www.rsfreview.com
PAGE A20 - OCTOBER 29, 2015 - RANCHO SANTA FE REVIEW
Rancho Letters to the editor/Opinion Santa Fe Here’s who the RSF Homeowners Group is Review 380 Stevens Suite 316 Solana Beach, CA 92075 858-756-1403
www.rsfreview.com
U-T Community Press Publishers of Rancho Santa Fe Review Gold Ink Award Winner, California Newspapers Publishers’ Association Award Winner, Independent Free Papers of America Award Winner, Society of Professional Journalists Award Winner
PHYLLIS PFEIFFER
President
DON PARKS
We are RSF Homeowners Group. Who are we? We are 300-plus of your friends and neighbors. In several recent articles, our group has been mischaracterized as “PIC Folks” that are trying to regain power in Rancho Santa Fe. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even if the PIC group were trying to regain power, less than 5 percent of our Steering Committee members, the driving force behind the RSF Homeowners Group, are associated with PIC, and less than 10 percent of our overall 300-plus members are associated with PIC. Instead, we are a nonpolitical and diverse group of residents concerned about the proposed Covenant Club. That is our common bond. Certainly, we have no political agenda as a group. We agree with those who would like to attract more young families to the Ranch. But in the process, we don’t want to risk what brought us to the Ranch in the first place. We don’t want to be Santaluz or Crosby or Fairbanks or the Bridges. Many of us are against the Covenant Club facility on the RSF Golf/Tennis Club campus. But some of us are OK with it, especially if it is paid for entirely by its members. Very few of us want to pay for something we won’t use. We all believe that there are higher priorities in the Ranch. And, above all, we want to make sure that the eventual vote on this project reflects the true feelings of well-informed neighbors. We don’t want to wake up some day with an expensive, underutilized asset and ask, “How did that happen?” We are RSF Homeowners Group. Come to rsfhomeownersgroup.com and join us. Tom Ault, Chairman RSF Homeowners Group
Chief Revenue Officer LORINE WRIGHT
Executive Editor editor@rsfreview.com KAREN BILLING
Senior News Writer KRISTINA HOUCK
Reporter JARED WHITLOCK
Reporter MARSHA SUTTON
Senior Education Reporter JON CLARK, McKenzie Images
Photographers ANNMARIE GABALDON
Advertising Sales Manager GABBY CORDOBA, EVELYNE OLLMAN, MICHAEL RATIGAN, SUE BELMONTE, ASHLEY O’DONNELL, APRIL GINGRAS
Advertising DARA ELSTEIN
Business Manager BEAU BROWN
Art Director ROXY BEVILACQUA
Graphic Designer ASHLEY FREDERICK
Graphic Designer LAURA GROCH, AMY STIRNKORB
Production/Editorial Assistant Joe Tash, Suzanne Evans, Diane Welch, Kathy Day, Rob LeDonne and Kelley Carlson, Gideon Rubin, Randi Crawford
Contributors OBITUARIES: 858.218.7237 or cathy@myclassifiedmarketplace.com
LETTERS POLICY Topical letters to the editor are encouraged and we make an effort to print them all. Letters are limited to 200 words or less and submissions are limited to one every twoweeks per author. Submissions must include a full name, address, e-mail address (if available) and a telephone number for verification purposes. We do not publish anonymous letters. Contact the editor for more information about submitting a guest editorial piece, called Community View, at 400 words maximum. We reserve the right to edit for taste, clarity, length and to avoid libel. E-mailed submissions are preferred to editor@rsfreview.com.
