Round 2

Here are the Round 2 ballot results (9 ballots cast). Comments following:

Gate preferences – Cattle gate (+$300) = 6, Mesh gate (+$300) = 0, Cedar gate = 3 CATTLE GATE PREVAILS!
Crosby/Ling exemption – In favor = 6, Against = 1, Abstain = 2 MOTION PREVAILS!

On the basis of this vote, we will proceed with the installation of an “automation ready” cattle gate at a cost not to exceed $3,276 ($328/household). And, the Crosby/Ling household will be granted the exemption as specified.

  • Thank you again for your care with all of the detail!
  • I believe the cedar gate, while nice looking, will weaken and fall apart sooner than a steel gate. I would actually vote for a steel cattle gate, and then apply the cedar to the steel. Strong, long lasting, but decorative.
  • We like the looks of the wooden gate the best. However, when thinking of maintenance, we opted for the cattle gate. And a more maintenance free finish on that would be galvanized. Paint does not last very long. Powder coating is better, but eventually wears off.

Round 1

The first round of balloting for our gate project is complete. Everyone voted. Some folks included comments/questions which are included below.

Preferences – Manual gate = 5, Automated gate = 5 (In keeping with our conversation in August this means that we will proceed with the manual gate option at this time. If we were strictly operating under Roberts Rules of Order, we would be declaring that neither option got a majority (more than half) so we would not be taking any action but that seems contrary to the will of the group in August.) MANUAL GATE PREVAILS!

On the basis of this vote, we will proceed with the installation of an “automation ready” cedar gate at a cost not to exceed $2,976 ($298/household).

  • We’re also fine with no gate.
  • We would be just as happy with a less expensive manual gate or no gate at all.
  • [added from a telephone conversation during the balloting period: Will there be a touch pad and where will it be located?] Every household would have a two-button remote for their car (additional remotes available). In addition, there would be a touch pad outside the gate to be used by delivery drivers, guests, etc. It would most likely be on a post near the gate but not on a goose-neck post which would be vulnerable to vehicle strikes. That is a decision that would be made at the time of installation.
  • Thank you Ben for all of the work you have done and your offer to provide labor. We like the design. It fits into our environment and is attractive.
    We are happy to have our ideas shared with other property owners if there is discussion. We wish to have the last item below be something we all consider.
    We chose the simplest option with the thought that we can add automation later, but expedite and simplify the initial gate.
  • A question regarding automation: If the decision now or later is to have it automated, and if it has some type of failure, does the gate simply work as a manual gate? or would the automation function on an inoperable system (prior to repair) make getting in and out a problem? The system would be installed as a “fail-safe” gate meaning that it would stand open in the case of an equipment failure. There would also be a locked pin that any of us could remove if necessary.
  • (PLEASE LET THIS IDEA COME BEFORE ALL PROPERTY OWNERS FOR CONSIDERATION/VOTE.) Thank you to Ben for his willingness to give his labor to construct the gate! And also ask Ben to be sure and pass along the expense of gate materials to the remaining 9. We feel it is unfair for him to carry ANY expense — given the donation of labor. We recommend that costs be divided between 9, instead of 10 properties — Ben and Alice not included. On the question of exempting the Crosby/Ling household from being assessed for the gate because of the role they are playing as general contractor for the project, the group will be invited to vote. The Crosby/Ling household made their offer in good faith and are neutral on this question. They will abstain from voting.
  • [added from a couple of conversations during the balloting period: We are concerned whether solar will work, particularly in the winter. This is a fair question and one we have struggled with. The equipment Ben has proposed is designed specifically for solar. The solar panel could be mounted as much as 1,000 feet from the operator so there would be plenty of flexibility. The system could also be remotely powered by low voltage DC power from as far as 1,000 feet away which might ultimately be our best option. Because that power would be low voltage, it would be pretty cheap to run (think landscape lighting). There is power at Bill & Karen Benedetti’s free standing garage which they have indicated we could access. If the group votes to go with an automated gate, it would be easy and inexpensive to test the solar power option. And, if we resort to the DC power option, it could still be accomplished within our proposed budget.
  • Thanks again for your efforts with this. We are not in favor of a wood gate, but if that is the only choice, we have voted to at least have automation. [added from private email conversation: We are concerned about whether a wood gate will stand up to the stresses of automation, how it will handle snow, etc. We might prefer a simple, substantial steel gate. It does not need to be fancy.]