Some might take delight in the failure of the recent CIF effort.  Personally, I am not surprised at the outcome but would not wish anyone who supported it ill feelings.  I trust they feel no ill will to those that opposed the CIF.  I believe we need a reserve fund that is dedicated to the long term needs of the community and not one subject to board action as a source of short term funding.  As I read the proposal and potential accesses to the proposed CIF fund, I had a major problem in that it appeared approximately 80% of funding choices were currently funded by our operational budget. 

I would gladly vote, as I am confident many others would, in favor of a proposal, as offered and dismissed in one of the open meetings, that would require a majority vote of the property owners to expend funds from a ‘CIF’.  If a board has done its job and effectively convinced the community on the need for major capital improvements, the community will certainly agree.  If a poor job of selling is done or a project is suspect, typically folks will rightfully vote against it.  I do not understand the reluctance at such a proposal.  It gives the appearance that either the board dies not trust the membership or the boards ability to adequately sell needed projects.  Had such a vehicle been included in the recently voted proposal, I would wager a Coke that the percentages would have easily reversed and we would now have had a CIF in place.  Another suggestion offered, but dismissed, was the notion of a ‘5 year sunset provision’ that would require memberhsip vote for continuation of long term funding.

Personally, I believe the proposal made by the Finance Committee more than 2 years ago is a better solution than a sales tax, as recently proposed.  My rationale; we pay a monthly fee that I would call an impact fee based simply on a lot or a lot with a house, regardless of cost.  Although I would likely benefit from a ’sales tax’ approach should we sell our home, I believe an impact fee approach is sounder, simpler and more consistent with our history.   The March 2006 Finance Committee proposal for an Amenity Capital Fee (ACF) called for payment of an amount equal to one year of dues on the sale of a lot or one year of appropriate dues upon sale of a lot with a house.  Simple and straight forward in my opinion.  Other suggestions of potential funding streams could also add to a CIF or ACF.

I sincerely hope the efforts, ideas and plans of the long term planning committee and finance committee members, including prior committee members, are not thrown out with the bath water.  Identification of our infrastructure needs is critical to our future as are the ideas of the finance experts in how to execute those needs.  Thanks to those who have contributed so many unpaid hours of their time and talented efforts in planning for our future.