The debate over how best to manage the Seven Lakes Landowners Association's [SLLA] stables was rejoined during the Board of Directors' Monday, June 11 work session. In the end, a proposed policy and fee structure was sent back to committee for more work, and a number of Directors seemed to favor a "pay-as-you-go" strategy, not just for the stables, but for all amenities.
Stables: Who to charge and how much?
The SLLA Directors abandoned plans to cut costs by cutting the size of the stable herd during their Wednesday, May 23 open meeting, but that left hanging the question of how much to charge for rides and classes, and how those charges should apply to residents, guests, and Westsiders.
Director Bob Racine brought to the meeting a two-page stables policy proposal, the fruit of a marathon meeting of the Recreation Committee on Wednesday, June 6.
But it was clear the Board itself has yet to reach consensus on how to handle this amenity, as the proposal drew fire from all sides, eventually sending Racine back to the drawing board.
The Stables Proposal
As presented, the proposal preserved free rides for residents, while noting that residents who have already ridden twice in a week should have a lower priority than those who haven't yet used the stables.
Racine recommended a new guest card system specifically for the stables, charging $15 for a guest card that could be used for up to 20 rides over the course of a year, and limiting each guest to one card. After 20 rides, guests would be charges $20 to ride a horse or $5 to ride a pony.
Westsiders would be allowed to purchase an unlimited individual pass for $300 per year, or to pay $20 to ride a horse or $10 to ride a pony. Guests of Westsiders would pay $30 per trail ride.
Lessons would be $25 for SLLA members and guests and $30 for Westside members and guests.
Simplification Requested
Director Don Fentzlaff was the first to object to the scheme.
"This seems to be pretty complex," he said. "There's lots of ifs and what-fors and everything else. This is awfully complex. I can see a lot of confusion involved."
Treasurer Conrad Meyer echoed Fentzlaff's comments about complexity and homed in on how the 20-ride limit on guest cards would be handled, asking how that would be tracked, as a practical matter.
Noting that the Association has hired a new manager at the stables, Meyer asked whether her input had been incorporated into the proposal and said he felt that input was essential to producing a workable policy.
President Bob Darr asked that the Committee's next proposal make clear any differences between the new proposal and the current polices at the stables; and Director David Buckingham suggested the policy be laid out more like a menu, so that the various charges are clearer.
Racine good-naturedly made note of all the input, saying he would take it back to the Recreation Committee to be incorporated in a rewrite.
What to Do about Guests?
The question of how to accommodate guest riders -- and whether Westsiders should be treated differently than other non-residents -- generated a number of comments from Board members.
"There has got to be some consistency in what we are doing for guest passes," Chuck Leach said. "I, for one, believe, when this place was originally developed, amenities were for people who lived here, who purchased here, and they were amenities for them. I don't think we should be spending our dues money on guests that are from New Jersey that can ride for almost a month free. I can't buy into that."
"I like what Chuck said," Director Steve Ritter added, "and, I kind of agree about what the amenities are for and where we need to go in terms of generating some offsetting revenue."
Ritter questioned whether a $300 unlimited membership for Westsiders made economic sense and suggested that a per ride guest fee might be preferable.
"Are you suggesting that the Westsiders pay the same fee as a guest?" Community Manager Cochran asked.
"What's special about the West Side coming over here to ride, when they don't pay any dues for here?" Ritter asked. "I don't know what the fee should be, but I like the concept better as a pay-as-you-go item, rather saying 'You pay us $X,' and then you can ride unlimited."
Noting that Westsiders -- even those who had purchased annual memberships -- are to use the facility on a "space-available basis," Meyer asked whether that meant Westsiders with reservations could be bumped at the last minute by SLLA members.
Under- or Over-Utilization
Another question raised in the debate was whether the objective should be to limit use of the stables by members and guests or to actively try to increase the number of folks riding and taking lessons.
