Sunrise Villas Homeowner Alliance

Homeowner Forum

Return to Homepage
Scroll Down For Content
This forum is intended for comments at large. Comments will be refreshed weekly, archived and made available for membership discussion/action
Comment box is at the BOTTOM! Comments are in the order received

34 responses to “Homeowner Forum”

  1. For those who weren’t in attendance, the vote tabulation for the Landscape Plan Special Assessment was completed at today’s Special Session.
    Total votes: 178
    Yes: 135
    No: 43

  2. FYI – In light of a possible $4.5M project, homeowners expressed interest in knowing the Association was insured appropriately. This included not only internal coverage, but coverage against the possibility of complex multi-insurer litigation.

    In that interest, I reached out to the Association’s insurance agent. This is what I learned:
    – Accelerant National Insurance: General Insurance – $2M annual cap over two occurrences (the $15,000,000 umbrella goes over this limit)
    – Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co: Directors and Officers insurance – $1M annual cap (the $15,000,000 Umbrella goes over this)
    – The Hanover Insurance Co: (Workers Comp)
    – PMA Insurance Group: Fidelity Bond (insures the Association’s money)
    – Federal Insurance Company: $15M Umbrella (excess liability)

    So, according to the Association’s insurance agent, while individual policies cap out below $4.5M, SV carries a $15M umbrella policy that protects in excess.
    Further inquiries may be directed to LaBarre/Oksnee Insurance at, PROOF@HOA-Insurance.com or by phoning 800-698-0711

  3. In other news 📣 The Palm Springs Young Playwrights Festival (PSYPF) is Sunday, June 7th – 12:00pm (90 mins) @ the Palm Springs Cultural Center – Visit https://psypf.org for more info, tickets encourage $10.00 donation in advance, or at the door.

    The Festival, which I’ve performed in and volunteered at over the years, is an annual event that empowers high school students across Riverside County to write original plays and see their work brought to life on stage. Selected winners receive professional mentorship, collaborate with actors and directors, and have their plays presented in staged readings at the Palm Springs Cultural Center. Each playwright also receives a scholarship to support their artistic growth—making PSYPF a powerful launchpad for the next generation of storytellers. See you there!
    – Christine, 1824 e. Sonora Road

  4. Hello,
    This is Peter Harris.

    I agree with the previous author.

    We live in a “Tale of Two Cities’” here at Sunrise Villas.
    I believe “one group” should not suffer at the hands of the other group.
    We are all ONE group.
    There are many who have lived here for decades, and there are some who moved here recently.
    We welcome everyone.
    We have lived here for 22 years.

    Long time owners and previous BOD’s have been great stewards of our beautiful, and unique community. It is a “jewel.”

    We should always remember this, as Sunrise Villas has only become more desirable for the newer homeowners who joined us. We’ve kept it up for them.

    We should not pressure homeowners who are financially unstable to support this project.
    This is not the way to go.

    In my opinion, everyone deserves to live here…rich, poor, young, old, all colors, etc. No one should be feeling pressured, or stressed.
    Each one of us is a piece of this puzzle.
    Sadly, I have heard some alarming statememets made by more financially stable homeowners.
    This made me feel very uncomfortable, to say the least.

    Statements like:

    “These.folks will have to leave if they cant afford to pay the assessment.”

    “Why are some folks at Sunrise Villas living in the 19th Century.?”

    “They better go along with this.”

    This is just toxic talk that is unhelpful, and just divides our community. We all know better.

    We should be filled with gratitude and pride, to be a part of Sunrise Villas.
    No matter how you vote, please remember, we are ALL neighbors.

    We have to walk by each other every day. Hopefully with a smile.
    Thank you for your time.

  5. At yesterday’s meeting I heard a homeowner who’s comfortable voting and paying for a project’s “framework.”
    I think of it this way –
     
    Some are situated well enough to pay for a kitchen reno not caring what the countertops, fixtures, tiled surfaces, etc., cost. They can just cut a big check and worry about details later.
     
    Some are not so well heeled. Those kitchen renovators need a clear-cut budget and a list of deliverables before handing over a lot of money – HOPING the promised, appliance rebate comes through or they’ll be screwed into upcharges.
     
    Guessing there are both types of homeowners at Sunrise Villas and the Board is counting on the first set to push through a “yes” landscape vote.

