 10,000 over and above the road budget. But I agree with greg that it would be better to have money there if needed rather than try to collect an assessment. How about a 20,000 cap ? The excess could be used to make sure our dues do not go up.

  79. think that keeping a little extra for unexected road maintenance needs is a good idea, since we can’t predict weather, and having some extra funds is better than trying to come up with more if an unexpected storm or severe monsoon season causes damage.

  80. First, sorry I wasn’t online earlier. I just got home. We don’t really have an opinion on a cap. I think if you stop collecting dues for one year and then try to start collecting again, there will be more delinquent accounts. However, I also wonder what we are doing with 60k in the bank. That seems like a lot. Maybe a long term solution would be lowering dues. Are there any other issues to be discussed in this meeting? Thanks, and sorry again for being tardy.

    J

  81. It’s nice to hear a couple of different voices, even if there’s disagreement, as we can disagree without being disagreeable. I’ve got nothing to add that I haven’t already said, so hope we can hear from even more property owners. Have a good night, everyone.

  82. The fact that we can’t discuss where or how the excess money from the reserve fund gets used has a major effect on setting or not setting a cap. These two issues must be considered together. If the money would be used to give PO’ s a free year from dues it would be soon forgotten and we would gain nothing. If the excess is used to just offset dues increases for future years I think it would have a better long term effect. I still think we should keep $20,000 in reserve.

  83. Carl, the next item on the agenda is: discuss the option of reducing or eliminating dues for one year by using any excess funds that may be available.

  85. Hey All, Charlet and I are of the same opinion as Joe and Greg on this matter. The RC is working toward long term solutions for our roads. At present we’ve installed some project test sites for the rutting and wash out protection along High Lonesome Road. The plan is to monitor these test sites for one year to determine if they’ll do the job for which they were intended. I was hoping for some heavy rain flows to ensure they’d perform to our expectations. However, those 2-4″ rains haven’t occurred post test site installation. That said, I’m seeing the rutting diminish with what rains we’ve had and the railroad tie solutions are showing results for which they were intended. We still have a couple of areas where we’d like to install the stock panel baskets as test sites. The point I’m trying to make here is that the RC will not have these test sites completed and tested until next year. This means that the RC will not be able to present the board with the results of the testing or be able to provide a comprehensive estimate as to the cost to secure our ranch roads. Based on these facts I think we’d be better off waiting another year or even two before we consider reducing the dues. Then, let’s return to the yearly amount we started with when the association was formed or the idea now of reducing the dues.

  86. Adele, am I reading the 2016 proposed budget right ? $5000 goes to the reserve fund ? If that is correct, we can reduce dues about $40 per lot just by stopping adding to the reserve fund.

  87. Carl, No, the $5,000 goes to the road repair fund. This fund is set up for any repairs, over and above regular road maintenance, throughout the year.

  88. There are roads on the ranch that are in need of repair or need to be upgraded. Our roads are aging and as a result of that more repairs will be required in the future. Twenty + miles of roads always needs be considered when thinking about the road budget . Where no homes exist now we do not know what the future might hold and what road work may or may not be needed. Also I have been paying dues for over 14 years. That means that I have contributed to a greater share of the reserve account funds than someone who has been paying dues for five years or two years or one year. Refunding money or eliminating dues for a year is not equitable and cannot be distributed fairly. To many gray matters to discuss now in this type of meeting forum. This needs to be discussed in an open face to face meeting. personally I am not satisfied with the roads the way they are and feel very strongly that before any monies are refunded or redistributed that the roads get the attention they need. The BOD has a responsibility to ensure for the well being of the community as well as its financial solvency by managing it in a fiscally responsible manner. I have stated before and I will say it again that am in favor of a reserve account cap. But not the amount that has been proposed taking our yearly budget into consideration. We have other areas of the ranch that are in need of some attention. The area by the windmill for one. The road needs to be widened there as it narrows compared to the standard road width. With increased traffic and livestock it can be difficult to drive through that area at times. Bottom line, before the Board disburses any funds they need to take assessment of what work still needs to be completed on the ranch.

    1. Joe, I agree. Before making any decision about reducing the reserve fund it is critical to think about where the excess would go. If it is to be returned to PO’ s, it must be based on each owners dues paid. Giving a free year is not fair to those who have paid a larger share of dues paid to date. For this reason, any refund would have to paid by check to each PO based on their share of dues paid to date.

  89. No additional money has gone into the reserve fund since I reduced the dues 3 years ago. To answer Jessamyn’s question. We have three accounts. The operating account which is to pay all bills based on the budget each year. The current balance in that account is $17,154 and will go down by $7,000 as soon as the long grade is complete in about a week. The road repair fund, used for any repairs needed above and beyond the regular maintenance. The current balance in that account is $7,810. The reserve fund, which is a money market savings account and is designated to used only for road repairs and/or emergency road maintenance. This account is our savings for emergencies with a balance of $28,370. Nothing has gone into this account except interest since it was transferred to us from Cadden. A point of note on this account, most HOA’s have three times the amount of their yearly budget in a reserve account. We have $5,000 above our yearly budget in our reserve account.
    These three accounts, combined, equal $53,334 and will go down to $46,334 in about a week. Not sure where the $60k that keeps popping up is coming from. Does that clarify things any?

  90. We have a road committee that works very hard to keep our roads in good shape. Adele as chair and Dennis who knows more about our roads than anyone on the ranch are both concerned about reducing the road reserve to $10,000. I think it is important to use the advice of those with the most knowledge of the situation.

  91. I need to add that the road committee has done a great job and my comments should not be taken as a reflection of the hard work they have done.

  92. Adele, so we are still adding to the road repair fund. With a large reserve fund for roads, why fund that account ? We can reduce our dues by about $40 per lot by stopping that.
    A combination of stopping the funding of the road repair fund and setting the reserve cap at $20,000 and putting the $8,000 excess into the road repair fund woula insure we have have money for road maintenance and repairs AND we can reduce our dues.

  93. Most should remember we did a road study a few years back. The conclusion was if we needed to repair/replace all our roads the estimate was about $120,000.00. Lets say through normal wear and tear and a few heavy rains our roads become severely damaged and we need half of the $120,000.00. If we deplete the reserve and charge no dues for a year and need to do a special assessment for $60,000.00, this would require all POs pay double their current annual dues. The $60,000.00 seems like a lot of money but as the Road Committee has discovered, hiring any contractor to do major work, this amount is small. Isn’t it better to have the money in reserve versus worrying about special assessments in the event the funds are needed?

    It is the financial responsibility of the Board to plan for such needs and have the POs best interest in mind while managing the HOA.

  94. Excellent point Carl. We could reduce the dues by between $30 and $35, cap the reserve at $20k, put the $8k into the road repair account, and not fund the road repair account for a couple years. Which could result in a couple years of reduced dues.

  95. This is an important decision for all POs. I think this should be an agenda item for the annual meeting where more POs are present. Not everyone is available to participate on the Internet.

  96. What I am finding hard to digest is the following.
    We have had our dues reduced in 2014 and stopped funding the reserve account as well. In essence capping it back then. Cadden was eliminated and we for the first time ever started to fund a road repair fund which we so desperately need so we can ensure that our dues will not increase for many year to come resulting from the one primary expense we have here on the ranch that being our roads.
    Why are we trying to fix something that has taken years to fix and is finally not broken.