Community Enhancement Fund a ‘slush fund’ The assessments for the RSF Community Enhancement fund are illegal. The Davis-Stirling Act governs our Association and all other homeowner associations in California. Section 5600 (b) of the Davis-Stirling Act states, “An association shall not impose or collect an assessment or fee that exceeds the amount necessary to defray the costs for which it is levied.” Our Community Enhancement Fund (“CEF”) is really just a slush fund. It is not a “reserve” fund as defined in the Davis-Stirling Act in sections 5510-5570, as it does not comply with the stringent requirements for restricted reserve funds designed to provide funds to repair or replace depreciating property of the Association. In fact, the CEF assessment is levied each year even though the Association doesn’t know specifically for what it will ultimately be used or even when it will be used. Under this circumstance, it can hardly be argued that the amount of the CEF assessment is “necessary to defray the costs for which it is levied.” If we don’t know specifically for what the CEF assessment will be used, we can hardly calculate the “cost” of this use, and we certainly don’t know what’s “necessary” to assess to pay for this “cost.” This must be exactly the type of assessment that Section 5600 of the Davis-Stirling Act was enacted to prohibit. Homeowners in the Covenant should be required to pay what is needed to maintain our beautiful community, but not be required to contribute to a slush fund that will be available to the constantly changing whims of our Directors. In the most recent budget sent to the membership on May 1, 2015, the CEF assessments are not even included in the budget (making it illegal for yet another reason). Basically, our Association has been taxing our members, not assessing them for the amounts needed to defray our operating expenses. We assume this taxing mentality was caused years ago by the fact that our assessments are based on the assessment roll of the County Assessor, but it is fundamentally wrong for us to assume that we have the same taxing authority as the County. We can’t tax; we can only assess, and then only as limited by Davis-Stirling. We’ve requested our Directors to refund the CEF to our members or use the CEF to pay the ordinary operating expenses of the Association until the CEF has been exhausted, thereby drastically reducing our annual assessments for a year or so. We’ve also asked our Directors to amend immediately the assessment bills that we’ll receive in November, because those assessments also include this illegal tax, and to refrain from spending the CEF on anything until this issue has been resolved. Unfortunately, without good reason, our Directors have failed and refused to comply with our requests. If you agree with our requests, please tell our Directors. Unless our Directors soon admit the impropriety of the CEF assessments, we’ll file suit to ask a judge to declare the CEF assessments illegal. If you have any thoughts on this subject, please let us know. John Blakely Allen Finkelson rsfunite@icloud.com
Correction In a recent article about the Rancho Santa Fe Golf Club’s study of additional sustainable sources of water, it was suggested that the Ad Hoc Sustainable Water Committee could make a decision and recommendation by Nov. 5. That is not correct. The committee is chartered to make its recommendation by the end of this calendar year. Bill Weber, chair of the Ad Hoc Sustainable Water Committee, said the committee expects to meet that commitment.
‘Think Big’ The Covenant Club is proposing many features and amenities. It was recently brought to my attention that in a “spectacular community” “in a park-like oasis” in South Florida (Miami); the amenities there include an ice skating rink, bowling lanes, a Flow Rider-wave simulator, five pools, outdoor pool table(s), etc. Here I had been thinking that the Covenant Club proponents might consider adding a skate park and a zipline for our “Campus.” Has anyone suggested taking some of the adjoining properties by eminent domain? Oh yes, the FL Club Car is a Rolls Royce. I hadn’t even thought about a Covenant Club car (and driver), but I guess it could come in handy. Maybe when Mom-Dad is too busy to pick up the kids. This is getting exciting! Barack Obama’s goal was to “fundamentally transform the United States.” Ours? To fundamentally transform the RSF covenant — this very unique village? Isn’t that why we all moved here? Still my favorite horse of all time: Arewehavingfunyet. Brett Dieterich, 32-year RSF resident
MEDICARE
continued from page 19
ployed. If you’re still working at 65 and are covered by your employer’s health insurance, then in most cases you don’t need to sign up for Part B yet. Once you stop working, you’ll have a special enrollment period of eight months after your employment ends in which to sign up for Part B. • Medicare Advantage plans, also known as Plan C, are typically HMO (Health Management Organization) or PPO (Preferred Provider Organization) products. These insurance plans combine the benefits of Part A and B, and in most cases, include prescription drug coverage (Part D) and may include extra benefits and services for an additional cost. These plans usually require the patient to access a limited physician network for services. • Prescription drug coverage. Medicare Part A and Part B do not cover prescription drug benefits. For prescription drug coverage, you can enroll in a prescription drug coverage or Part D plan. • Supplemental insurance (Medigap Plans): This coverage is an alternative to Medicare Advantage plans and allows individuals to customize their health plan coverage. These plans help fill “the gap” by partially or fully covering expenses that would normally be payable by the patient under original Medicare. Supplemental plans are only available to purchase for people who are enrolled in original Medicare. People with a Medicare Advantage plan cannot buy Medicare supplemental insurance. Once you have evaluated your choices, choose the Medicare plan that is the best fit for you and complete the enrollment process. You may be able to sign up in person with a broker, through the mail, over the phone or online. Already enrolled but thinking of switching plans? If you’re enrolled already, you’ll need to decide whether or not you want to change your coverage before the Dec. 7 deadline. Review your existing health and drug benefits, and pay attention to any changes announced for the coming year. Your insurance provider will send information to let you know what, if any, changes will be made to your Medicare coverage in 2016. Review these carefully to ensure the providers, services and medications you need are covered and at what cost. Check your premiums, coinsurance, co-payments, deductible and out-of-pocket limits, and ask yourself whether another plan would better suit your needs in 2016. If you have employer or union coverage, check with your plan’s benefits administrator before making any changSee MEDICARE, page 21
LETTERS POLICY: Topical letters to the editor are encouraged. Submissions should include a full name, address, e-mail address (if available) and a telephone number for verification purposes. We do not publish anonymous letters and there are length limits (about 400 words maximum). E-mailed submissions are preferred to editor@rsfreview.com. Letters may be edited. The letters/columns published are the author’s opinion only and do not reflect the opinion of this newspaper.