Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budgeting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs whether to start saving now for master‑plan projects or wait for final recommendations
Summary
At a long discussion the RCSCW board considered staff modeling that would raise about $660,000 in year one via a $20/year dues add (a $100 per member pledge over five years) versus smaller or deferred options; directors and residents debated timing, fairness to current residents and use of existing reserves.
Budget and Finance chair Director Becknell and CFO Cliff Swan presented modeling showing two main options for beginning to fund master plan priorities: a $20 per year dues increase (modeled as $100 spread over five years) that would raise roughly $660,000 the first year, or a $5 per year approach paired with deferrals of some capital projects. The modeling assumed injecting $6 million into master‑plan work combined with reserve funds and ongoing capital contributions to produce roughly $15 million in investable funds over the planning horizon.
Director Becknell said the committee favored the $20 option to avoid deferring irrigation and other high‑priority projects that would cost more later. "The budget and finance committee in large had voted to go with option A, which was the $20 increase," she said. Directors voiced concerns about asking current residents to pay for projects future residents will also enjoy. Director Chapman called for caution: "I think we're putting the cart before the horse here" and urged waiting until the consultants' final recommendations to set priorities.
Residents who called into the meeting echoed that view; one said delaying a funding decision until after the master plan is final would reduce the risk of funding projects that may not be chosen. Staff noted the board could defer a decision for one year and asked Cliff to model the financial impact of postponing the start of a funding stream.
Why it matters: The board must balance preserving reserve fund health (the fully funded balance target discussed was about 40%) with community appetite for capital work. Staff recommended presenting the funding options for board decision as part of the April capital and May operating budget schedule, but emphasized that any multi‑year change must still be approved annually by future boards.
Next steps: Directors asked staff to run additional scenarios (phased increases, different timing) and to show the fiscal cost of deferring the decision by one year; the board will review those models at the April workshop and consider whether to include a funding add in the FY27 draft budget.