  97. Great discussion!

    Based on the conversation, I would like to amend my original motion to cap the road reserve at $20,000. Do I have a second?

    Once we get this established, we can start discussion on where/how to allocate any excess funds.

    Thanks,

    Phyllis

  100. There was a second to the motion 2 1/2 hours ago so I’m going to assume this is now open for discussion from the board. With that in mind, I’ll start the discussion with this:

    A number of things happen with our finances in 2013/2104. Just to recap for those of you who may have forgotten. We eliminated Cadden and became self-managed. The board voted to stop funding the reserve account, which in essence was a cap at that time. The board voted to open a road repair fund rather than fund the reserve account. Which had two results: 1. It reduced the dues. 2. It gave us a fund for road repairs so we would not exceed our budget and have the need to tap into the reserve account. While I said at the beginning “I would not feel comfortable with a cap of less than $20k”, I believe past actions of the board have already put a cap on that account which basically makes this entire discussion is moot.

    1. I am not sure if this is open for discussion, or what, but Adele I agree with your comment. If there is no longer money being put into the reserve, then that is essentially a cap and I think this discussion is moot. I also thinking refunding money is not such a great idea. I am not sure if I should be posting but those are my opinions.

  101. I have reviewed all of the excellent comments made by a group of very involved and knowledgeable POs. Operationally speaking, the Road Repair Fund is essentially for the same purpose as the Reserve Fund, leaving, therefore, about $36,000 for a devastating road emergency. This is more than anyone has suggested as a Reserve Fund cap. May I suggest the following scenario, which I would like to propose as a possible motion: Leave the present $36,000 as the Reserve Fund. Set $20,000 as the Reserve Fund cap. Spend down the Reserve Fund over time to the $20,000 cap. Calculate the 2016 budget based upon no further contributions to the Road Repair Fund nor to the Reserve Fund. Any dues reduction coming from this action is, of course, passed on to all POs. No further contributions to the RF would be needed until the BOD estimates that the RF would drop below $20,000, at which time dues would need to be increased to replenish the fund, thus eliminating need for a special assessment.

  102. Hi All,
    We have a motion to set the reserve fund at $20,000 and a second. I appreciate all the comments as well. We will keep the discussion open as previously stated until 6:30 at which time I will call for a vote and then discuss the next motion.
    Russ, I think you nailed it!

  103. I have been considering all the comments up till now, and I’ve changed my thinking some. I decided $10,000 was inadequate, but that’s moot. I think Russ was on the right track, except I would keep the road repair and construction funding in a separate account (as it is), since it is more a capital-type expense as opposed to road maintenance (grading and trimming) which is an operating expense. It is fair to decide that a target level of $20,000 be set for the reserve account. For the next year or two, we can work that down in the budget by allocating excess funds in the reserve account to the road repair account, which might allow for a temporary reduction in dues, until the reserve fund has reached its target, plus-or-minus a bit. Then the road fund would have to be budgeted out of regular income as it is now, and dues might then be expected rise toward their original level.

    In any case, there is no urgency for this; we could discuss it again after the further test projects have been constructed and we have had longer (and more water) to evaluate all the test construction.

  104. I move an amendment to the motion on the table, to add the following:

    A portion of the funds in excess of this cap in the reserve fund shall be allocated in each annual budget to the road repair fund as needed.

    (The mover and seconder of the current amended version may choose to accept this amendment or it can be voted on by the board ahead of the motion itself.)

  105. with all due respect there is already a motion on the table. It must be handled before another motion can be made.

    1. I moved an amendment on the current motion, which is allowed. If it is seconded and voted for, it changes the main motion on the table; otherwise it does not.

  106. I am always cautious and would listen to Joe Alberti. He has been around a long time and has a good business sense. A reasonable cap is fine and the current amount in the fund should be satisfactory. As Joe mentioned, the roads will eventually be down to rock from the gradings.

    As for the extra monies that come in, because of a cap in this account, I would suggest this going to a road improvement fund.

    Dues are fair now and holding to current level would be favorable.

  107. THank you, Joel – but, I would like a vote on the original motion.

    Can I have a vote by BOD members on the revised motion to cap the reserve at $20,000

    Thank you,

    I vote “yes”

    Phyllis

  108. I am voting NO on this motion. It is my opinion that to reimburse reserve funds constitutes fiscal irresponsibility, and could be interpreted as a breach of fiduciary duty to homeowners. The purpose of reserves is to maintain reasonable funds to effect major repairs to common areas, and we know that major rainfalls are capable of demanding substantial funds to re-grade roads and repair drainage erosion. Reducing this cushion and back-up is not a responsible action, and any future action to have to levy a special assessment due to this reduction would reflect this irresponsibility. It also invites claims of breach of duty by the board. Additionally, the Association has no reserve study by an independent reserve specialist to either support or refute this action, therefore the decision to reduce the fund is arbitrary and without reasonable calculation. I request that my dissent on this motion and reason for dissenting, be reflected in written board minutes.

  112. Thank you all, this motion does not pass.

    Joel, you have already put out an amended motion, would you like to put out a motion at this time? I apologize for the confusion with your amendment. It should have been voted on.

  113. I make the following motion:

    that the target level of the reserve account be set at $20,000. At the end of any year in which the account exceeds the target, funding of the road repair account will come first from the excess in the reserve account and then from operating income.

  116. We are voting on the same exact thing with different wording. the motion on the table still sets the cap on the reserve at 20K and that has already been voted down.

  119. I am sorry, but it is extremely common and appropriate to ask if there are any additional motions regarding an item. It allows other board members to present a motion on an item. Otherwise, it is only one person controlling an agenda item. This is the way it works. If someone does not agree with a motion, they do not have to second it or vote for it.
    I would ask all board members to respect the process and the discussion.
    Please consider this a continuation of the discussion related to the original agenda item, we have a quorum and will be calling for a vote if there is no further discussion.

  121. Would hope that the conversation remains civil and respectful – it’s been so pleasant and informative so far.

    As a side note, and as the former president of several non-profit organizations, I can vouch for the ability of multiple motions to be made on a single agenda item – it’s common and expected, and part of great discourse.

    I would support the revised amendment by Joel – I think it really clarifies things, and ensures that the roads are prioritized. I think everyone’s input has opened my eyes a bit, and I have shifted my perspective – so, again – thanks, everyone, for that!

  122. The agenda item did not contain a motion, just a topic. Since we did not pass a motion one cannot precisely say that we dealt with that topic, so I made a motion that corrected the flaws that I saw in the original. I think it is up to the president to decide whether or not to accept it as a valid motion, and if so up to the board to decide whether it should be approved.

    Adele: I’m not sure what you were saying exactly in your dissent above. It seems to be saying that reimbursing excess reserve funds is a bad idea, with which I agree. Other than that you seem to be saying that the cap should be the current $28K instead of the $20K you were previously happy with. I also think $20K is an acceptable cap level, but I also spell out how to spend the excess in future years (which in the overall budget might well result in a temporary lowering of dues).

  124. Joel, what you are saying is: $20K cap and any extra instead of going into the reserve fun it goes into the road repair fund, correct?

  125. Hi Margaret,

    Please take time to catch up where you left off. I know we are all busy! I will be calling for a vote on the motion.

