As most of you are aware, the water distribution system here in Valle Escondido is not adequate year-round. We have explored a number of alternatives to improving the system and have decided to move forward with what appears to be an adequate solution. It is also the least expensive solution that we have found. This project, estimated to cost up to about $30,000 needs to be funded.
Additionally, it is becoming quite evident that road repairs are needed in may locations within Valle Escondido. Such repairs are quite costly and also need to be funded. We do not have a full cost estimate for the project, but as a frame of reference there were several potholes that were repaired a year ago. The cost for that (apparently small and simple) work was $750. Clearly, the cost for work of the magnitude that is needed here will be very substantial.
There are also two projects that have been proposed to increase our security. One potential project is to repair and enhance the fence line that runs from the security gate to the top of the property behind the 12-plex. This area has had numerous attempts of unauthorized entry. The second potential project would be to add motion detector alarms and several cameras to better protect our front entrance during nighttime hours. In the long run, this should be more cost effective than adding additional manpower.
And, as everyone can appreciate, there will be more maintenance project needs that arise as time goes on. Each of these needs to be funded.
Therefore, Ballot Issue #1 is a proposal to increase the annual fee for each owner by 50%, bringing the annual fee to $1,350 from $900. (For reference, this $450 annual increase amounts to $37.50 per month). With a 2/3 majority vote of those owners voting, we can proceed with the necessary maintenance projects in a timely manner.
We did consider – as an alternative – proposing a one-time special assessment. We ultimately rejected that proposal for several reasons. We believe the annual fee increase is a better approach because we will be able to avoid having special elections every time that a project needs to be undertaken. Also, the expense, delays and processing costs associated with special collections are troublesome, rather than simply changing the amount of the annual fee. An additional advantage of the annual fee approach will be to allow a financial reserve to be developed over time to accommodate unforeseen expenses (e.g., landslide cleanup).
We therefore strongly urge your approval of this ballot measure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I have been working with the VEHOA finances for 2 years. Your money is being well preserved and spent only as needed and only with careful examination of those needs.
We do not have much of a surplus at the end of the year and thus cannot properly save for events such as major road resurfacing, emergency repairs such as landslides and infrastructure maintenance and improvements.
This last year the cost of our security contract went up, there were three major landslides, and the water situation needs to be fixed once and for all. We have improved our security with repairs to the fence and motion sensors and cameras.
To keep Valle Escondido the premier residential community we need to keep her in good shape. This takes money and time.
Most people argue that it would be better to do a special assessment. In my experience in doing the dues collection it is very time consuming with setting up the election for the assessment, invoicing and receipts and sometimes we have to chase the owners to pay. This would be impossible to do more than once per year and what do we do if someone (who may have voted against the assesment) does not pay? How do we collect? How do we force them to pay?
We need this increase to support all the needs the homeowners have asked for. Please vote YES!
Fene
Villa 131
I commend the efforts of the VEHOA over these years and do not dispute the need for an increase to maintain the valley as needed. I intend to vote no on this increase and offer this post so that others can persuade me differently.
1. I have not seen a proposed budget, only general comments as to upcoming expenses.
2. I never received the results from the homeowner survey and am unaware of all of the needs that owners have conveyed.
3. I am opposed to the collection of the higher fees on an annual basis.
4. Nothing prevents the board from imposing an additional 20% on top of the voted on amount at the end of another year.
I know that we are not privy to all of the information that full time residents enjoy. However, if you want to gain the required votes, you will need to convince the part time owners as well. Bottom line is that I do not feel that there is enough information available for me to vote yes and that the inevitable 20% increase is a solid start on all of the needed projects.
I look forward to additional responses.
Greg 133
There is no doubt that we need more money to attend to infrastructure and emergencies.
Where is the budget, estimations of costs, breakdowns of needs? Give me the information!
Well, we could dicker about the budget, costs, and breakdowns of needs but we need money NOW.
We need to get stuff DONE! NOW!
So vote for the increase, long overdue, and if too much money builds up, we can cut it back. There is a lot to be said for immediately available money.
Jon Arcuni #67
We have posted the 2008 budge as of the end of November. This can be found at:
http://primapanama.blogs.com/vehoa/
Posted on December 4th for Rich Andresen:
I have put a pencil to the numbers and here they are: If we keep the present rules and allow a 50% one-time increase in dues to $1,350 per month, then we will still be allowed to have a 20% increase every 2 years. Assuming the 50% increase counts as the first one, and if the dues are subsequently raised the maximum allowable amount, then the projected numbers are:
2nd year $1,620.00/yr. $135.00/mo
4th year $1,944.00/yr. $162.00/mo.
6th year $2,332.80/yr. $194.40/mo (More than double present dues)
8th year $2,799.36/yr. $233.28/mo.
10th year $3,359.23/yr. $279.94/mo (More than triple present dues)
So this becomes a question of whether to vote for one and not the other. If we vote to increase the current dues by 50% and do not vote to change the structure in such a way as to limit the 20% biennial increases, we could have a problem we did not anticipate.
Another consideration is that the amount money claimed to be needed promptly would be limited to $450 x number of members. A special assessment would not be so limited.
A philosophical problem I have with increasing the dues is that whenever a small group of people is making determinations about how to spend a larger group’s money, that money is invariably spent unwisely and there is never a “rainy day” surplus. The government is the best example of this. On the other hand, a special assessment would be the result of careful research and competitive bidding and would have the close scrutiny of the membership. I think this would lead to wiser spending. I would also like to add and emphasize that this is not intended to disparage the characters or efforts of those of our members working at the hard and unrewarding job of running our HOA. I served as president of an HOA many years ago and I know first hand what it is like. What I am taking about here is human nature. Surplus budgets beg to be spent.
To sum up, this seems very urgent and rushed instead of being done in a deliberate and measured fashion. There is no reason for this except bad planning. A large part of the problem is that we should have been presented with a detailed budget and revenue projections in order to make an intelligent determination of our own cash needs. We should see a draft of the new articles of association and open them for comments by all on a blog. I would agree that there are problems which need to be addressed and corrected and that it will take money. I agree that there comes a time in every development when the developer turns the HOA over to the members. I am not opposed to either of these ideas. But I have little confidence in the approach that is being taken here. In my opinion, if we are going to change things, let’s do the homework and do it right the first time. I think it is better to delay than to err. Therefore I must vote no at this time while I encourage an effort to make a better presentation of the case next time around.
Rich Andresen
Post a Comment