Saddle Creek - Survey 2013 - 1a

2013 Saddle Creek HOA Survey (147 Responses from 124 Member Homes)

The Saddle Creek Board thanks everyone that took the time to respond to the (non-scientific) survey.

The survey featured several questions (capital project priorities, annual dues and the web site) allowing
free-response answers. We have already acted on some suggestions, incorporated others into discussion,
and will summarize the responses and share the feedback via periodic e-mails and follow up surveys.
Join us at the November 17, 3-6pm, and January 21, 6:30-8:30pm community session (Hembree Park) to provide input toward achieving
long-term strategic plans.
 
 

Selected Questions and Responses

 
In your opinion, does being a Member of SCHOA (select one):

Have no impact on the value of my property 26


Improve the value of my property
110


Decrease the value of my property
2


No response


9











Does your SCHOA Board provide adequate communication to you as a Member?
Yes



106


No



13


Not sure



19


No response


9











Do you think that the present SCHOA Board does a good job in enforcing the HOA rules, regulations, covenants, and governing HOA documents?
Yes



86


No



10


Maybe



42


No response


9











Would you be interested in serving on a Committee?
Yes



23


No

55


Not sure



43


No response


26











Do you think the SCHOA annual dues of $434.10 are:


Too high



5


Too low



36


The Correct amount


61


Other (please specify)

19


No response


26











In order to enhance SCHOA’s long-term project fund, would you support changing the ByLaws to include the application of a transfer fee when a Member’s home is sold? The fee (e.g., $500 paid by buyer) would flow directly into the long-term project fund. Please note that (1) local realtors have confirmed that a transfer fee is very common; & (2) Applying a transfer fee will require a 2/3rd majority SCHOA member vote for approval.
Yes



82


No (Please tell us why)

21


Not sure



18


No response


26


The most common written response to No was to instead make membership mandatory as in other area neighborhoods. Fortunately for their members, the homes were built/sold with mandatory membership requirements. Unfortunately, Saddle Creek's Chatham builders did not do this. Therefore, when we became a Property Owners Association in 2003, the membership had to be optional. Over the past decade various Boards have tried creative approaches to increasing the membership, but misconceptions continue to persist for non-members (and for members). One way to learn more is to get involved - volunteer, attend board and annual member meetings, and canvass those of your neighbors who are not members to join.
 
 

Project Priority - Free Response Survey Questions




Priority Level
5 4 3 2 1
Project
Item

Category Weight
Member Responses
for each
Project and Priority Level
Item
Response
Count
Weighted
Average
Project
Priority
pool
60 39 29 17 17 162 4
tennis
18 8 8 12 13 59 3
clubhouses
29 49 43 41 26 188 3
facilities
107 96 80 70 56 409 3

entrance
7 0 0 0 0 7 5
garden
0 1 0 0 0 1 4
landscape
1 1 0 1 0 3 4
west green area 1 4 2 1 2 10 3
covenants
0 1 1 1 0 3 3
paving
0 1 1 0 1 3 3
east green area 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
appearance
9 8 4 4 3 28 4

garage sale
1 0 0 0 0 1 5
lake
1 0 0 0 0 1 5
dumpster day
0 0 1 0 0 1 3
members
0 0 0 0 1 1 1
social
0 0 0 0 1 1 1
other
2 0 1 0 2 5 3

Summary:

Facilities

Members feel strongly about the appearance and condition of the facilities. Amongst the facilities the clubhouses and the pool received the most responses. Please note that there are more than 147 responses for the pool and the clubhouse projects because we did not categorized "pool plaster" and "pool deck" as "pool", and clubhouse items (flooring, a/c) as "clubhouse". That grouping does not change the inference about members would like to see done.

Neighborhood Appearance

It is no surprise that the appearance of the neighborhood (entrances, green area landscaping) matters, but the level of response was weak.

Notes:

The survey was unscientiific, but yielded sufficient information to gauge the mood of the membership about project priorities.
The above analysis is a simple one with the only "adjustment" to read an individual free response and to classify it as relating to one of the project items listed above. There could be some bias in the above as no other adjustments (such as allowing only response per member home, for one). This is an important adjustment because dues are not individual but per member home.
 
Join us at the November 17 community session (Hembree Park, 3pm to 6pm) to provide input toward achieving long-term strategic plans.