An abundance of misinformation is circulating in our community and the following is an attempt to provide facts and to clarify some of the questions concerning the Association.
1. What impact would voluntary membership in the Association have? Everyone buying a property at the Ranch had the opportunity and obligation to read the DCC&Rs and the by-laws. Many people purchased their properties because there were regulations set in place that would preserve the character and standards they desired in their community. When only a portion of the residents elect to be a part of this organization, the standards basically could become unenforceable. Would non-association members be allowed to use the common areas and buildings?
2. I rarely use the recreational facilities, why should I have to pay for them? Recreational amenities that all residents have the opportunity to participate in are also fee-for-use based so those not participating do not have the same level of expense. Recreational facilities are open to the public. The rationale for this is simply to increase revenues. When the day comes that members maximize the facility use, the public will not have access except on a guest status. It should be noted that visitors have a higher pay-for-use-fee than members. A visitor fee for Cedar Creek for 18 holes plus cart is $50 while a member would pay $33. A visitor fee at Aspen Hills for 18 holes with a cart is $30 and, on weekends, including Friday is $34. Swim or tennis for members is $3, while visitors pay $5. Non-member use has increased, especially on the golf courses and those fees have helped to defray expenses to the membership.
3. Why haven’t recreational fees increased while, assessments have? In fact recreational fees have increased quite dramatically. When many people bought their properties here, golf and all other recreational activities were free. But times change, the developer with his deep pockets and motivation to move properties was no longer involved and the complete financial burden fell to members. Recreational fees have gone up, not every year, but often times the change has been significant. Cart fees were $40 and now are $200. Fees have been imposed for tennis play and pool prices are also up. However, higher fees do not necessarily mean more revenues. Two years ago we reduced the golf fees on Aspen Hills. Play and revenues went up significantly, more than doubling. We are interested in revenues which do not always translate to higher fees as in any business model. The General Manager and the Board are focusing on the bottom line.
4. How valid is the “I don’t use it, why should I pay for it?” mantra. Many of us don’t have children who attend school. Should we get a break on our school taxes? Some people do not use the library, should those people be exempt from paying taxes for that service? Should people be able to opt out of emergency services in exchange of a tax break? The phrase that comes to mind is “the common good.” Without the community working together to fund services, they would be non existent or of poor quality. Not everything is equal. Did you know that many of the homeowners on the ranch donated $200 per year for water for those years between the court ruling that the Association could not charge for water and the transfer of culinary water to the town? Some paid, but all benefited. Those who knowingly bought property here, fully cognizant of the character of this community and the ramifications/benefits and obligations of living here, have a responsibility.
5. Would elimination of the Association decrease the cost of operation to thehomeowner? In our case, moving the assets of the SVRA to the town would not decrease costs of operation. The expenses now paid for by the Association would be passed to the Town and the funds would be raised through taxation, not assessments. Since taxes are tied to property valuation, the residents/homeowners in the township would assume a larger portion of the cost that is now distributed equally on ownership, not value.
6. Why aren’t all SVRA meetings open to the public? All meetings are and have been open to the public with the exception of meetings dealing with personnel matters and legal issues. The Board encourages members to sit in committee meetings.
7. Why aren’t all financial records open to the membership? All financial records are open to the membership. The Finance Committee meetings have been open to the membership and members were encouraged to observe first hand the budgetary process. Financial reports are on the website and available at the office. An accredited auditor verifies the fiduciary responsibility of the SVRA Board of Directors and General Manager. His report confirmed that proper procedures are being adhered to.
8. Why was the 2008 assessment raised? The assessment can only be raised by the cost of living index each year. This year the Board faced a dilemma and felt they had reached a compromise by increasing the amount while forgiving this year’s increase. As the Association moved into new territory with the income from the culinary installations gone, an $800,000 cost for the Aspen Hills Water Conservation Project, consent to sell forms that would bring funds to reduce the association liability unsigned, buildings that had questionable defects, the majority opinion was that we were not in a position to change the assessment. We felt we reached a compromise by increasing the amount while forgiving the year’s increase.
9. How would dissolving the Association affect non-residents of the Town? Currently in the decision-making process, each lot has one vote. If there were no Association all decisions governing the Ranch would be made by the residents. All non-residents would lose their official voice in Ranch matters.
10. How can the Association maintain or improve conditions with vastly reduced income? The coalition is pledged to maintain the beauty and life style of the community and to ensure that all recreational buildings are maintained, and yet they promise to reduce/eliminate the assessment. This seems contradictory and assumes that the “fat” in the budget is extensive. Each Association member should behoove him or herself to examine the public documents that would reveal such “waste” and draw their own conclusions.
11. The Association turned the water over to the town, so how do we still have responsibility for water? Currently the Association provides more than 50% of the water used for culinary purposes to the town from our Green Canyon Spring. This arrangement will continue until the Town has developed an adequate water supply. The Association and Leisure Valley both have water rights to Green Canyon water. The Wyoming Water Development Commission, by law, cannot give grants that might, in any way, benefit a developer so if the Town is to be eligible for grants to improve the community’s water system the burden of maintaining this water source still falls on the Association. This water is also used for irrigation of all common areas.
12. Are current board members against change? Quite the contrary. Their record speaks for itself. Over a period of years, the Association and its membership funded studies and committees, elicited opinion from the entire membership in ascertaining what type of organizations/associations would best suit the needs of the community. The result after all that careful planning was the creation of a town. The town assumed responsibilities appropriate to a municipality, primarily the roads and culinary water. The Town and the Association as well as many ranch members attended a conference sponsored by the Wyoming Rural Development Council to assess the roles of each organization and the direction the community should go. This was open to the public and input was taken and evaluated. Many of the new directions both the Town and Association have taken are linked to the needs established at this conference. Change has and is occurring.
13. What’s happened with the enforcement of the DCC&R’s? While some members signed a petition asking for the Board of Directors to immediately vote to suspend enforcement of the DCC&Rs, another group, Committee for a Beautiful Community submitted a petition strongly supporting the enforcement of the DCC&Rs by Board members. The vast majority of residents who were notified of their non-compliance have rectified the situation. The Board chose to continue enforcement and is currently empowering a committee to begin work on needed changes and updates of the DCC&Rs. |
