FYI: This was not clearly disclosed to members, especially when one considers that Chris allison and the Board expressed exactly the opposite position last spring. This seems to put the interest of a non-dues paying entity which is not even a member for those lots ahead of the interests of dues paying members whose interests the Board has a fiduciary responsibility to protect.
2. Chris, why is the 6/10/06 vote on the new declaration at large instead of section-by-section?
voters in every section will be swamped! In Section 4B, there are only 16 lots. How will these lot owners have any chance of a fair election?
FYI: A recent board agenda
4. Chris, what specifically is stopping you from using Association funds to improve Membership Lots?
FYI: Chris Allison and the Board keep referring to needing a “legal basis” for extending utilities and roads to Membership Lots. This is the term they used in their 5/15/06 letter to Membership Lot owners. They have used Association funds to invest in the Utility and to improve roads at Lake Holiday. Membership Lot owners pay a lot of dues. By the end of 2006, Membership Lot owners will have paid over $1.4 million to the Association in the period from 2004-2006. That reflects actual money collected. $1.4 million is a lot of money, and that's just in this short period of time. What is prohibiting Chris Allison and the Board from using any of the money Membership Lot owners pay to improve their lots?
5. Chris, doesn't the section on “Individual Assessments” give you and the Board the power to send any owner – even homeowners – a bill as you see fit?
FYI: The section on Individual Assessments in the proposed governing documents clearly gives Chris Allison and the Board the authority to send any Membership Lot owner a bill for an Individual Assessment to improve his lot – even if he does not request that his lot be improved. Chris Allison was quoted in the Winchester Star on 8/1/05 stating that these bills could be $30,000 per lot. But the authority in the proposed governing documents for Individual Assessments is much broader: it authorizes Individual Assessments that can be for “the amount of any charge imposed on that Owner….” That includes homeowners.
6. Chris, what specific provision of the current governing documents prohibits you from using dues to improve Membership Lots?
FYI: Chris Allison's 5/15/06 letter says that he and the Board want “authority” to improve Membership Lots, and that this is an “authority that does not exist under the current governing documents.” By the same logic the authority to repave masters Drive or make capital investments in the Utility must not have existed – so how was it done?
FYI: The proposed governing documents grant development easements
The current capacity of the wastewater treatment plant as specified in the DEQ's Certificate to Operate is 240,000 gallons per day. The DEQ requires 100 gallons per day per occupant of each home, and that means about 250 gallons per day per home. Using that number, the wastewater treatment plant can serve at most about 960 homes. According to the testimony Dave ingegneri gave to the SCC on 4/14/06, there are 715 homes and 380 vacant buildable lots. These numbers do not
9. Chris, do you or any other current or former directors have or plan to have any conflicts of interest? If so, what are they?
FYI: There is a provision in the Bylaws that protects Chris Allison and other board members who may have conflicts of interest. This provision says that they are protected even if the Association suffers a loss because of that conflict. Have they fully disclosed all possible conflicts of interest and allowed members to decide if they are appropriate? For example, have they listed all contracts, agreements, funds, and benefits of any kind that they or anyone associated with them have received or will receive at any time from any entity connected in any way with Lake Holiday? Why should members approve accepting their conflicts of interest unless and until all such conflicts have been fully disclosed to members?
10. Chris, why do you require Board members to sign a confidentiality agreement? What are you trying to hide from members?
FYI: Board members apparently are required to sign a confidentiality agreement. This idea first surfaced on 10/25/05. Shouldn't the Board's actions be transparent? Is this a big reason why Board members remain silent on important issues?