The Wildflower II Association Board met at Momeni's Wildflower Condo, May 29, 2009. The minutes of that meeting have been reviewed by the board and accepted for posting in this newsletter. Click here to read them. 
Earlier this year SROA emergency personnel required that all roadways in Sunriver have individual names, so as to minimize response time for fire and police calls. Acting independently, SROA assigned names to the unnamed Wildflower II driveways extending north and south from Fairway Drive. Some owners objected to the names chosen, and requested that the Board intervene to select names more appropriate to the Wildflower's location adjoining the Meadows Golf Course, or at least names reflecting activities common to Sunriver. 
Selection of roadway names must not duplicate names already used elsewhere in Deschutes County. Moreover, if the Board were to submit names to the County different from those already chosen, they had to work quickly. These restrictions limited the Board's options.
Knowing that naming can be subject to many personal preferences, the Board proceeded with some trepidation, finally settling upon two names for antique golf clubs.
The Driveways now carry the names "Mashie Lane" (north) and "Brassie Lane" (south). A Mashie club is the wooden-shafted, mostly pre-20th Century golf club that, among historical or antique golf clubs, is most equivalent to a modern 4-iron. Brassie is the historical name for the club that was the closest equivalent to today's 2-woods. A modern 2-wood is not a brassie club - the brassie was very different from a modern 2-wood. But in loft, appearance and use, the brassie is the antique club that is most related to a 2-wood. "Brassie" is most commonly applied to pre-20th Century times.
Those who are fly-fishermen, also will recognize a Brassie as a wire-wrapped(hence its name) pattern that mimics a nymph and is used to catch trout.
A line-item on our capital reserve schedule has been the refurbishment of our trash enclosures. While this is of lower priority than structural elements such as roofs, siding and decks, these, too, are showing their age. In upcoming years it will be time for us to address them as well. Designed to house four 25-gallon metal trash cans, each of our trash enclosure structures serves one Wildflower building (two units), so we have 24 trash enclosure structures, with four 25-gallon metal cans assigned to each building during the high season. This design is a limited one in that each unit's two cans sit one behind the other. During periods of high usage, the tendency is to fill the front cans, losing sight of those in the rear. Also, the Disposal Company has changed their equipment and policies. They now prefer to use mechanical lifting devises that grasp and empty large wheeled 96-gallon cans. Their pricing structure reflects their preferences.
Joanna, working with disposal company representatives has presented the board with examples of trash enclosure designs that are acceptable to SROA Design Committee and to the Disposal Company. Here are the Disposal Company's suggestions:
Option 1 would consist of 14' x 6' structures (something like cluster cabins) each of which would hold 5-96 gallon cans. The entire Association would need to build 5 such structures close to and facing the driveway.
Option 2 comprises 8' x 10' structures. Each would hold up to 6 - 96 gallon cans (snug fit). Cans would face each other with 3 to 4 feet down the center for loading. In this case the Association would need to build four such structures.
Option 3 , and their recommended option, uses 10' 6" x 10' structures. Each would be large enough to hold 8 - 96 gallon cans if needed although it would be a snug fit with eight. It would easily fit 6 - 96 gallon cans and would allow more working space. If we were to install eight cans per such structure, we would only need to build three structures, however owners might have to hike a ways to empty their trash. At six cans per structure, we would need to build four structures.
They also provided two other examples of enclosure structures that we might use as examples from which to design our own, although recommending that whatever we select should not be uncovered as the first of these two examples. Example 1 and Example 2 .
Some owners, including some Board members object to the height and intrusiveness of the structures in all three options above. There is also some reluctance to increasing the distance between trash collection facilities. For these reasons, the Board will work with the disposal company toward a compromise design that retains a significantly lower profile, yet houses a 96-gallon gan. Another goal is that the existing trash collection structure footprint and siting be retained. Your comments and suggestions are welcomed as the Board addresses this issue.
There are two other important capital reserve items that the Board is addressing. The first concerns the structural integrity of the rear-deck support structure on the Phase II units. The second involves options to address the design limitations of the Phase II roof-top decks. Each of these topics requires investigation by structural engineers, and cost estimates from contractors so that the ownership can make informed decisions. Also, each of these two capital reserve line items represents a significant capital outlay for the Association. In the next newsletter, prior to this coming fall annual meeting, we expect to present you with more information. These will then be agenda items at the fall meeting. At that time we will review the options available to us (the scope of the projects), how best to schedule these projects, and what budget is needed to address them. We encourage your active involvement in this decision-making process as well.