  6. Christine here:
    Please note, the Landscape Sustainability Subcommittee was an advisory group formed to provide homeowner perspective after the six 2‑bedroom units were converted without proper notice. During its tenure, we completed several useful projects — the Community Plants & Style Guide, updated plant reference list, expanded ground‑cover/rock palette, and the homeowner survey. AB 1572 arose during this time, but it was not the subcommittee’s primary focus; our role was simply to offer community insight to the Landscape Committee, which handled Comms, and decisions with the Board.
    IMO For transparency and balanced input, it would be beneficial to form an AB 1572–specific implementation homeowner group; otherwise the Boards’ perspective will be the only one shaping the implementation and narrative. Perhaps that will happen at a later time…

  7. Dirk here responding to Oeter Harris re the new committee. Gary disbanded the Landscape Sustainability Committee and replaced it with Board Members Neil, Rhonda and Amy. He never said why, other than that the work of the LSC was finished. My guess is that he was frustrated with the three years spent on the project by the LSC`and what was accomplished (or not accomplished). It has only been in the last 3 and a half months that info on the project has begun to trickle out. The Board is going to do what Gary wants it to do.

  8. Dirk again. A fellow homeowner sent out a May 17 email with his views supporting the project. I think it was sent to everyone. But don’t know for sure. Here is my response.

    Thank you for engaging. It is clear that there are many views about this project, and those views should be shared and discussed. Communication with and among homeowners is critical. I wish the Board had added a Homeowners’ Forum to our website. We all need to talk to one another. And, while there is always a need to maintain order, the three-minute rule limits our ability to do so. A homeowner forum would eliminate the need for groups like the Alliance.

    I agree with you that the current Board has done a great job with management of the HOA. However, if we are going to spend this amount of money, shouldn’t there be guardrails in place to protect the community and the Board itself? While we should take advantage of resources available in our community, is it fair to place the burdens and responsibilities of oversight of a project this large in the hands of volunteers?

    I don’t represent the Alliance, although I support its mission of better communication and transparency. I don’t think the Alliance was formed specifically to deal with the turf conversion project—and those who are “members” are not necessarily on the same page with respect to the project. Communication and transparency have been an issue with the Board for a long time. I’m not sure where you get the idea that the website is censored. Test it out. Go on the site and post your comments.

    In addition to the Board’s (1) lack of transparency and communication, my biggest concern is its decision not to retain an independent project manager. While I certainly appreciate the hard work of volunteers and board members, this is a $4.5 million project. We need it to be run professionally. While Casey does a great job, and our Board Members are dedicated volunteers, a professional and independent project manager is needed to keep tabs on Herman Design.

    Maybe you know, but the community has yet to receive any explanation as to why the initial agreement with Herman Design did not include redesigning our 50-year-old irrigation system. If you do know, please share. That separately bid project doubled the initial cost. Maybe it was our fault? Was irrigation included in the RFP – I don’t know. But, if it wasn’t included, it only further highlights the need for a professional. And I don’t blame the LSC or Neil, I would have assumed that irrigation would be included in any Landscape Redesign bid.

    Regardless, Herman should have raised the issue immediately – at the very least, wouldn’t it have been pointed out the “exclusions” in its response to the RFP? I don’t know if the costs would have been any lower if the irrigation design was included in the initial bid and never suggested that. But, did other bids include irrigation? If so, were other bids more competitive? We just don’t know.

    Now we are going to let Herman project manage, hiring their contractor and supplier friends and submitting their change orders for unanticipated work. If project management is included in the approximately $100,000 already paid to the firm, it may make sense. (We don’t know.) But we would still benefit from an independent professional overseeing Herman.

    By the way, take a walk over to New Mesquite, the three drives on the north side of Mesquite. Their project is well underway. The finished parts look very nice and the sections still under construction are neat and well organized. I’ve heard that they did not even have to call for a special assessment, selling off some real estate to finance it – probably to Prescott Preserve.

  9. I appreciate this forum for bringing forward such insightful information. Thank you to the person who highlighted the Hermann contract details — that saved me a lot of digging.

    A process concern to add: Hermann was originally hired only for the landscape design (and later irrigation). Under standard practice, that design would then go out to multiple firms — including Hermann — for competitive bids. Instead, they were awarded the full contract without other firms being invited to bid. Was this a condition of their proposal?