  126. What I expect to happen is a one-time reduction over 2-4 years as the reserve account gets lowered to $20,000 by taking some of that money each year to fund the repair account. When the account gets down to $20K then any more money required for the repair account will come from operating income as it does now. Then we will have $20K more or less constantly in the reserve account until we need to use some of it, after which we will replenish it from operating income to restore it to $20K (perhaps over more than one year, depending on lots of factors). Under these conditions there will never be much of an excess over the cap. Ask some more if that’s not clear enough, I’m happy to clear up questions.

  128. So, funding for the road repair fund comes out gradually, as needed, from the reserve account until the reserve account reaches $20,000.
    So, there may be funds available for a temporary reduction of dues from any funds allocated to the road repair fund presently.

  129. At this time, I am calling for a vote for the motion on the table by Joel Levin.
    I vote yes.

    At this time, I need to step away from the meeting. I will check back in the morning.
    Thanks

  134. Earlier it was stated that this agenda item was only about the cap on the reserve. Why has a motion concerning other issues been allowed ?

  135. My interpretation of the motion on the table is to set a cap on the Reserve Fund at $20,000, and is consistent with the agenda item. However, Adele, our Treasurer, feels that $20,000 is not a sufficient amount because any cap we set, whether $10,000, $20,000, $28,000 (the current level of the Reserve Fund) or $36,000 (the current Reserve Fund + Road Repair Fund combined) are all arbitrary numbers not supported by an Engineering Reserve Study. (I point this out because I respect Adele’s perspective as our Treasurer ). However, by law, an HOA is not required to even have a Reserve Fund, although it is only prudent and responsible to have it as a quasi-insurance policy against the cost of major repairs to the Association Assets/Common Areas. If the motion carries, then the Board needs to decide what to do with the excess Reserve Fund monies: return to POs, lower dues over the next few years, have a party, etc. If the motion fails to carry, then the agenda would suggest we look for another cap or no cap at all (continuously fund the Reserve yearly at a reasonable amount).

    I continue to maintain that the Road Repair Fund is really another word for Reserve Fund because it pays for non-routine “repairs or replacement”. Thus, while funding the Road Repair Fund we are actually are funding the Reserve Fund. I am not clear about why the distinction between the two Funds continues to be made because the money comes from the same source (dues) and goes to the same purpose (unplanned repairs).

    Joel, as I understand it, an HOA is supposed to fund both the Operating Account and the Reserve Fund(s) from dues. The Operating Account, consisting of budgeted expenses, is supposed to have a 0 balance at the end of the year. Otherwise the HOA would theoretically owe taxes on the profit. The Reserve Fund, set aside for repairs, is not supposed to be an operating expense paid from the Operating Account, although an excess of dues income over expenses could be deposited into the Reserve Fund. However, many HOAs return the excess dues to the Members in the form of reduced dues in subsequent years.

    Moving on to the excess Reserve monies, if any results from the vote on the cap, several people have expressed concerns about returning it to the Members, because once that is done, it would be difficult to get it back if the POA gets hit with a big repair. That is why I suggested a motion be made to keep the Reserve Fund monies in the account while withholding any further contributions to it until the cap is approached.

  136. Russ, in fact the law requires that if a HOA has money left over at the end of each year it must ask the PO ‘s if it should go to the Reserve Fund or be returned to the PO’s. I do not think this road fund qualifies as a reserve fund although it is being used as one.

  137. The road fund is not a reserve fund. It is a fund for road repairs. The budget only allows for routine road maintenance which does not cover repairs. In 2014 the board stopped funding the reserve account and opened the road repair account so that funds from the reserve fund would not be jeopardized. The reserve account is an “emergency” back-up only. In addition, according to our CPA, if there is any money left over – it is generally rolled over to the following year. Since I have been treasurer, the only money “left over” has been the money in the road repair fund. In the year 2014, over $7,000 was spent on road repairs. Having $7,810 in that account is a wise and prudent situation for our HOA to be in. I hope this clarifies it for you Carl. If not, feel free to ask more questions.

  138. Adele, I am not opposed to the way this is working, but my research shows that only money in a true Reserve Fund can legally be rolled forward without a vote of the PO ‘s. As Russ points out any other money rolled forward is profit and taxable. I have been pointing this out to the board for more than five years.

  139. Adele, with all due respect, I don’t know from where you get your definition of a Reserve Fund. It is, by definition, dues set aside for “repairs and replacement” of Association Assets. These are not necessarily “emergency repairs”. That is, if we had paved roads that required resurfacing every 5 years, the money to pay for this would come from the Reserve Fund. But so would repair of a sink hole in the road that requires emergency repair. In other words, the Reserve Fund is to be used for appropriate repairs and not left untouched. The Reserve Fund is usually replenished yearly because it is expected to be used. Regardless, the funding of the Road Repair Fund is really a contribution to the Reserve Fund no matter what you want to call it. We can have lots of Reserve Funds for different purposes, but they all fall under the same rules.

  141. Board members, please be sure not to inadvertently establish a quorum on this page today. It is great to see conversation, but the official meeting will be at 5.
    Thanks again!

  143. Thanks Alisa. That is a real compliment. Phyllis: Would you please clarify if the motion made by Joel Levin on October 24 @ 7:34 PM and subsequently voted upon by all BOD members has resulted in an approval of that motion? If so, then it settles the questions of at what level to cap the Reserve Fund (@$20,000) and what to do with the current reserves of $36,000 (pay down the reserves to a total of $20,000 before any further contributions from dues to Reserve Fund or Road Repair Fund) and pass any savings to a reduction in dues. Then, what would be the next agenda item for the Community to discuss?

  144. Thank you Russ, yes, the motion has passed. The agenda is posted on the website. The next item is regarding contributions/dues.

  145. Hi All,

    The prior comment was from Phyllis Cavanaugh! Alisa’s page was open on the forum and I didn’t notice, sorry!
    The motion has passed.

  146. Two things.

    Russ: I also appreciate the clarification, though I’m not sure how it will all carry out. I’m not an accountant and can barely read a corporation’s balance sheet and income/expense report; having people like Adele and you who understand this better helps me out a lot.

    Phyllis: This is still an open meeting whether a quorum is present or not; anything said here is in public and therefore transparent and I believe does not violate the letter (certainly not the intent) of the various laws and rules about open meetings and not conducting meetings in secret.

  151. We have a quorum present. Margaret has expressed that she will be unavailable until 8:00 pm.
    As a reminder, we will go through each agenda item and open it first to board members and then to property owners. I am asking, that property owners try to limit their individual posted to 2 or 3 per agenda item to facilitate a timely meeting.
    The first item on the agenda is:
    Discuss the option of reducing or eliminating dues for one year by using any excess funds that may available. (Cavanaugh)
    I don’t feel, given the motion last night, that this item can be discussed without also discussing the budget. So, I think both items are up for discussion. Do you both think this is acceptable?

  156. I do not think that the reserve fund should be capped at $10,000. That is far to low.
    Before any reducing of reserve funds or lowering of dues take affect I request that Reata Pass be brought to the same standards as other roads within the ranch. West Reata pass at this time is for all practical purposes a jeep trail. it is not passable by 2 wheel drive cars or minvans ect. You need a real 4×4 to go up and down the road.

    This road needs to be repaired before any reduction of funds takes place.

  157. Ok, let’s assume that the silence is agreement.
    I would like to post a motion to get the conversation rolling:

  159. Jim,
    That motion is old and was not approved. Please read above and please wait until we open the meeting for property owners. Currently it is just for board members.
    Thank you for understanding the process!