"Where are we as it relates to -- and I hate the word -- abuse?" Darr asked Racine, who replied: "No evidence has been brought to us [the Recreation Committee] about people riding three times or more a week. Perhaps one or two. The sentiment was: If the horses are out in the field, should they be ridden, or standing in the field and eat hay? I'd rather see them ridden by a resident than standing out in the field."
Talking about his own thought process on whether to charge members for stable rides, Racine said: "Originally I was in favor of free rides, then I went against them, then I listened. We don't have the evidence right now that people are abusing free rides . . . . The horses are sitting there, and they are not being used . . . . As long as we are not putting an undue burden on the horses, residents should have use of the stables without charge, until it is abused -- then we will address each abuse as it comes along."
Racine said he had already observed new stable manager Kate Pennington interacting with young people, getting them excited about interacting with the horses.
"One of the things is that we are going to try to find ways to promote the stables," Racine said, "and get the public more interested."
The Bigger Question: Pay-As-You-Go?
Lurking underneath the Board's debate about who and what to charge for use of the stables was the larger question of whether the SLLA should move to a "pay-as-you-go" policy for the use of amenities, a radical change from the current system, in which Association members have free access to all amenities.
Echoing and amplifying comments he made in the Wednesday, May 25 open meeting, Darr said: "We charge people who have boats in here a fee to use the lake with their boat, over and above their dues. I quite frankly look at roads almost as an amenity. Presently, what are we doing as it relates to the roads? Everybody in here pays an additional $100 over and above their dues to pay for that amenity and keep it up."
"Many people bought into this community because of a really nice golf course," he continued. "Never did they expect to get that for nothing . . . . They have yearly dues, and, in addition to that, every time they go out to play golf, they pay an additional fee."
"The point being that users of stuff pay for it . . . with the exception of this."
"We have the same issue as it relates to the pool," Darr said. "We have free pool . . . . From a business standpoint . . . we are in a situation, coming upon us, in which we are going to have to make decisions about dues increases, or amenities fees, or cutting down expenses to the point that we have to get rid of amenities."
Darr recounted how, as a child in Fremont, OH, he had to pay a small fee to use a taxpayer-supported swimming pool.
"The problem I have with a whole bunch of stuff here," he said "in the bigger picture of what we are talking about, is that I don't think you get stuff free, and I think if you're going to use it, you ought to pay for it."
Darr said he wasn't talking about using the amenities to create a profit center, but rather about "offsetting costs."
He drew the analogy to health insurance co-pays that require a portion of the cost of care to be covered by the insured.
"The issue for me is that it ought to be pay-for-use . . . and that isn't limited to just the stables," Darr said. "If we as a Board decide that everything we have in here that 'you bought in here for' is free, we got major, major, major problems."
But Darr said he wasn't sure the Board was ready to move to a pay-as-you-go structure for amenities, and Treasurer Meyer agreed.
"What we are really debating in the bigger scheme of things is what business model we are going to follow here," Meyer said.
"The business model in the past has been that all the amenities are free, for the most part . . . . Now, due to economic pressures, we are headed toward some kind of modification of that, whether it's pay-as-you-go or co-pay or whatever. That's the kind of over-arching view that we've got to decide here, because it affects the pool, and it can affect the lakes, the debris site, the tennis courts."
"These are all good discussions that help us understand what the temperature of the community is, in terms of implementing some of this," he said, adding, "I agree with you that I think we are still a little too early to pull the trigger on this."
The pay-as-you-go idea fell flat with at least one Association member. Kathy Lishawa, who opposed cuts to the stables in recent meetings, told the Board: "Don't compare the golf course to the stables or the pool. Anyone can join the golf course . . . . It's not an amenity, because anyone can join the golf course."
"We do pay our dues for the amenities," she said. "So, if you want to look at the process of charging for this that and the other, you're right, every time a car goes through the gate, let's put a little toll booth out there and throw money in it . . . . Every time a boat goes out, put a little toll booth out there."
Racine's draft Stables Proposal was tabled, pending further work by the Recreation Committee.