    Also, why is the Executive Landscape Steering Committee composed only of Board members? For a project of this scale, involving residents with relevant expertise — engineers, architects, lawyers, project managers — could strengthen oversight and support the Board’s responsibilities.

    These items are simply part of my effort to understand the process and make an informed decision.

  10. BTW, it’s Peter Harris (not anonymous).

  11. The author of today’s (5/19/26) comments above, regarding the latest release of the contract information and fees, is totally correct.
    Why are we getting this vital information so late?
    This should alarm every resident at Sunrise Villas.
    This will make Sunrise Villas financially vulnerable with runaway fees and out of control assessments. Again, I ask, where are these guardrails?

    This project could very well exceed the $4.5 million price tag.

    Obviously, we cannot rely on this Board of Directors for transparency, and fiduciary oversight, or all residents would have been given these documents after they were signed.

    Why were they hidden?
    What’s the excuse?

  12. Sample Letter to the HOA Board (Feel free to use or alter ad needed)

    Subject: URGENT: Homeowner Concerns Regarding Hermann Design Contract & Project Governance

    Dear Members of the Board,

    As a homeowner, we are writing to express urgent concerns regarding the newly released $331,750 landscaping design contract with Hermann Design for our community’s $4.5 million renovation. While we appreciate the work being done to improve our property, the structural terms of this contract, combined with its late publication to the community today, raise serious financial and governance risks that must be addressed before further funds are disbursed.

    1. Severe Financial Risk: Missing Hourly Baselines The contract outlines fixed fees for the various phases (aligned with our 11 zones), but it explicitly includes an hourly rate schedule for “additional hours” and time-and-a-half for overtime. Crucially, the contract completely fails to specify how many hours are included in the base $331,750 fee.

    Without an established baseline of hours, it is contractually impossible for the Board to verify when “included” work ends and when expensive “additional hours” begin. This leaves our community exposed to unchecked budget creep.

    2. Conflict of Interest: Designer Acting as Project Manager The risk is compounded by the decision to have Hermann Design act as both the project designer and the project manager. This completely eliminates the vital check-and-balance system necessary for a $4.5 million capital project. We have effectively given the entity who stands to profit from additional hours the authority to oversee and approve their own time tracking.

    3. Request for Board Action Even though this agreement was signed on February 27th, it was only published to owners today—leaving the community with no reasonable time to analyze it. Because the Board has a fiduciary duty to protect HOA funds, we strongly urge the Board to pause work or immediately execute a contract amendment to protect the community using one of the following mechanisms:

    Implement a “Not-to-Exceed” (NTE) Rider: Amend the contract to state that the $331,750 is an all-inclusive, fixed fee for the completed design, and that additional hourly billing can only be triggered by a Board-approved Change Order that physically alters the project’s scope.
    Require an Hourly Exhibit: Demand that Hermann Design provide an itemized breakdown of the exact hours per labor category that are included in the base fee, creating a measurable baseline.
    Enforce a Strict Notice Threshold: Add a clause requiring the contractor to give written notice and get explicit Board approval before any additional hourly or overtime clock begins ticking.
    We need transparency and rigorous oversight to ensure this project succeeds without draining our reserves or resulting in unexpected special assessments. I look forward to hearing how the Board intends to manage these specific contractual vulnerabilities.

    Sincerely,

  13. I think everyone should make their own decision and vote what you personally feel is the right decision for your own investment here at Sunrise Villas. Everyone has an opinion…I don’t think anyone should blame one another for their decision. If you really feel you need to express your opinion, you should show up to the HOA Meetings or attend via zoom…Your voice will make a difference….

  14. FAQ#94: Question: Will specific financing terms be provided before the vote?

    Answer: Yes. We want to be clear about what you are voting on. While the Board sets the strategic direction, the Owners must
    legally approve the financial mechanism. You will be voting specifically to approve…..

    Prior to this vote, we will provide the exact loan terms, interest rates, and the specific dollar impact on your monthly
    assessment so your vote is fully informed.
    ‐———– ———
    Clearly no exact specifics have been provided. Some broad scope in the January meeting, but no update since then. Owners who will have no choice but Option C deserve to know this disclosure BEFORE voting.

  15. In prepping for my Vote, I have been diligently reviewing any/all information.
    Per Gary’s recent communication, homeowners have been encouraged to consult the official project documents on the Association website — including the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). However, some statements in the FAQs do not fully answer the questions asked, or are not supported by documentation.