  160. Jim: The cap as passed is now $20,000. The question of Reata Pass is one for the Road Committee first.

  161. Operating account $17,154

    Road Repair Fund = $7,810 and proposed by draft budget to roll an addition $4807 of excess funds from operating fund for a total of $12,617

    Reserve Fund = $28,370.

    The motion approved yesterday states that we achieve a cap of $20,000 in the Reserve Fund over time by moving funds, as needed, to the Road Repair Fund. Currently, that account has $7,810. In Addition, as the Draft Budget is currently written, an additional $4807 is going to be rolled into the Road Repair Fund bringing it to a total of $12,617.
    The Road Committee has itself said it is unsure of how much money it will request for repairs as they want to wait and see how the current repairs on High Lonesome Road, hold up.
    Based on conversation from board and property owners, I am proposing the following motion:

    I motion that we l leave both the Road Repair Fund and the Reserve Fund at their current balances and remove the roll over of $4807 currently budgeted to the Road Repair Fund. As the Road Repair Fund spends down, it can be funded by the Reserve Fund – as needed, and as approved by the board. I also motion that we eliminate the proposed line item of $400 for the windmill since it was recently serviced and repaired. Therefore, I see a surplus of $5207 that can be used to reduce dues.

    Thanks

  164. Thank you Joel, I feel a lot of these details were worked out very well by prior conversation. We are now open for discussion from the board first and then property owners.

  167. That works out to about $38 per lot for 2016 ($19 per six-month payment). It might vary in the next couple years but eventually we’d have to go back more or less to what current dues are, or a little more to account for passage of time increasing some of our expenses. Something we need to keep in mind.

  168. For ease of conversation, let’s open this to property owners as well. Property owners, at this time, we are asking for comments. I also think my idea of limiting posts is a bad one, please feel free to comment and discuss away! Sometimes many posts are needed to clarify a point.

  169. Should this issue be something we should we should make a final decision on at the annual meeting, or give property owners more than 24 hours to comment on?

  172. Hi Louise,

    I think we can leave this open for property owner’s for the evening and I will call for a vote early tomorrow morning. That gives everyone time to review.
    Thanks for your time, we will call for a vote tomorrow morning and then the rest of the agenda will be concluded tomorrow evening. Does 7:30 or 8 work for everyone? Louise, I know you work late.

  177. If I am reading the 2016 draft budget correctly, we have $7,800 in the road repair fund that will roll forward. We also show $5,000 from dues going into the road repair fund for 2016. I suggest that the $5,000 be removed from the proposed budget. This reduces 2016 expenses by $5,000 and will reduce dues accordingly. If the road committee needs more than the $7,800 for repairs over and above normal maintenance, it can come from the Reserve Fund until the Reserve Fund is reduced to $20,000.

  178. Ok, I will call for a vote, EARLY in the morning! Around 6:00 am.
    Then we will re- convene at 8:30 pm tomorrow evening. If the motion passes, it should be very, very quick. If not, a bit longer!
    We will read over any comments from property owners before the vote.

  182. I like Phyllis’ motion as it is consistent with the previous motion that passed.

    It sounds like the BOD members concede that the Road Repair Fund is operationally the same as the Reserve Fund. To my simple mind it is easier to look at my dues paying for 2 functions: one is the routine maintenance (insurance, roads, postage, etc) and a fund for future repairs (washout repairs, replace windmill pump, etc.) A third fund for road repairs (Road Repair Fund) disrupts my sense of consistency. Why split hairs here? If we are to spend an extra $7000 each year to repair the road on top of periodic gradings, why not factor that $7000 into the Operational budget? If, on the other hand, you plan to spend varying amounts per year dependent upon amount of damage, then take the money from the Reserve Fund. By this logic we have about $17,000 for incurred annual expenses and $36,000 for episodic repair and replacement. I believe the cushion of keeping all of the $36,000 in the Reserve Fund while we allow the fund to gradually be used, will give us time to find out, without much pain, if $20,000 is likely to be an inadequate cap.

  183. I like the motion, too – it’s a way to prioritize road funds, and the roads themselves – while being fiscally responsible and prudent. I think not addressing this would, in fact, be fiscally irresponsible as it’s almost a hoarding of POs money. This is a good balance between caring for our most valuable asset, the roads, AND taking care of POs.

    Russ, it’s true – it’s not necessary or worthwhile to split hairs here…bottom line….roads are being protected, and adjustment in dues is being made, and the previous motion directs how to proceed to ensure no depletion of emergency and/or excess funds needed for road repairs.

    Alisa

  184. First I’d like to thank all members of the board for all the time they’ve spent on the cap issues, and also everyone that has taken the time to provide input to this meeting.
    I’m against any reduction or returning of dues to the property owners. The following are my reasons I’m opposed to this.
    The RC has installed 10 rail road tie(RRT) fixes with a cost of approx. $350 each ( Adele, please correct me if I’m wrong). I think we can get this down to around $250 in the future. The RRT fixes are designed for washes to 6 feet in width. Although Keith and I think, due to ease of installation, the Rock Basket (RB) will be less expensive per foot, but we’re still looking at several washes that will require up to 80 feet or more of RB to stabilize the roads. Therefore, I feel that if we can protect this excess money we should. In addition, I think we lucked out with this last storm turning east. I’m concerned the next one may track north and flood out the ranch roads. We could also be faced with a series of this type of storm over the next few months, or this could become the norm. Just getting our roads back to the shape they were when built is going to be expensive due to years of neglect. To reinforce the roads to protect them from future loss will be another expensive project. We have areas now that show signs of heavy road bed loss. Once they’re down to bed rock we’ll be looking at the major cost of hauling in dirt/hard pack to rebuild the road beds. The road beds we’re driving on now have been packed by mother nature for centuries. To rebuild will also require heavy equipment to pack the new material. Scraping these roads down even at half an inch each time they’re graded only adds to their loss. If you just compare the roads that get graded once a year on the long grade vs. the main roads that are graded on both the long and short grades you can see the difference in road bed loss.
    I could go on, but I won’t take up more of your time with my rant other then this. The roads issues that we’re all concerned about is being addressed my a four person RC. Three of the members are not yet living on the ranch. About one year ago we had three good people resign from the RC. It’s my opinion that we are to understaffed to handle what needs to be accomplished. This is a very serious situation that I feel needs to be addressed by the BOD.

  185. The budget for road repair/maintenance is set at ~10k/year, plus the ~7.8k in the road repair fund currently, PLUS $28k currently in road reserve. Road reserve funds can be used for emergencies, or any repairs above the budget. That’s a total of about $46k available for the roads. The motion doesn’t deplete any of that – neither the first nor the second motion. The roads remain the priority, and the funds are prioritized accordingly. How is $46k not enough for the roads?

    The roads were built in 1999 – 16 years ago, now – they were neglected for many years under previous administration, and much work needs to be done to reverse that neglect. Even so, in general, the vast majority of the roads are in good shape. The road committee is doing outstanding work. There has been no catastrophe – no weather condition that has blown out all the roads – even with the record rains last year, the roads remain in good shape, with some much needed TLC, of course.

    What these motions have done is “unlock” funds that have been locked away for several years to use on the roads. The $8k in excess of the $20k cap will be used for the roads – nothing else. Now that the reserve funds have been “unlocked,” as it hasn’t been touched for several years – it’s actually an increase in what’s available for the roads, and it will only be used as needed. That’s how I understand the first motion.

