A special meeting of the PASRD was held on Tuesday, March 15. At that meeting the board voted to dismiss the existing validation process due to potential future costs and timing issues. In the last week, two community members sent proposals to the board for alternative funding options. Those two community members were invited to give details on those proposals to the board and community at the meeting in order to solicit input and questions. Details of these discussions can be reviewed in the recording of the meeting located here:
(there was a technical problem with the beginning of the recording so the recording starts several minutes into the meeting)
An electronic survey will be sent out in the next few days to gauge interest and support from the community for either of these proposals. If you were not in attendance at the meeting, it may be helpful to review the meeting recording to better understand some of these proposal options. Please get the word out to complete the survey and a link to the survey will be posted to the forum for those that might not get it by email as well.
Hello Whitney, (Nyle & Jim: Panoramic District Officers of the Board): We do have a few more questions. #1) You said in good faith that this survey was only to gauge support. If the money is found to have donors willing to supply the funds, (for either option) will this then move ahead?
The other evening at our follow up meeting, Tuesday, March 22, when I re-asked the question that we posed to you in the email we sent to the board before the meeting on the 8th of this month, regarding "our" road board liability insurance, the three board members allowed Lee Lucas, no longer on the board, to attempt to answer our question. We did not understand his explanation. (nor his proposal for that matter). #2) Could one of the three of you please direct us to where we can read the insurance policy that the Panoramic Road District has, it would be appreciated? Thank you kindly.
Whitney, I do apologize to you, as it seems you do all of this communication, so receive the upset end of residents asking questions. As Elise said in one of her replies, this duty should not belong to one person, and we agree.
Thank you again. Henry & Kerry Zenich
Thank you @Z, Henry & Kerry . There was a good bit of that explained in the survey itself. But we are also trying not to get it to lengthy and verbose so more people will complete it. Hopefully we struck a good balance between giving enough information to make a decision and directing people to the meeting recording for more detailed information.
Whitney, will an email being sent with the survey to gauge, also explain as you did above? Thanks. PS Thank you for always being so on top of things, honest and fair and seeing all sides and keeping this page up, running the meetings, your dedication does not go unnoticed!!
Okay Whitney. We will be staying very vigilant throughout these next steps.
The ballot measure option will be noted on the survey (although we still have more research to do on that option). This is only an information gathering survey and it will be noted on there that it is not binding in any way.
Also this had better be a survey and not a vote to go forward with the project. We are wising up to your playing with words. Melody Johnson
The Ballot Measure option should be listed and explained on that survey. Melody Johnson
You are most welcome! :)
Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it.
Another vote to "gauge interest". Can you clarify what that means? The last time we took a vote to "gauge interest" it became a democratic vote.
I know several older homeowners who do not have emails or even know how to get online to this website. How will they be able to have an opinion on the matter?