    For example:
    The FAQ #56, Contracts & Oversight section, states that a “cheaper plan would destroy property values.” My real estate agent/asset manager requested the documentation supporting that claim, since any Board decision that references property‑value impact requires proper disclosure, transparency, and compliance with Civil Code §§ 5200–5210.

    The Board responded in writing: “A search of the association’s records indicates no such document(s) related to your inquiry exist.”

    Homeowners deserve accurate, documented information as we evaluate this proposal.
    I am happy to share this communication from my Real Estate Agent/Asset Manager if anyone wants to reference it. Christine @ 1824 e. Sonora Road (former landscape subcommittee member)

  16. I’m not clear on what the “No” or “Don’t vote” folks are thinking. And there are some outright lies being circulated by this “Alliance”, which claims to be about transparency but only shows views that align to its leader. And most of you are “anonymous”. That leader, a former board member, seems to be pursuing a personal agenda that is not in the best interest of this community.

    Look at your calendar. It is mid 2026. We have basically two years to get this landscaping done.

    And NO, we don’t get to “magically decide” that all of our turf is functional. Desert Water has been involved in the planning, and helped the landscape committee and board arrive at the 59% reduction.

    A NO vote or a situation where we can’t get a quorum and make a decision is only going to serve to increase costs even further.

    None of us WANT to spend $16,000, however the law is very clear. Hoping that enough of us realize that this plan the committee and board have worked on for 3 years now is our best path forward.

  17. The comment made about the existing desert scape not being included in the total percentage of required turf removal is a very good point. I don’t know that we even know what that number is, but it should be included in percentage, I think!

    Turf removal of 59% is way above the laws recommendation. We can determine what we use, The LSC is telling us what is functional or not. I say this, not to save grass, but to save money!

    Gary said, this is about turf removal? How is this not about percentage of water saved????? Why do this if its not to save water, what’s the point! The law is written poorly and will land in the courts. Rushing to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason, I question?

    Quick note on rebates, they might go down, but they might go up. A San Diego Water dept. Raised their rebate by $2 a sq. ft. from $3 to $5? My friends association received an additional rebate check of 100k.

  18. Dirk and others….please feel free to cut and paste from the Sample Letter that was posted here. Thanks for considering this.

  19. This is Dirk again.

    BALLOTS ARE OUT. VOTE YES. OR VOTE NO. OR JUST DON’T VOTE!
    We received our ballot today and we have finally been informed of the payment options – although details on financing a loan to pay the assessment under option C are lacking.
    Point 4 of the letter from the Board is headed: “What you Need to Do” and goes on to state: “you need to vote on whether to approve the funding . . ..” In fact, you don’t need to do anything. If you are inclined to vote “NO,” your vote may help establish the quorum needed to count any votes.

    I believe in the democratic process and have voted in every local, state and national election since 1972 when I turned 18. However, the voting process under the Association’s governing documents allows voters to have an impact on the outcome by not voting.

    Under the Association’s governing documents, a quorum is needed to even consider a vote on the Board’s proposal. We have 239 units in our community. A quorum of at least 120 votes is required to consider the vote. If only 119 owners vote, the matter will not pass. If 120 owners vote and 61 owners vote for the measure and 59 owners vote against it, the measure will pass, allowing 25% of the community to decide the community’s future. Your “NO” vote might be better expressed by not voting at all.
    It is hard to know how many people will vote on the proposal, but I doubt that there are 120 owners in favor of the project as currently envisioned.

    Do not take this message as trying to change your vote. If you are in favor of the plan as currently laid out by the Board, you should cast your vote. Personally, I realize that we need to comply with the law and wish the process had been handled better from the beginning – three and a half years ago in the fall of 2022. The project could have been completed by now at a much lower cost and with the ability to take full advantage of available rebates.

    After three and a half years, the Board now wishes to rush through this project and ignore input from homeowners because there is a fear of escalating costs and losing the remaining rebates. The President and the Board even threaten a lawsuit to force the plan through. Why? While fears of escalating costs are valid, we may not be in a position to apply for rebates when the rebating agencies start to issue them for the 2026-27 Fiscal Year starting July1. In any event, instead of threatening an expensive lawsuit, why not go back to their constituents and come up with a plan in which we can have greater confidence?