    The second motion is just taking $5k that would have been rolled over from 2015, into the already large road funds of $46k for 2016, and reducing dues accordingly instead.

    How does this harm the roads?

    It doesn’t

    How does this harm the HOAs finances?

    It doesn’t

    It’s basically a dues credit, acknowledging that an adjustment needed to be made.

    I also appreciate the discussion, and the opportunity to participate outside of a face-to-face meeting, which is highly restrictive in who can attend – this allows all property owners to participate, and voice their opinion, at their own convenience, and factoring in realities like jobs, commitments, other meetings, etc.

    Have a great night, everybody!

  186. Alica, with all due respect to your opinion, my opinion in reference to your question “How is $46k not enough for the roads?”, I think Greg’s post of Oct. 24 @8:30am is in tune with why I don’t think $46k is enough. Also, taking into account Jim’s comment on Oct. 25th @ 5:18pm maybe another Item that needs to be considered on this issue of reduction of dues. I believe that it is a majority opinion that we don’t want to sue our fellow PO’s. However, I think we’d be amiss if we don’t consider that the POA could be sued over the state/conditions of our roads by any PO, thus resulting in considerable cost to the POA. I’m concerned that this reduction could come back on the PO’s side and bite the POA in the butt if the court should rule in the PO’s favor.
    Some may just consider my opinions and concerns as just the ramblings of an old man from Rambling Road. However, I feel as a PO and supporter of our BOD and POA I should voice my opinions as all POs should.

  187. Hi Dennis,
    Thank you for concerns. We have those concerns as well. Please remember, that your budget for the roads has not been impacted by this small reduction. You have the same amount available to you if not more.
    The money we are returning is money that was excess from our prior budget, unused. This is money the property owners deserve. The money budgeted for the roads is the same and the money available for the repairs is now higher since the Reserve Fund is no longer under lock and key.

  188. Good Morning,

    at this time, there is a motion and a second. I am calling for a vote from the board members.
    I vote yes.

  191. So at this point, what we are voting on is whether to put the excess amount that we have left over from the 2015 budget toward reducing dues for 1 year, rather than putting it into the Road Repair fund, right?

  192. Hi Louise,
    Here is the motion:
    I motion that we l leave both the Road Repair Fund and the Reserve Fund at their current balances and remove the roll over of $4807 currently budgeted to the Road Repair Fund. As the Road Repair Fund spends down, it can be funded by the Reserve Fund – as needed, and as approved by the board. I also motion that we eliminate the proposed line item of $400 for the windmill since it was recently serviced and repaired. Therefore, I see a surplus of $5207 that can be used to reduce dues.

  193. Since we are supposed to be in for a bad El Nino year, and there are concerns about some roads now, I have to vote No

  194. Dennis, I appreciate your point of view about major road repairs being needed in the future. No matter what the board does now we will never have the $120,000 that would be required to rebuild all the roads. As the road committee makes proposals for repairs and requests an actual amount required for those repairs it will be the boards responsibility to fund those requirements to keep our roads safe and in good condition. Has the Reata Pass situation been reviewed and a quote obtained to make the needed repairs ?

  195. Hi All,

    Presently, we are in the middle of a vote. Please hold any further comments. Until all the votes are in.
    Thanks!

  197. All board members having cast votes, the result is:
    Voting yes: Cavanaugh, Baxter, Levin
    Voting no: Crouch, Novak.
    The motion is passed by a vote of 3-2.

  198. Charlet and I have the utmost respect for all members of our BOD and we wish to thank each one of them for all the time and consideration they’ve put into this endeavor. The transparency exhibited during this meeting is refreshing. We feel the POs were well represented. As Keith would say “Forward”.

  199. Thank you all,
    We will continue with the meeting at 8:30 tonight to pass the budget and review an ARR.
    Thank you for your kind words Dennis.

  200. To Dennis LePard: Thank you, Adele, George, Keith and past RC members (Mark, Greg, etc.) for the work you have done on the roads over the years. If you are short of help on the current RC, and will accept me, I would be willing to become a member. Also, if I could make another suggestion: since the BOD is still to consider the budget for 2016, the RC has an opportunity to make an argument for an increase in the operating road budget before the BOD acts on the budget this evening.

    I have lived on the ranch full time since 2007 and have been very pleased for most of that time with the condition of the roads. I fail to see any significant decline since my first visit to HL in 2004. There are definitely problem areas and periods of time that the roads have been only marginal, but overall, better than Gleeson Rd before paving.
    I know you have been experimenting with some methods (widening washes, adding obstacles to redirect runoff, etc.) to lessen the impact, but because dirt is so vulnerable to weather conditions, we will always be playing catchup to some degree. Our roads are admittedly a money pit, but y’all are doing a good job of balancing the cost against the benefit.

    The good news is that the Association has built up a decent Reserve Fund over the past 11 years. Aside from some withdrawls for road repairs from the Reserve Fund and Road Repair Reserve Fund, the RF has never dipped dangerously nor have we required a Special Assessment. As we draw down the RF from $36,000 to $20,000 over the next few years, we will have opportunity to revisit the RF cap amount. This plan is much safer than liquidating the excess $16,000 and returning it to the Members.

    As for Reata Pass west of lot 135, the RC needs to make an assessment of what is needed and how best to do it. That area was a jeep path when I first visited it and has become even worse. The last time I traveled there my horse even balked at carrying me down that rocky hill. So for 15 years it has been bad but not addressed. My question is “why now?” which I direct to Jim Browning and other neighbors there.

    1. Why now? Because the road is the worst it has ever been. It has had minimal maintenance from the beginning. The reason why is because when we first took over the roads we had less than $6000 for the roads for whole year. We could only do one full grade per year and maybe if lucky two grades of the main roads. West Reata and several other roads that had no houses on them were given last priority. Tom Sammons is trying to put his lots up for sale and he has little chance for sale with the road as is. Dave Kencht has animals at the end of the road and makes at least one trip down and back per day to feed. And, I believe that Dave pays more in association dues than any other land owner. He deserves some consideration for this.

      Now I see an effort to cap the reserve fund and to return $16000 without doing any repair to Reata. Simply no right. West Reata needs more than a simple down and back with a grader. The road is down to bed rock and there is almost no dirt left, just large rocks.

      The longer it is left with no effort to repair it the more it is going to cost to fix it. I am not asking for special treatment on the road just that it be given the same priority of maintenance as the other roads.

      The bottom line is don’t think it is right to liquidate $16000 without doing some repair to West Reata.

  201. Thanks Jim for the update. I can’t speak for the BOD or the RC, but as of now, NO Reserve Fund monies are expected to be returned to the POs or otherwise liquidated. However, no further contributions to the RF are planned for the predictable future.

    Do you have any knowledgeable estimate of what would need to be done to the road to make it adequately passable (serious grading, blast a new road, pave it)? AND how much that might cost? How does Sammons reach his property? Via Reata or the road that connects to his property from Gleeson Rd?

  202. Board: I apologize for taking more than my fair share of airtime here. I thought the issues were pertinent to a budgetary process. From here on I will be more succinct and circumspect.

    1. There is no legal route to Sammons property other than Reata Pass.

      I have some personal ideas of what is required for the road but they do not belong here. The road committee just needs to decide if anything can be done. Again I am not asking that the road be equal to Legends Trail just that it be passable to normal vehicles with out the passengers screaming ” We are all gonna Die” all the way down the west side of the hill. And, I understand that most people have never driven down that road.

