Circle C Neighbors

What I would like to see...

May 21, 2003

-By Another Circle C Homeowner

... is real information about themselves from the individual members of the board.

Does is ever strike anyone else as curious that Ken Rigsbee, Jim O'Reilly and Steve Bartlett never tell anyone a single specific thing that they have in mind to accomplish? Why do they never say what direction that they have in mind for this neighborhood except in the vaguest, most general terms?

How is it that Steve Bartlett, a non-resident with known developer ties, gets put on the ballot and then never makes a single public statement except to answer the nominating committee questionaire? His ''vision'' as a director is ''to continue to protect and enhance the values of the neighborhood.'' What kind of campaign is that? More of the same is what that statement says to me. Who is he really and what does he have in mind? He doesn't personally return phone calls or e-mails from homeowners. Yet for 15 years he has been in charge of things here. Why is he so intent on being an ''un-paid volunteer'' director in our neighborhood?

I'd like to see complete, financial disclosure.

Why is the balance sheet that goes with the income and expense statement omitted from the annual report? It is impossible to evaluate how our money is being handled without it. For example, according to Jim O'Reilly's letter that was attached to the report, we are each paying $34.42 per month for the services and amenities provided here in Circle C. $34.42 times 12 months equals $413.04 per household annually. According to the annual report there are 3238 lots in Circle C of which 2889 have residences and of those, 2677 are paying $413.04 per year in assessments. $413.04 times 2677 equals $1,105,708.08. Assuming that the remaining residences pay only half of the full assessment, 2889 minus 2677 equals 212 homes times $413.04 divided by two equals $43,782.24 in additional assessments. Assuming further that the remaining, undeveloped lots pay $0.25 per $100 in value (per the Circle C Covenants) and are valued at only $40,000 each, $0.25 times 40,000 divided by 100 equals $100 per lot. 3238 total lots minus 2889 developed lots equals 349 lots. Which means another $34,900 in assessments for a total of (at least) $1,184,390.42 ($34,900 plus $43,782.24 plus $1,105,708.08).

The 2002 and 2003 budgets (they are identical, in case anyone hadn't noticed) estimate only a total income from dues at $1,050,000 and last year only $977,074.74 was collected, meaning that at least $207,315.58 in assessments is still owing from last year alone.

Without a balance sheet it is not possible to know how this is being treated on the books. Since this year's budget only estimates $1,050,000 in collections again I can only assume that no effort is planned to collect that money and, even more alarming, that no effort will be made to collect unpaid dues this year, either.

I'd like to see a professionally prepared needs analysis.

Whatever happened to goal-oriented budgeting of resources? I have examined the 2002 budget (and have compared it to the corresponding income and expense statement) have have noticed some rather curious entries. For example, 85% of the money that we get for inspection and review is lost to the cost of the ''service.'' I have learned that Susan Hoover gets that money. Do we need to be paying over 30 thousand dollars annually for this?

Last year's interest income was $4,258.87 or only slightly more than 2% of the estimated $180,000 cash in banks we are supposed to have (calculated as simple interest only). Even this percentage ignores the fact that interest could have been earned on the $1,217,624.23 that was received last year by the HOA. Considering that very real possibility (and the fact that interest income on funds is compounded daily) lowers the effective rate of return even more. If you calculate our effective rate of interst with the assumption that $1.2 Million of our dollars is only in the bank for one month out of the year, and that the remaining time the balance is $180,000, the effective rate of interst on our money is 1.5% simple interest, less if compounding is figured into the calculation.

Is this really the best return on our money we are able to find? If you think so, consider this: 91 day US Treasury Bills (ZERO risk) are being sold every Monday at a 1.67% discount. That means that $180,000 in T-Bills can be bought for $176,994 and in 91 days they will be worth $180,000, a return of almost 1.7% in only 90 days! That same investment (no risk, remember) can be made four times annually yielding a total return of $12,024 or almost 6.8% annually without re-investing the interest.

As has been often pointed out, most, if not all of our money is being deposited at Merrill, Lynch where Jim O'Reilly works. I do not have to assume that there is any kind of criminal activity or self-dealing going on to wonder why this is so. Jim O'Reilly is supposed to be a financial investment expert. He and the other board members are supposed to be looking out for our best interests. Perhaps their vision just isn't all that good.