  20. This is Dirk again. Great proposed letter to the Board. The conflict of interest issue with having the Architect handle project management is extremely concerning. Please grant permission to cut and paste and send the letter to the Board.

  21. Sample letter.

    Dear Board of Directors,

    I am writing to formally express serious concerns regarding the proposed $4.5 million landscape project intended to comply with AB 1572 and DWA 80. While I understand the importance of legal compliance, the current proposal lacks the transparency necessary for such a significant financial commitment from the homeowners.

    Specifically, I am requesting clarification and documentation on the following points:

    1. **Detailed Budget Breakdown:** The community has been presented with a $4.5 million figure without any itemized breakdown of expenses or broad categories of spending.

    2. **Conflict of Interest:** It has been noted that the designer for this project has also been appointed as the Project Manager. This dual role removes the essential “checks and balances” required to protect the Association’s financial interests.

    3. **Competitive Bidding:** I am concerned by reports that this project involves “no-bid” contracts and a requirement that all contractors must have previously worked with the designer. This practice prevents the Association from ensuring we are receiving fair market value.

    4. **Loan and Payment Terms:** There is conflicting information regarding payment timelines (60 days vs. 2 years) and a total lack of information regarding interest rates or payoff timelines for the proposed loan options.

    **Formal Request for Records**

    Pursuant to California Civil Code § 5200, I hereby request to inspect and receive copies of the following Association records:

    * The fully executed contract between the Association and the Herman Design Company.

    * All written bids, proposals, or estimates received for this landscape project.

    * Any itemized budget or financial projections used to justify the $4.5 million project cost.

    I look forward to your prompt response and hope to see a Town Hall meeting scheduled soon to address these concerns with the community in a transparent manner.

    Sincerely,

  22. No details about the project. Budget breakdown missing. No idea how much Herman Design is getting – at least that should be a concrete number. Don’t know broad categories

    Not sure if the two $8000 options have up to two years to pay – it states that. But is that practical – is it taking more than two years to actually complete the project? Don’t they need the money in advance of signing or paying contracts? The vast majority will choose option B or C. (Who would pay $16k up front if you did not need to do so?)

    No estimates of interest rates etc if choosing payments – no amounts mentioned or payoff timeline. 5 yrs vs 15 yrs would be a major difference. It seems like many of our owners will need to do this – don’t they need some more info that is more recent than the speculations given in January? Some might want to consider taking out a shorter term loan like 2 or 3 years vs the 5 or 15 year loan that the board might secure. They would need some solid numbers to shop for a comparison. Question #94 in the FAQ said this would be revealed before the vote.

    Also they say Option B owners will have 60 days to pay and another place the letter says 2 years. So two years from mid-June if approved (due mid-August 2026) – would be mid August 2028. They are saying the entire project must be done by July of 2028 to allow the DWA to approve installs, etc. Is this practical?

    Of course they can load the loan up for the people in Option C since there are no parameters for that. That would be totally unfair to those people – people that can least afford this project it would seem. When a person builds a house they get a construction loan and they draw on it as the various contractors expect payments. That alone would be a huge management task as Option C people should not finance the entire project up front through the bank loan.

    Also the quorum states they need 121 to approve of the plan. BUT if they don’t have that then, the Inspector(s) of Election can choose to accept LATE ballots and do a recount at monthly meetings with NO TIME LIMIT apparently. So that would be passing the decision on to that organization as it reads.

    And once again if it is NOT approved they said they “may need to spend additional funds to seek court approval to comply with the law”. At least it says MAY!

  23. To answer the questions concerning why they’re redoing the previously done front desertscape. In my opinion… Because they’re freaking ugly and inconsistent. In front of my unit is poorly maintained pink rock and lantana trimmed into bales of hay which has a truly poor esthetic appeal. Everything should be the same landscape theme to have better visual appeal and assist in holding property value and also have consistent maintenance requirements.

  24. This is Dirk. 1826 East Sonora. I received the anonymous letter and agree with many of its points. We should have hired an independent consultant three and a half years ago when this project was initiated. I recommended we do so after I resigned from the Landscape Sustainability Committee after seeing how much time was being wasted by members wanting to preserve the turf around their own units. My suggestion was given no consideration. Had we done so the project would likely have been completed by now, at a lower cost and with full rebates. (We have already lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in rebates). Now they are rushing to get this done because rebates are vanishing.

