HLRGazette Archives

Relive some of our best stories.

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Editorial

E-mail Print PDF

Can Holly Lake Ranch Afford Rob James? Several months ago, after years of not knowing, our new "B" Board finally was told what we are paying our General Manager. Silver Leaf requested, and the Board agreed, not to make it public (i.e. print it in the newspaper) and I agreed to those conditions when the numbers were shared with me shortly thereafter. To date I have not printed Rob's salary in the Gazette. Shortly after being told, I verified with the number with Rob in a face to face meeting (lunch) and over the past several months I have told a total of 4 to 8 people what the salary is, in separate private meetings. My feeling is that if all of you knew, you would be shocked!

My answer to the original question is a resounding no, especially in light of the recent Audit Report that was shared, word for word in our last paper. All of those negative things are the GM's responsibility, and no Bob, the Audit was not a "Boondogle". The word is that Silver Leaf is quite disappointed, and they aren't paying his salary, we are. W.C.

 Ruderer's answer to Clyde Johnson:

SMOKE SCREEN
Johnson knows that the items in my previous letter are true and that the truth can be verified in the official minutes of the A-B Board meetings or in the financial records. In typical Johnson style he attempts to hide the truth with his rantings and his ravings. As the leader of those who came here because they liked what was here and then followed a few malcontents who convinced them it should be "better", he continues to use mushroom management. He made many campaign promises, but all he has accomplished is to divide the residents. Holly Lake Ranch was a much nicer and certainly a more peaceful place before he came.
James R. Ruderer

 WERE DUES REALLY CUT.....?
I read the letters to the editor in the August 4, 2007 issue with much interest.

I noted James Ruderer's comments about "......the Board made a big production of cutting the dues this year." Whether the "B" board made a "big production" out of this I cannot say but I have heard it said by others that dues have been cut.

In addition I read Clyde Johnson's answer to Ruderer's letter and was particularly interested in the comment he made regarding the 2005 board ".........inflating member's garbage fees to provide a slush fund for inefficient and irresponsible fiscal policies, and committing members' dues (without their approval) to retire debts exceeding $300,000 in restaurant building and equipment (then professing the cost should not be considered part of the restaurants expenses)." He goes on to say ".......I introduced a resolution to reserve the $80,000 + garbage fee/slush fund to be used only for garbage. The joint board approved my resolution. I'm sorry to say the funds were used, without board approval, to cover excessive expenses in other areas." This last sentence begs me to ask.... What kind of system allows for funds to be used without board approval? And does the excessive expenses in other areas mean the Fore Seasons alone, or were there other areas where the $80,000+ was applied?

Here is my opinion on the cut or reduction in dues.
The 2006 "B" board was voted into office on a platform advocating that we needed to take a close look at how our finances were being managed and how our dues were being handled. The vote count speaks for itself on who HLR property owners wanted to represent them. (Since I have lived here every board elected has been by the votes of HLR property owners so every board, in my opinion, has been a "people's board") The 2006 "B" board did take a close look and found, among other things, that our garbage fee had been "inflated" by $4.00 a month over actual cost.

 This was good work on the "B" board's part. The way I interpret this is...... we were assessed $4.00 more than we should have been in 2006. I guess it was discovered too late to be corrected in 2006.

But........if you want to right what you consider to be wrong, in this case an unwarranted $4.00 a month increase in Fees in 2006, shouldn't the $4.00 have been returned to HLR property owners by way of a $4.00 a month credit in 2007? Wouldn't this have put all the pluses and minuses back to zero? And wouldn't this have been the fair and equitable thing to do for the HLR property owners????? Now let's get serious......we would be shooting ourselves in the foot or as Wilson puts it "in deep water with no paddle" if the Association funds were hit with a $80,000+ debit to repay property owners. You know it and I know it.

So here is how I see it......

Our 2006 dues (really Fee Structure) Fee Structure for 2007
Should have been;
Dues $79.85 $80.75
Garbage 13.50 (Not $17.50) 13.50
Road Assessment 4.60 5.60
Total $97.95 (Not $101.95) $99.85

 To say dues have been reduced or cut when in fact what was found was a/an, surcharge, inflated fee, add-on, overcharge, overpriced , padded or fleeced (choose the word that works best for you) "service fee" which HLR property owners should not have been charged in the first place, is erroneous. Dues, or more accurately the Fee Structure, has been brought back to where it should have been in the first place and my dues have only increased 2% year over year. This in no way is meant to be sarcastic. I commend the "B" boards for 2006 and 2007 on the work they have done and are doing for the HLR property owners. The Consumer Price Index inflation rate for the south urban area was 3.4% for 2006 and is running at 2.4% for 2007. The "B" board has kept the Fee Structure increases below inflation rates. Good job.

But, in my opinion, this is not a cut or reduction in Fee Structure (Dues)

As always...... One person's opinion,
Bill Orrender

Last Updated on Friday, 24 April 2009 15:36  

The only searchable local paper.