  203. Jim, who else uses Reatta Pass ? Does the rancher at the end of the road use Reatta Pass for access ? If so, maybe we could get some help with the expense of repairs.

  204. I’ll make a quick statement here and get off this site. There is not one PO, let me repeat that, there is not one PO in our POA that I personally would not welcome to the RC. Will Rogers once said “I’ve never met a man I didn’t like” and I’ve never met a man that I couldn’t learn something from.
    Trying to keep this short I’d just like to say that although I was on the opposing side of the BOD decision, I consider this matter closed and I support and stand behind the BOD’s decision.

  209. Thanks! We have a quorum. Let’s start with the Windmill Report:
    from the Browns:
    We have a new valve in the trough which should fix the overflow problems we were beginning to have.  The windmill was also serviced at the same time.  Everything should be good for years to come.

    This windmill and the surrounding property was set aside for the benefit of the community as well as emergency water in case of fire.   It’s also considered a riparian area that has watered wildlife out here since 1938.

    For anyone interested in a little history, this area is referred to as The Rivers.  We have been told the name comes from the name of the people who settled this place many years ago.

    Bill Brown

    — 
    Barbara Brown

  211. It is nice to know some history about the Windmill and this area.
    Other than that no comment.

  216. The ARC received an ARR for a well house for lot #28 on October 13, and by October 23 had a unanimous support from the four ARC members; therefore we recommend its approval by the board.

  221. The well house is a standard manufactured shed similar to others already on the property. It will be painted to match the others and there is no conflict with any county codes or placement requirements.

  226. Good, motion passes for the ARR.
    Next on the agenda is the Road Committee Report. Adele? I believe that is posted above. Do you have any comments?

  229. I have been in contact with Will on a regular basis over the last several weeks. He has had quite an equipment nightmare. Short version is, repairs are in progress on both his bladder and the rental one that has been sitting, broke down, in his yard for the last 2 weeks. He should be getting on our roads very soon.
    It looks like the road improvements done on High Lonesome are holding up well and seem to be doing what they were designed to do.
    In addition, Will has signed and returned the road maintenance contract for next year for board approval.

    the contract is the same as last year.

  233. (I hope you meant “blader”.)
    I saw the contract, it looks good to me (just like last year), and I think the road committee has doing excellent work on the test projects.

  243. Hi Carl,

    Thank you for your interest, I believe that Russ Christopher expressed interest as well.
    I am sorry! I should have asked for discussion first! Sorry!
    Comments about the contract? or the road committee report?

  244. Just a note. I drive High lonesome road often. I think the repairs are holding up great. Glad we are renewing the contract.

  255. Since both parties requested membership just today, can’t we move this change and put it into effect now? Or does not “Road Committee report” on the agenda cover this well enough?

  258. I think we should put it on the agenda for next meeting, but that you should invite them, informally to participate in the meantime. Does that sound ok to you?

  259. It’s a question of whether the agenda item can cover this. Open Meeting laws require we act only on agenda items that have been published at least 48 hours previous to the meeting.

  264. We can’t act without a prepublished agenda. Your answer works for the board; whether it works for the RC and its chair and the two gentlemen involved is up to them.

  265. Adele, do you feel you need more members at this time? Dennis expressed they were understaffed. Do you agree?

  267. I think I will leave it to you, Adele, to invite them to participate. I don’t see anything in bylaws that mandates a vote by board. Looking at article 9, they just have to be in good standing, that is all I see.
    Thank you.
    Any other comments?

  272. There is still no correspondence report, for which I’m sorry; this time I just forgot till too late. If I’m not mistaken I only two sets of minutes (with transcript) for the last on-line board meetings. I will get these complete (along with this week’s minutes) within the next week.

    The correspondence report will include comments and complaints about the roads or other operational matters around the Ranch. There was also an information report from Barbara Brown on October 5 that I wish to include here:

    “This morning the dogs were out behind our house, Bill called them, they wouldn’t come so he walked out there and found a fawn that had been shot in the lungs. It was not stiff, bloated or cold. Felt like fairly recent probably that morning sometime. We called the Fish & Game, the officer said it was done with a 22. I surmised it was probably kids, then. He said hard core poachers will use 22’s because there’s very little noise, and kids will use 22’s. In any event, there should be no hunters on HL because of the houses, etc. Plus, this is right behind our house…could have hit one of our horses, dogs, us or the house.”

  274. Carl,
    Consider yourself on the committee! Adele will follow up to get you to the next meeting. We do not have to vote, volunteering is enough. Thank you!

  277. May I suggest that a note be sent to all property owners, after each meeting, that transcripts of these meetings are available, online. A specific link for each date would be awesome!

    I bring this up because there was some confusion expressed on the HLRPOA Facebook page regarding a lack of published minutes. I don’t think the property owner knew the transcripts were available.

    Also, another member said they weren’t able to comment, but had been commenting previously. Maybe just letting members know who to contact with any technical difficulties.

    Thanks.

  279. Carl: This is one of the problems we have to work out about off-line vs. on-line meetings. What you see as a hassle would have been about 45 seconds of quiet exchange between me, Phyllis and Adele about how the board should do it if we had been sitting at a table, and you wouldn’t have seen a hassle. This is off-topic for this discussion but I thought I’d respond.

  285. Today, Adele contacted Joel to see if he could amend the budget based on yesterday’s motion. Joel contacted me and so, I made the changes as best I could, based on the changes discussed and sent it over to Adele to review what has been put together. I am not sure if she has had a chance to review it yet. I also have a few budget questions for Adele on line items unrelated to those changes.

    Based on the motions passed last night, I adjusted $5000 off Line F, 30 and $400 off Line F, 28 for a total of $5400. I then deducted that amount off the estimated income, Line F, 3. Based on the new estimated income, I estimated the new dues to be $131.26 by dividing total estimated income by 135 lots. Those were the only changes I made.

    The Road Committee has not yet submitted a budget request for the coming year as they need to see how the repairs held up.

  289. In the mean time, here is the question I have:

    Why is there such a discrepancy between budgeted collections and actual? On line 38 it states estimated income at $27,646 and actual income at $15,811.02. That appears to be a shortfall of almost $12,000 in collections of dues to date?

    We’re showing a ~$12,000 shortfall in collection of dues so far? Past due accounts are at $400, delinquent accounts at $2,500 according Treasurer’s updated report. Line 38

  296. Unused funds from previous year = $5,578. Then in 2015 actual is 2013 Road Repair funds forward of $5,578. This is not “actual” income but must be shown on the budget.

  297. Ok, thank you. I understand that is considered income. But I still don’t see the math adding up.
    $12,000 shortfall, minus $5600 (approx) is $6,400.
    Subtract deliquent dues at around $3000
    Still see about $3400 shortfall.
    Not quite understanding, Sorry!

  298. I don’t know where you’re getting $12000. I’m getting $7139 difference between budget and actual, and subtracting $5578 gets me $1561 which doesn’t seem so bad. But I admit to being confused about what’s getting added in and what isn’t.

  299. Why is there a difference in the following items?
    Legal Fees from $645.00 (2015) to $1,000.00 (2016)
    Meeting Place $50.00 (2015) to $150.00 (2016)
    Reserves – Blank
    Road Repair- Blank

  300. A “shortfall” is how much you are in the hole at the end of the year. We have no shortfall, the balance in the bank today is $17,154.22. I don’t know how to explain this to you, sorry.

