Some concern was expressed at the last meeting about the new fees for processing design review applications. Specifically, how the fees were arrived at and why they are being introduced now when the processing was performed at no charge in the past.

First, I would like to address the question of the timing of the imposition of the fees. In the past, because of the small number of homes sold yet, the association dues were not close to covering the cost of operation. We were being heavily subsidized by DMB, the developer. At the time, they decided to absorb the cost of processing the reviews in order to “kick start” the landscaping and improvement to the community. As we are getting closer to the time when we will be self-supporting, it makes sense for the costs of that processing to be borne by the people benefitting from the application rather than by those not involved. I realize that we all ‘benefit’ intangibly from any improvement to our properties, but this is not something an economist would define as a public good, and it makes no sense to treat it as one. It’s time we got used to being an independent community.

As to the amount of the fees, they are based largely on how complicated the review process is, not necessarily how complicated the proposed design is. We know, from experience, that residents do not always read the design review guidelines closely, nor do their contractors. To be fair to the whole community and ensure consistency, we need to specifically verify that, for example, the proposed lights are of an accepted color, do not shine upwards, and will be mounted as required. The rules are quite detailed in some areas, and it takes the time of a paid employee to be sure they are followed.

Fees for dock extension and for decks extending over the rip-rap are high because, in addition to reviewing the details of the application in light of the 125-page permit from the Army Corp of Engineers and the 31-page permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, we are required to monitor the pile driving and to ensure that the contractor requirements for building over the water are followed.

The lower fees for other work are based on an estimate of the cost of reviewing and approving the applications distributed over the number of applications reviewed (sometimes reviewed multiple times). It would be more accurate if we simply tracked the costs of approving new applications and billed the resident after the review was completed, but it seemed more reasonable to make a good faith estimate of the average cost and let the resident know up front what the charge will be.

We realize that the actual numbers surprised some, especially if you consider only the application fee without knowing what the related work was going to cost, but we made every effort to create a fee schedule that was made in good faith and was fair to the applying resident and to the community as a whole.