A few of us got together and discussed the Assessment relating to water operating expenses. The Association sent a bill to each Owner of properties that have a water meter that an assessment of $3,000, per lot, half be paid by the end of August, the remainder in October. Residents circulated emails seeking clarification, and in some cases stating their objections and resistance to the assessment. Many of the email comments were about how to charge the biggest users of water based on the water meter readings, and why not to charge the property owners who do not have a meter on their properties. The community meeting was called in order to get residents to get together to discuss the facts of the situation.
Conrad had been corresponding with David Blouin, Association President, and Steve Thomas, Association Secretary, asking them to explain the Board’s positions and reasoning. Steve responded to Conrad’s emails and Conrad read most of the email responses to the group, which likely helped most of us in the meeting to gain an understanding for how the assessment had been made. Much of the meeting discussed the legal aspects of reading meters of residents and why the Association is not charging non-metered properties. In his email to Conrad, Steve Thomas explained that there were certain legalities that needed to be respected, including that Community Water companies are not permitted to read meters or charge usage of the water unless they first had a state approved rate tariff. The non-metered properties are exempt from Regular or Capital Assessments, per the CC&Rs. The correspondence between Conrad and Steve is posted here.
All present agreed that the goal of having the MSR water system accepted by Liberty would add value and security to all MSR properties. Views diverged on the relative fairness of allocating all water costs to metered lots. There was considerable frustration that the roll out of the assessment did not follow the path described by the President and Secretary at the Association Annual Meeting last February. Participants at today’s meeting want additional transparency and more granularity regarding water costs. Given that the Board has been contemplating this assessment for months, most attendees felt advance notification of a pending assessment would have been both desirable, and doable; a snap $3,000 assessment with little time to pay is considered a hardship by some, and an unnecessary aggravation by all.
The meeting summary has been discussed with the President, David Blouin. David has agreed that he will present these concerns to the Board.
Please add your views as comments to this post below, so that all members can share in the dialogue.