  301. Hold that question for a second, Margaret.

    I am looking at line 38, estimated vs actual.
    27,646 15811.02

    That is a difference of about $12,000. But Adele has accounted for a good portion of it.

  302. We budgeted 1,000 for 2015 legal fees. Actual legal fees spent is 645. we budgeted 150 for meeting place and the actual spent was 50

  304. Reserves and road repair are blank for 2016 because we don’t know what the balance will next year. In the 2015 “actual” column is the amount in each account right now.

  306. Shortfall was not a good term. Sorry.
    I am looking at the difference between estimated income and actual income to date. Line 38
    That difference is approx $12,000.
    I understand that the $5578 is considered income, so I subtract that from the $12,000.
    That leaves me approx $6000.
    In your most recent report, there is a total of approx $3000 between past due and delinquent assessment.
    That still leaves around $3000 between estimated income and actual income. That is all I am trying to understand.

  307. It is possible I made a mistake in the estimated. That is all I can tell you because no money is missing.

  309. Phyllis, if the 5578 was projected income and did roll over shouldn’t it be included as actual income ?

  311. I am sure no money is missing!
    I just saw the discrepancy.
    Let’s table the budget until Adele has a chance to review this.
    Let’s call for a recess until we get a new draft budget.
    Adele, we can touch base via e-mail to see what we can arrange.
    Thanks!
    If there are any other questions or comments by PO or board, please post them here and we can discuss later. We can recess the meeting for now.

  312. I’ll defer any comments until I’ve seen a revised document or an explanation that makes sense. I’m happy to recess for now.

  313. Adele, we are addressing the 2016 budget, but until those discrepancies are resolved and the budget accurately reflects the correct numbers we cannot put forth a motion to accept the budget.
    Let’s converse on how we can get this done in the next couple days. I am free tomorrow am.

  315. Thank you all for waiting for me to be able to be included in the meeting. Sorry my crazy schedule caused a late night meeting

  317. I found it. When I was running the total of the 2015 assessments received, I made an error. I forgot to go back and add all the payments that came in during the month of December, 2014 as a result of the 2015 billing that went out December 1, 2014. The actual is $21,901.02. The difference is $6,090.

  319. In answer to your question, Carl. No, the 5578 is not projected or actual income for the year 2015 because it was already there which means it was not received in 2015.

  320. We have $17,000 in thr operating account with only one major bill to pay, that being $7,000 for the upcoming grading, leaving us about $10,000 in the operating account for 2016. Why isn’t that considered as available toward next years expenses ? I know we don’t want to have a $0 balance, but if we are collecting enough dues next year to cover all expenses shouldn’t we allocate the $10,000 from the operating account somewhere ? We could put $5,000 in the road repair fund and leave $5,000 to cover expenses until the 2016 first half dues start rolling in. Just my early morning thoughts.

  321. Adele, the 5578 shoul not be shown as expected income. It is abalance sheet item. This according to a CPA I know. Same as the reserve fund or the cash in the operating account.

  322. You are correct Carl and I corrected that along with the other error noted above and sent the revised “Budget vs Actual as of 10_22_15″ to all the members of the board. As for whatever is left over at the end of the year. How to use that is for the new board to decide at the annual meeting when the “Final Budget vs Actual” is present to the members.

  323. Thanks, Adele, for figuring this out! Maybe with the newly discovered funds, we can increase the line item for road maintenance and repairs, addressing concerns by property owners about the condition of the roads.

  324. I have a question about the proposed 2016 budget as posted on the HLR website: The operating budget for roads is $18,000 ($13,000 for maintenance and $5000 for repairs)? Yes or No? The Reserve Fund has about $36,000 that can be used for any urgent repair or replacement of any Association Asset including roads? The proposed/revised budget will not include any rollover of excess operating income into the Reserve Fund/Road Repair Fund for 2016?

  325. With all due respect Alisa, there are no “newly discovered funds”. The funds have been in the operating account all along and have also been reflected as being there in the treasurer’s report every month. There was simply an error in the “budget vs actual” that was prepared for this meeting in the line item “property owner annual assess”.

  326. Russ, that is not the correct budget. We have made changes since then and will be posting an updated draft shortly. Thanks.

  327. With all due respect, Adele, it’s just semantics. Bottom line is that new numbers may present new things to look at. Maybe we can address PO concerns so thoughtfully expressed in this conversation.

    On a side note, hope everyone enjoys the full moon tonight, should be a beauty!!

  330. Phyllis, I would like to suggest that $5,000 of the operating account be transferred to the road repair fund account. This will have no effect on dues and will provide some funds for the issues PO’s have been bringing up.

  331. Carl, We are all going to be reviewing the new draft tonight and hope to have a vote by tomorrow night at the latest, maybe earlier. We are not going to all convene as a group, but will comment and motion as we can.

    Consider this an open meeting and comment away!

  332. Louise: In this forum comments are not being moderated in any way, and as you have seen when we have been “in recess” that has not discouraged those with something to say to say it. As long as no motion is pending for the budget, anyone can say anything; but until it is moved and seconded, there is nothing official to comment on and it’s subject to change any number of times, for instance if I had some bright idea or Phyllis decided to incorporate Carl’s suggestion. (I expect, however, the the last one I posted will be the version proposed to the board.)
    After a motion is made we like to give the board first crack at comments, then open them up to POs. Past on-line meetings have not been conducted in “real-time” sessions like this one has, and when we’re not in “real time” these rules ought to be relaxed, I think.

  333. Ok, then, while not the Treasurer (nor yet the Acting Treasurer either), I will move that the Board of Directors adopt the budget posted around 5:15pm today and labeled as “revised October 27″.

  334. I would like to suggest an small amendment to the motion, per Carl Gander’s post. Because the Operating Fund will have $10,000 left over after we pay our grading:

    I would like to amend the motion to adopt the budget with the exception that $5000 of the operating fund be allocated to the Road Repair Fund.

  338. I am very sorry to announce that Adele Crouch has tendered her resignation, effective immediately, early this morning. We would like thank her for the hard work she did on behalf of our community.
    When you have a chance, please thank Adele for her service.

  343. Hi All,
    Adele alerted us by e-mail today that she found another issue with the budget that may need an adjustment. We are taking some time to review it and may have another version as a final. Will keep you all posted. Most of us are pretty busy the next day or two so there may be a small delay. I can go into more detail if anyone is interested. Just let me know here on this site and I will post more info.
    So we are holding off on finalizing this vote.

  344. So the motion made and approved by a majority of the BOD as of October 28 at 8:08 am is rescinded?

  345. A question from the Revised October 27, 2015 budget: In the Income bracket, the 2016 estimated income is $17720 ($131.26 dues/lot/year x 135 lots). However, there is an “Estimated delinquencies” of $3500, which is not deducted or otherwise factored into the estimated income. Does this mean that it is expected that those delinquencies will not actually exist by the end of 2016 and that all of the dues for 2016 will be collected in 2016?

