Setting the Record Straight: June 25 Power Ranch Board Meeting
A Fact-Based Review of Financial Proposals, Contract Actions, and Transparency Concerns
Fact: The Power Ranch Board was presented with financial concerns in May.
At the May meeting, the Budget & Finance Committee (BFC) and management introduced a restated operational budget indicating a projected shortfall. To address this, the BFC recommended:
A 4% increase in Master Association dues starting Q3 2025.
A possible second 4% increase in January 2026, subject to the final 2026 budget.
A restated Reserve Study to include tree and gravel replacement, a critical component missing from past studies.
A $150,000 allocation from the Capital Improvement Fund to begin tree reforestation efforts.
🡆 Implication: The HOA is facing escalating operational costs and infrastructure needs that require timely, transparent action. Postponing these discussions may delay necessary investment in long-term maintenance and sustainability.
Fact: In June, an unexpected water bill of $113,000 was reported.
The increase — due to a 100%+ rate hike on reclaimed water by the Town of Gilbert as well as higher seasonal use — was not accounted for in the May restated budget. This is a monthly that has more than doubled.
🡆 Implication: The HOA’s actual financial exposure is more severe than anticipated. This demands immediate recalibration of budget assumptions—not deferrals.
Fact: The Board deferred all financial action both in May and June, opting instead for a “working session” to review contracts over $30,000 and older than two years.
Only one contract fits this criteria: the management contract.
🡆 Implication: By focusing exclusively on the management contract rather than broader financial decisions, the Board shifted attention away from urgent budgetary needs — raising concerns about priorities.
Fact: Board members Ahn Jung, Ken Starks, and Katie Wick initiated a Request for Proposal (RFP) process for management services.
Available information indicates that this process:
Was not formally authorized by a Board vote or even full board notification.
Was conducted without public transparency.
Included vendor selection and early negotiations without full Board oversight.
Resulted in the premature dismissal of strong, viable vendors, due in part to the disorganized and ineffective handling of the process.
🡆 Implication: These actions appear to bypass proper Board procedures and raise serious concerns about governance and intent. The absence of transparency invites questions about conflicts of interest or external influence. Moreover, the community may have lost access to highly qualified management options due to the flawed and exclusionary nature of the process.
Fact: The same individuals leading the RFP effort are the subject of a community recall effort (#RECALL3).
These board members, joined by Director Jeremy Harger, have repeatedly operated outside the bounds of public process.
🡆 Implication: With key decisions happening behind closed doors, residents are right to question:
Whether commitments have already been made to a new vendor.
Whether any personal or political motives are influencing the contract process.
Whether special interests are playing a role behind the scenes.
Conclusion: What the Community Deserves
Power Ranch homeowners are entitled to:
Factual clarity around budgeting decisions.
Accountable governance that respects process.
Transparent leadership — not selective disclosure or unilateral decisions.
This is not just about dollars. It’s about trust.
What You Can Do
Attend the upcoming working sessions.
Demand full documentation of the RFP process.
Ask every board member to explain their role and stance.
Stay vigilant — and don’t settle for incomplete answers.