  25. We were only presented with ONE option. Why were “they” not able to get mutiple bids and show us other choices.
    This is a HUGE SHORTFALL, in our opinion.
    Why are we rushing to do this project when other HOAs are taking their time? Just take a walk, or drive and take a look around the HOA communities in Palm Springs and see for yourself.

    If we rush to do this project quickly, we will surely make mistakes and perhaps OVERDO more conversion than is necessary, spending more money than would be required.
    We could never go back.

    Plus, we will be having MAJOR state elections that could have
    an effect.on these currect requirements and the direction of the project.
    As we all know things EVOLVE.
    Administrations change and we must remain FLEXIBLE.

    It feels as if the Board of Directors is pressuring residents to go along with this ill conceived plan. The Board has threatened.legal action in a previous communication
    This should sound off the alarm bells as they rather take legal action then sit down and work with the homeowners on a COMPROMISE PLAN. One that would be more benficial, less expensive, and more inclusive. Instead, the Board would rather spend OUR MONEY ON LAWYERS.

  26. I agree wholeheartedly with the homeowner’s post – April 30th. When answering one of the FAQs, Director Austin positioned Sunrise Villas as “resort living.” I questioned this title and noted that now, more than ever, is the time to recognize Sunrise Villas for what it is; it is a “homeowner community.” It is NOT Canyon Ranch Spa and Resort, nor was it ever intended as such. And 4.5M will not make it such no matter what.
    My email to Director Austin was forwarded to the Board and to this date it goes unaddressed. But yes, the question remains – how can we handsomely comply with these new water restrictions and not break the bank. There are many other ways to spend dollars at Sunrise Villas to make it a better “homeowner community” and not some unwarranted “resort.”

  27. **I think we need to take a step back and look honestly at what Sunrise Villas is today. Yes, we’re in a great location — but that’s where the “great” currently ends. We are not a gated community, and being in South Palm Springs means we deal with a significant homeless presence that regularly affects our neighborhood. My own car has been broken into, and I once stepped inside for five minutes and had sunglasses stolen out of it.**

    **We also have coyotes walking right up to patio doors. The sprinkler system sprays parked cars and damages paint and windows. Several brick walls at the front are cracked or deteriorating. Many landscape lights are burned out or not functioning at all. These are basic issues that still haven’t been addressed.**

    **Given all of this, I do not understand how the board believes spending $4–5 million dollars on AB1572 compliance — which translates to a $16,000 (or possibly higher) assessment per homeowner — is going to increase our property values. With the current condition of the community, I simply don’t see that outcome.**

    **Before committing homeowners to millions of dollars in assessments, we should be prioritizing safety, maintenance, and the real issues affecting daily life and property value. Landscaping alone will not fix the problems that actually matter.**

  28. On a car lot, I’m shown a few models until I settle on one that fits my needs and budget. This landscape thing – How come we have to drive home one model we may or may not be able to afford? Where are the other cars?

  29. Did anyone else notice that the Landscape Proposal has increased from a $14K assessment to a $16K assessment cap — a 14% jump. How was this determined? There is still no line‑item budget being presented ahead of the vote scheduled for this summer, when both the Board and residents are largely on break and unable to discuss it, so it’s unclear what is driving the increase.

  30. Agree @Puzzling — it’s extra puzzling that already‑converted desertscape Units, many paid for by us homeowners / or rebates, are now being slated for more changes at our expense. Reworking areas feels unnecessary, and just adds to the cost of this expanded proposal IMO.
    — Confused

  31. The board’s decision to not hire a project manager is very alarming. Relying on Herman Design or their affiliates to self-monitor a huge project in excess of $4 million is irresponsible. It is definitely opening up conflict of interests and one would think that our very expensive lawyers would have strongly advised against. There is no evidence that the board members have previous experience to monitor the many technical requirements that a professional manager possesses.

  32. I am glad that we have this. Thank you for creating this website for us.

  33. The puzzling thing to me is that those units that have already been modified to desertscape are somehow excluded from the turf percentage. It seems to me that doing them over again is a giant waste of money and indicative of this new bloated proposal which many residents will not be able to afford.

  34. Can somebody please explain to me why the board did not present to us more than one very expensive landscape design.

Leave a Reply