  346. Another question from the same revised budget: in the Operating Expenses bracket, the estimated operating expenses for the roads (maintenance + repair) is $17,300 for 2015 of which a total of $6179 has been spent (3600 for road maintenance + 2579 for road repair). There is another $7000 that is due to be paid from this 17,300 for a grading done or to be done, equaling $13,179, (6179 + 7000), leaving $4121 (17,300-13,179) as unspent monies allocated in 2015 for road maintenance and repair. Accordingly it appears that the road maintenance and repair operating budget for 2016 of $13,000 is responsibly estimated based upon the actual road expense for 2015 of $13,179. Is the $13,000 2016 estimated operating road budget reflective of the amount requested by the RC for its road maintenance?

    I would agree that putting the $13,000 into the estimated 2016 budget as “road maintenance” and 0 as estimated “road repair” makes sense because a “road repair” estimate implies that the funds come from the Operating Fund rather than a Road Repair (Reserve) Fund. In the 2015 estimated budget, $12,300 was allocated for Road Maintenance and $5000 for Road Repair. This is misleading: an operating expense is supposed to come directly from the Operating Fund like the road maintenance estimate. The Road Repair expense came from a different source, the Reserve Fund, and would not be entered into the budget as an estimate, but rather as an actual expense at the time it is used.

    So, if the RC is going to do a road maintenance estimate (like the $13,000 for 2016), but also wants to add a road repair estimate (like the $5000 for 2015), then I suggest that both estimates be placed into one category of operating expense (for example “road maintenance and repair.” This makes it clearer when calculating operating expenses that the amount so indicated is an actual annual cost of maintaining roads. Reserve Fund expenses could be listed separately, indicating expenses that were unable to be planned for within the fiscal year.

    I apologize if this is confusing, but I have a definite problem in mixing the Reserve Funds in with the Operating expenses

    If the Rollover figure of $8919 for 2015 (Total income-total expense) turns out to be true at the end of this year, it indicates that we really overestimated our operating expenses. However, when the $7000 comes out of the operating budget to pay for a grading, then the Rollover of $1919 would be quite acceptable. We want to try to avoid estimating too high, but at the same time avoid a shortfall like the plague.

  347. I agree with Russ regarding a single line item of road maintenance and repair. Simplifies things, and keeps funding very “clean.”

  348. Regarding your first comment Russ, yes, the delinquencies were not factored in. This is the error Adele alerted us to. We have not voted regarding rescinding yet. We need to review everything to assure we are as accurate as we can be.

    Regarding the second comment – I’ll need to sit with it and look at your math, will do in the am.
    Thank you for your help with this!

  349. due to travel have not been able to review the recommendations how long will this be open for comments

  350. I have tried to review all 300+ posts which needless to say is a bit much. After reviewing the discussions the following is of concern to me. I see that Carl and Russ are now on the road committee. I want to make this as clear as possible. My comment or concern has absolutely nothing to do with Carl or Russ and I hope that is understood by all. The BOD in my opinion took an action that they should not have. Phyllis you have made if perfectly clear in many other meetings that if an item is not on the agenda it cannot be discussed. Road committee membership or people volunteering to be on the road committee cannot be discussed approved or voted on since it was not an agenda item. If you are going to enforce rules and regulations they must be consistent. This action was not. I would like to recommend that an email be sent out to all property owners stating that the road committee is open &/or looking for volunteers to give everyone a chance to participate if they want to. As for the budget I agree with a reserve account of no less then 20,000.00. However I would feel more comfortable with 25,000.00 based on actual expenses. I am strongly opposed to a reduction in dues as I feel in time it will only come back to bite us when the board will have to ask for an increase to keep up with rising costs. The BOD has lost the one person who was actually hands on and as a direct result of that persons efforts the property owners have saved a considerable amount of money by eliminating Cadden. I want to understand how that job is going to be accomplished going forward and what board member is going to assume that responsibility as that can also have an impact on expenses going forward. I agree that the roads are our primary expense but they are not our only expense as noted in the 2016 budget. Another very important point to take into consideration is to always plan for the unexpected. We are seeing that happening now. Example: The contractor who has been hired to do our roads has had equipment problems and has not been able to grade our roads for some time. As far as I know there is no estimated date for him to get in here and start grading. What if we needed to hire someone else? What if we needed emergency work done requiring a grader? What if we had to hire a contractor for just one grading without a contract, how much will that cost? What if, what if, what if. I find it hard to digest that a 30.00 or 35.00 reduction in dues is going to be a life changer for anyone who owns property here on the ranch. People have very short memories as demonstrated by this meeting agenda. There already is a cap on the reserve account which there was never one before. Our dues have already been reduced which that has never happened before. Attorneys fees (legal fees) cannot come from the reserve account or operating budget as it could have in the past. Now a special assessment is required to fund legal fees if needed. Starting with Greg Briner and the previous Board, carried over and enhanced upon by this Board, so many important changes have been made why try to fix something that is not broken and working. This makes absolutely no sense to me. The minute any BOD tries in the future to raise dues because of shortfalls they will be viewed as villeins, and this BOD will be criticized for not being fiscally responsible and allowing a shortfall to occur.

  352. FYI – everyone – been busy, and am still researching this – we will make a motion based on the new discrepancies, as reported by Adele, to make sure we put forth an accurate budget for 2016. Thanks for your patience!

    Phyllis

  353. Joe,

    With all due respect, Phyllis is, and has been, very “hands on.” She may not, but I take exception to that remark. Endless phone calls, emails, hours…..

    Once questions were asked about the budget, simple questions to understand numbers, all of a sudden, there’s a resignation? Very, very unfortunate, and unnecessary, imho.

    But, we have to move on as a community.

    It’s ok to disagree…that’s natural….its ok….

    If dues can be lowered, roads maintained and repaired…I really don’t understand why someone would be against that. But, that’s alright, you might not understand my view. We’ve all been there before.

    However, let’s not point fingers, especially when one can never really know the entire story.

    Your position hasn’t changed. Mine hasn’t, though it shifted a bit. So, there you have it. Just please don’t assume that there is only one BOD member working their tail off, and sticking with it, and through it, through her term, no matter what curve balls are thrown. I admit to being biased, but thems the facts.

    I’ve said all I need to say on this topic, so I will sign off. Make care, all.

    Alsa

  354. Joe,

    With all due respect, Phyllis is, and has been, very “hands on.” She may not, but I take exception to that remark. Endless phone calls, emails, hours…..

    Once questions were asked about the budget, simple questions to understand numbers, all of a sudden, there’s a resignation? Very, very unfortunate, and unnecessary, imho.

    But, we have to move on as a community.

    It’s ok to disagree…that’s natural….its ok….

    If dues can be lowered, roads maintained and repaired…I really don’t understand why someone would be against that. But, that’s alright, you might not understand my view. We’ve all been there before.

    However, let’s not point fingers, especially when one can never really know the entire story.

    Your position hasn’t changed. Mine hasn’t, though it shifted a bit. So, there you have it. Just please don’t assume that there is only one BOD member working their tail off, and sticking with it, and through it, through her term, no matter what curve balls are thrown. I admit to being biased, but thems the facts.

    I’ve said all I need to say on this topic, so I will sign off. Take care, all.

    Alisa

  355. Hi All,
    We have a motion, a second and a unanimous vote for the amendment to the budget. We will consider this our working, “draft” budget at this time. Yes, there are some wrinkles to work out and that will happen at the next meeting. We do not have a date set at this time.

    I want to thank everyone who participated in this meeting. It was not a perfect forum but I do like that we are able to hear from a variety of people. This meeting is adjourned.

Comments are closed.