Pacemaker Fishing Forum

BACKGROUND:  We hope that you have been reading the Villager, the monthly magazine that our Homeowners' Association publishes.  If you have, you should be aware that the Ashburn Village Community Association Board of Directors ("AVCA BoD") wants to:  (1) borrow about $11 million in a 30-year mortgage, (2) to spend on our Sports Pavillion ("SP").  (They originally proposed spending about $30 million.)  Part of this would be updating and repair, but a substantial majority of it would be to expand it and create new facilities and capabilities that do not presently exist.  There are about 5070 voting households in our Village, so the effect of these two actions would be to add a liability = (total mortgage amount)/5070   to your existing liabilities.  Such a mortgage would be the liability of the AVCA homeowners' association ("HOA"); however, if the mortgage went into default, the bank could proceed against and obligate or encumber individual property owners.  The AVCA BoD proposes to increase your monthly dues to pay for this.  This document outlines the reasons we are opposed to these proposals.

BRIEF HISTORY:  Work on these proposals was begun several years ago, after a survey was taken asking for suggestions for improvement of our Village.  The survey was made available to all AVCA residents, and was answered by about 580 people.  About 480 of these wanted to improve the SP, and this latter number was used as the basis for initiating studies and plans to renovate, expand and improve the SP.  We see the following problems with this approach:  none of the questions were asked in conjunction with questions about how to pay for it, such as "Would you be willing to pay for (possible improvement or feature)?", or "How much would you be willing to pay for (possible improvement or feature)?"  Unsurprisingly, there were many suggestions, but note that only 480 people out of aproximately 5070 households made such suggestions.  No survey based on a self-selected sample of 11% of a population can be relied on to represent that population.

ESTIMATED SPORTS PAVILION USAGE:  In spite of numerous requests for estimates of what fraction of residents actually use the SP, no such estimate of usage has been forthcoming.  One of the aspects of this situation that concerns us is that no such estimate has been made, in spite of the fact that all users have to present a bar-coded ID card to use the SP.  One approximation of the usage is about 18%, based on one month's count of check-ins, divided by the average of 2.8 persons per household.  As we understand it, this figure does not consider and correct for multiple uses by individuals, so is probably high.  Note that only 8% of the relevant population wanted changes, even when no costs were attached. 

CONCERNS ABOUT TOTAL COST ESTIMATES:  (1)  Presently we manage our finances by accumulating reserves for estimated future repairs and replacements.  None of the cost estimates promulgated by the BoD include any such reserve accumulations for the future of this project, meaning that when it starts wearing out, there will be no reserves set aside for it.  (2)  In our opinion, the estimates for likely increases in operating and upkeep, costs such as maintenance, repair, utilities, insurance, have been irresponsibly low.  The size of this project has been a "moving target", since the size and scope has been reduced as objections have increased.  An earlier proposal for approximately doubling the amount of covered area by two had an estimate of increased operating costs of about $3/month.  Note that we presently spend about $35/month in operating costs for the SP, hence our disbelief of the $3/month estimate.

FURTHER OBJECTIONS:  These two proposed actions would be significant departures from our existing policies.  Presently, we spend our dues money on taking care of what we have.  Those facilities were and are what was present, and what we all could expect to use, when we made decisions about buying our homes.  The proposals would do at least two new things that are bad ideas:  (1)  We would be taking out a mortgage to do things in our community, instead of our present "pay as you go" policy. Supporters of these proposals say that improving the SP will make our homes more attractive and valuable, which may or may not be true for some prospective purchasers.  However, ALL prospective purchasers will know of an extra few thousand dollars of liability on top of their mortgage.  (2)  The proposed additions and capabilities were not present, and what you could expect to use and pay for, when you purchased and moved in.  All are now available from businesses in the area.  We feel that it is improper to (in effect) tax all AVCA residents for new facilities and features that only some of our residents would use.  New options and facilities, not available when we purchased our homes, should be paid for by their users, who can find them elsewhere in the community.

Proponents of the proposals have been posing them in terms of whether one is in favor of taking care of the SP, or letting it deteriorate; this is clearly NOT the choice.  We agree that we should take good care of the SP.  However, all of the planning for these proposals proceeded on the assumption that there would be expansion; to our knowledge, no consideration has been given to the idea of simply repairing our existing facilities, or considering particularly changes on a coase-by-case basis.

Unlike ALL other committee meetings whose meeting times and place are and have been posted in the Villager, there has never been such information posted about the committee that has been meeting for many months discussing how to spend up to $30 million of your money.

WHAT TO DO:  If you are opposed to these proposals, it is vitally important that you vote against it when you are mailed your ballot.  The reasons are:  (1) Our governing documents only require 10% of the households' vote to constitute a quorum.  That is not a misprint -- 10% = 507 votes, so this vote could be carried by 254 people.  (2)  This project is enthusiastically supported by groups that use the SP regularly (82% or more of us will be paying for their use; what do you expect?), and (3) they will turn out and vote overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal.  (4) Remember that 480 people, a substantial majority of a quorum, have already expressed support for additions.

** Since this was written, the AV BOD voted to kill the $11M expansion & renovation project as currently structured and to initiate a 5-10 year plan to incrementally do what is needed for maintaining the Pavilion within current budget from existing reserves and CIP (capital improvement plan) funds.

Stay tuned!!