Editorial
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
