• Spent $7,500 on CC&R’s and other unnecessary legal fees in 2006. ref 1
• Budgeted another $10,000 for CC&R’s and other legal fees in 2007. ref 2
• Raised dues twice, in part to pay for an HOA management company that we don’t need and that wasn’t hired. ref 3
• Wants to assess $304 each to pay for a $74,000 repair that it keeps putting off. ref 4
• Wants to charge the repairs at M&I Bank and pay interest, while keeping $38,000 in savings. ref 5
• Has failed to get an engineering analysis of the irrigation system, to evaluate what repairs are needed and when, before spending money blindly. This move could have saved costs of temporary repairs, and might save money on the final repairs. ref 6
• Sold the cart, resulting in a cost of over $500 per month for SRI to use its own truck. ref 7

• Upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court in Duffy. ref 8
• Both previous efforts to change the current CC&R’s (in 1982 and 2003) were met with successful lawsuits (Mir and Messer) and a return to the current CC&R’s – but resulting, both times, in unfortunate division in the neighborhood.
• Another effort to change CC&R’s may lead to another lawsuit, which will probably be successful – and costly as well as divisive. ref 9

• The Board represents that there is a “new water use tax” fee (line 7007 of 2007 budget). This statement is incorrect. ref 10
• The Board downplays material changes in its proposed CC&R’s by saying that it is just “updating” the “governing documents.” It is not “updating” them – it is proposing sweeping and material changes that we haven’t needed for thirty years and we don’t need now.
• The Board says that it wants to unite the neighborhood, but it points fingers at neighbors, makes public statements to some neighbors disparaging other neighbors, and seems to be pursuing a goal of keeping this community divided and embattled.

Back to top

Back to top

Back to top

So what does the Arizona Department of Water Resources say about this "new" fee ...