Setting the Record Straight on Villa Landscaping Issues

Setting the Record Straight on Villa Landscaping Issues

Did the Villa letter give unit owners accurate information, perhaps misleading

some Villa owners about the costs and benefits of xeriscaping?

Since I attended the Villa meeting where these alleged landscaping issues were discussed, I would like to address the accuracy of the materials that were sent to Villa homeowners. While the materials were somewhat helpful in focusing attention to the two available options, get a cash rebate of excess operating funds or xeriscape the front yard, it was evident to me that the costs and benefits of xeriscaping were not accurately reported.

If you do not vote for xeriscaping the front yard, here is what will happen, at least according to the letter unit owners received:

The likelihood of the more dire or adverse consequences noted above is fortunately remote to nil. Having listened to the Villa representatives discussions that included Bruno Panek, RMI's Facilities Manager, what is the likelihood of those unwanted events happening? What are the facts? Below is a discussion of the items listed above.

1. With respect to whether there will be “significant” assessment increases, there was no such evidence provided at the Villa representatives meeting. What was mentioned was the likelihood that routine cost-of-living increases associated with a new contract will be sought by the landscape provider, e.g., Valley Crest. In general, these contracts are competitively bid and are presumably awarded based on a combination of the value of the existing contract, the contractor’s performance and costs in what is still recognized as a depressed economy. The implied warning provided by Bruno Panek was intended to cover past budgetary decisions that took into account the presence of a built-in surplus of excess funds that in future budgets will be eliminated by the board’s decision to comply with IRS regulations that requires the return to Villa unit owners of excess operating funds. That past operating fund “cushion” will no longer be available in the future to absorb any part of future contract increases. As a result, increased operating costs will of necessity be passed on to the homeowners, assuming there are no available cost cutting measures.

2. Whether special assessments will be required to fund an unbudgeted project goes without saying regardless of how you cast your ballot. For similar reasons as noted in (1) above, excess operating funds will no longer be available to support or fund unbudgeted projects. By alluding to the hypothetical need for special assessments to fund unbudgeted projects, the Villa letter attempts to motivate homeowners into casting their ballot for xeriscaping when doing so will have absolutely no effect on the need for special assessments to fund an unbudgeted project. Furthermore, no unbudgeted projects were identified.

3. The elimination of front lawn water sprinklers with drip irrigation will lower water utility costs, but not by up to 50%, as claimed. The projected 50% savings in utility costs is presumably based on two false assumptions. First, the square footage of front and back grass areas are the same. But that's not true, rather than 50% each they are roughly 35% in front and 65% in the back. Therefore, eliminating all watering in front would likely yield no more than a 35% reduction in overall utility costs. But all front yard watering will not be eliminated, only reduced. Second, to achieve up to a 50% savings, all watering in both front and back yards must be converted to drip irrigation. By factoring in the amount of front yard water usage from drip irrigation, overall water utility savings would go down to less than 25%, which is a far cry from the reported savings of up to 50%.

4. The problem with existing surface roots as posing a trip hazard was described by RMI’s Bruno Panek as a backyard issue, presumably based on the type of trees planted in the backyards, and was not identified as a front yard issue. Furthermore, Mr. Panek told the assembled group that this problem could be addressed from funds available under the existing contract, making it unnecessary to use excess operating funds for this particular purpose. It remains unclear why this issue was identified as an issue requiring the use of excess operating funds.

5. Tree roots may cause damage to the driveways or walkways. While true, no evidence was provided to demonstrate that this was or will become a problem in the future, especially given the proximity of the tree(s) planted in front to the driveways or walkways.

6. Whether pine cone and needle droppings can cause a fire hazard goes without saying. The real issue here is whether RMI is sensitive enough to the hazardous issue to require the landscape contractor to remove that potential fire hazard on a regular and recurring basis. If the pine cones and needles are not being collected regularly, the problem lies with RMI, not with the presence of the picturesque pine tree.

7. Although tree removal was mentioned, there are no plans to remove any front yard trees. As an aside, pine tree roots were not found not to be the cause of broken or missing sewer pipes, although such roots may find their way into missing or damaged pipe sections that occurred during construction.

Ron Johnson 1 September 2011