There's a Reason Things Cost More Now
at Ponderosa Park
The Board wants to raise Ponderosa Park owners’ annual assessments again. I’d like to bring up several facts that might help explain why. Ponderosa Park’s accounts are still reeling from losing a lawsuit and financing one resident’s road project. Decisions made in the past are having an impact on today's expenses and may lead to another large expenditure. Legal documents have been disregarded by this administration and selected administrations in the past.
At a special meeting on November 27, 2017, the acting President said the Board would not interfere with the vacation of Bristle Cone road easement West of the Eastern property line of lot 179. This action disregarded several legal documents:
Ponderosa Parcels Inc., Document #1000195-dated September 1997, spells out how road easements are to be handled at Ponderosa Park.
The board action in Nov. 2017 flouted ARTICLE II of our bylaws; “Private Roads shall be areas designated as private roads upon the plats of the properties.”
The Settlement Agreement posted in the Septembers 2017 minutes along with the agreed upon Road Protocol does what? We recently hired another attorney to tell us that the first attorney and the ensuing settlement agreement should be followed.
Additionally, the Board has decided to disregard the Resolution 2016-03 of the Board of Directors, Rules Violations - Fine Schedule. In the second paragraph: The second type of offense is a condition such as parking junk cars, having a structure blocking the road, etc.
Apparently, the Road Committee had concerns about removing snow from Bristle Cone. And it took a lawsuit (which we lost) to get Park Services to Bristle Cone. To-date, the Park has spent close to $8500 on the Bristle Cone replacement road and spent nearly $18,000 on legal fees and damages. It's important to note that lots 178, 179, 180, and 181 all had Bristle Cone addresses when they were purchased some years ago. This is in reference to Resolution # 01818 from the Board of County Commissioners of Klickitat County, Washington; Part 1, Findings, #3: “Bristle Cone is a private easement spanning across Ponderosa Park Plat 1 and Plat 4", and: #8: A special meeting was held by the PPOA on November 27, 2017. No objection was raised by the PPOA on this proposal.”
That’s five legal documents/agreements/resolutions etc. this and previous Boards have ignored.
Paying for past decisions
In a meeting I was invited to several weeks ago, it sounded to me as if the Board expected the owners of lots 26 and 27 to foot the bill for the now necessary turnaround at the West end of what is left of the truncated Bristle Cone.
At this point, it seems the Board has given up on a Special Assessment idea. Now they say we need to raise the annual assessments because; “Things Just Cost More Now”.
Our current Board President says the Bristle Cone faux pas is closed. I’m thinking the issue will be re-opened when the Board expects the Park residents to pay for the new turnaround at its new west end. The turnaround at the top of Bristle Cone has been there for about thirty years and worked just fine. In fact, the Road Committee used it when the Lawsuit forced the fence blocking Bristle Cone to come down and snow to be removed.
Specifics on rising costs
Sometime in 2009, two lot owners in Ponderosa Park decided to get the road out of the middle of lot 179. The second owner assisted the first by asking the Park residents to pay for a new road. A road with no permits, no surveys, and no excavation permits.
They had the road built and later funded by Park owners by calling it a capital improvement on the ballot. It was an improvement that increased only one resident’s property value. While work was being done, the new road was still called Bristle Cone. Were Ponderosa Park owners aware that this was a new road rather than an existing road improvement?
Taking care of the roads
A local excavation company had been taking care of our roads since 2001 and billed at $80 an hour. They owned equipment, (for a number of years stored here in the park); paid their own insurance, maintenance, and fuel costs $80 an hour, with absolutely no complaints coming from anyone.
In early 2015, a new Road Committee was formed by three Park residents who decided that the roads could be done better and cheaper, so they pushed the Board into having the Road Committee replace the excavation contractor.
The first thing we had to do was purchase a snowplow, $$$. Along with the snowplow came insurance, $$$. Snowplows take a lot of abuse, ergo; maintenance and more $$$. So now we have our own equipment, we pay for our own maintenance, we pay for our own insurance, we pay for our own fuel, and we pay the driver $25 an hour.
The excavation contractor that replaced our $80 an hour contractor charges $125 an hour, and Road Committee gets $25 an hour, so we’re up to $150 an hour, almost twice as much. Figure in original equipment costs, (about $7000), maintenance (TBD), fuel and insurance. From $80 an hour to somewhere between $150 and $200 an hour: About double.
Is it any wonder that our assessments have gone up?
Now, take into consideration that we are in the hole due to an $18,000 give-take lawsuit, mostly attorney’s fees. In the original complaint, the Road Committee refused to remove snow from Bristle Cone; this is where the complications and concerns came up. The result; a lawsuit that could have been avoided, yet the Park’s residents were left to foot the bill.
At April’s meeting, Road Committee talked our Board into giving another $1500 of our Park’s road budget to lot 179’s new cul-de-sac. (Remember that lots 178, 179, 180 and 181 all had Bristle Cone addresses at purchase). That means somewhere in the park is not going to get $1500 of gravel/maintenance.
Whatever happened to the people who caused the damage, pay for the damage?
Sincerely,
SF