I'd like to see is the justification for some of the things I see our money being spent on.

Why do we pay taxes? Did you know that our HOA could qualify as a tax-exempt organization if it would only engage in non-taxable activity and then make the application? Why isn't this being done? In part it is because we are charging money for things that automatically disqualify the association. What things? We charge for inspection and review and then give 85 cents from every dollar to Susan Hoover. Is this smart? We charge pool fees ($10,000 last year on a pool that costs us over $250,000 to operate).

And speaking of the pool, when I drove down Escarpment today I noticed it was full of people, but not open to the residents because, once again, the swim team was having a competition there. Although I have seen numerous references to what that swim team brings to this neighborhood I have yet to see where it brings in any money. Can anyone show me any documentation regarding the payments actually made to the HOA from the swim team? Has anyone bothered to calculate how much the swim team is costing us? Who is benefitting here? Like most people, I might feel a bit less critical if someone had bothered to ask me first before giving away my pool to a swim team made up primarily of people who don't even live here.

Oh, yeah, did I mention that on the way down Escarpment I also could not help but notice that the sprinklers were on again IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY when evaporation is greatest. The water that cost us $116,382.55 last year was running down the street, again at our expense. I haven't seen the contract that we have with Circle C landscaping (another of Susan Hoover's enterprises) but I'll guarantee you she is not responsible for paying that bill. Small wonder that she is in no hurry to do anything about the problem although is has been often reported.

Why do we subsidize the builders here? We are paying half of the bill for the information center. I have seldom seen a building less worthy of its name. The only information available there is directions to the new houses being built. The employees of Full Circle Management, the company that staffs the place, are some of the least informed and least helpful people whose salaries I have ever paid. Did I mention that Full Circle Management is another one of Susan Hoover's enterprises here?

Before any of you loyalists begin attacking me for spreading sedition, let me say that I am only expressing my amazement that so many diverse things could be accomplished by someone whose formal and professional training consists of little more than being a friend of Gary Bradley's since his days at Texas Tech. Will wonders never cease? I still wonder why the HOA needs to spend money for the information center at all. I don't see what we are getting. And don't tell me its the website or the e-mail communications, either of which could be run from anywhere with a computer and which Denise Nordstrom (Susan Hoover's partner) admitted she does from her computer at 5919 LaCrosse, a office owned by the HOA that she uses exclusively and does not pay us for.

What's going on here? Have you looked at the Official Circle C Ranch website? The Homeowner's section is useless, and the information it contains is either outdated, edited or just as readily available elsewhere, like on this website, FOR FREE!!! Why are we paying $20,000 for someone to maintain a website that we don't need and is not responsive to us?

I'd like to see is an honest attmept to save us all money on our homeowner fees.

The annual report tells us about what happened last year and how great it is to be here (unless you happen to be one of those people Jim O'Reilly vilified with his letter attached to it). We are told about the great Circle C Amenities: Swim Center,
Landscaping Maintenance, Homeowner Communications (info center, e-mail, website) and the Homeowner Events that our homeowner fees pay for. We are told about the nearby golf course and tennis courts (for which we pay to advertise) and the Child Development center (another of, you guessed it, Susan Hoover's enterprises, directed also by none other than Gary Bradley himself). Does anyone know how much the Child Development Center pays to us for the use of our land and building? I can't find any record of our being paid anything for it.

Why is it that NOT ONE of the contracts that our board of directors has entered into is the result of competitive bidding and (except for possibly a swimming pool contract) every one of them is with Susan Hoover? Why is it that the only competitive bidding that has ever taken place here is for the garbage service, something the HOA does not pay for anyway? Hasn't Susan Hoover got a garbage collection service?

We may or may not need to pay at all for a landscaping service (there are many alternatives), a pool we can only use after others are not using it, and an information center which supplies information we really have little use for that we cannot more readily get elsewhere. I certainly have my doubts. What I don't doubt is that if we elect Rigsbee, O'Reilly and Bartlett as our board what you see now is what you'll continue to get.