The April 2007 RPHA newsletter states, ?“?…utility costs were up last year due to record drought and fire danger in Oklahoma.?” This is very untrue. Utility costs were up considerably (2006 over 2005) despite the fact that rainfall was much higher in 2006 than 2005. The Noah weather site shows the following rainfall (in inches) in Tulsa for 2005 and 2006:
2005 2006
Spring 5.63 11.67
Summer 11.47 14.32
Fall 4.98 6.90
Winter 1.59 7.77
Total 23.67 40.66

Since there was considerably more rainfall in 2006 than 2005, there should have been less need for watering in 2006 as compared to 2005. However, just the opposite happened. The water bill at the 101st entry totaled $1279 for 2005 and $1945 for 2006,an increase of 52%.

I would appreciate the RPHA board being honest with us. How about you?


By Jim Bruggeman

this goes back to no rain detect

I think this just goes back to the lame ''well the rain detectors just keep getting broken'' excuse. ALREADY, I saw the sprinklers firing the other day. That grass DOESN'T need watering when we are going to have a week of rain. Who is maintaining this? the lawn service people? That water bill could be lowered considerably through prudent scheduling and a rain detector. There is nothing more embarrassing (and wasteful) than seeing those things fire off and its pouring down rain.

I'm surprised you didn't comment about the part where it said our reserves are healthy after replacing the fountain. After seeing the ''public books'' in January I dont see how that could be the case.

Your Correct

You are absolutely correct about the water detection. Regarding who maintains the watering, the lawn service people set the sprinkler system controls that determine when and how much watering is done. They really don?’t care ?– they don?’t pay the bills ?– the homeowners do. The treasurer gets the water bills each month and the treasurer and president co-sign the checks that pay these bills. When I was treasurer in 2005, each time I received a bill (water, gas, electric, etc.) I compared the usage on that bill with the usage in the corresponding month in prior years and the usage at my home (where applicable) to check for reasonableness. If this had been done by the current treasurer, the gross overwatering in 2006 would have been detected early and hopefully resolved at that time. My experience is that the president does not do this check. Thus, apparently both of them blindly sign the checks that pay the bills.
The RPHA org chart for 2006 shows a board member in charge of maintenance, a position that did not exist when I was treasurer. Not sure what that person?’s duties are in regard to watering. If she has any, she obviously has not fulfilled them well.
When I was treasurer, I compared the water usage per square foot for my yard to the usage per square foot for the 101st entry (and other common areas) and found gross overwatering of the entry in the fall and winter. I reported this to the board, but I doubt any action was taken.
One more thing on my posting on the entry water -- I only mentioned entry watering. There?’s more. Comparing 2006 to 2005, the cost of electricity for the pool increased 24.3% ($2311 to $2873), electricity at the pond fountain increased 28.5% ($1577 to $2027). The cost of watering the detention area increased 37.1% ($353 to $487). Overall, the total cost of all utilities increased 24.3% ($7692 to $9562). The board refuses to explain these increases to me. The reply I received from the board states they are too busy to answer my questions. Further, the board claims these costs are monitored to the satisfaction of the board. I conclude that the board has very low standards for such monitoring.
Glad you mentioned the alleged healthy reserves. I may say more on this later. I agree with you.




By Jim Bruggeman

Error in My Rainfall Numbers

It has been brought to my attention that the winter rainfall numbers shown in my original posting are incorrect.
The correct values for Tulsa rainfall in 2005 and 2006 are as follows:

2005 2006

Winter (Dec. through Feb.) 6.47 1.59

Spring (Mar. through May) 5.63 11.67

Summer (June through Aug.) 11.47 14.32

Fall (Sept. through Nov.) 4.98 6.90

Total 28.55 34.48

This correction does not change in any way the conclusions I expressed in my original posting. The claim in the newletter that the increase in the cost of utilities from 2005 to 2006 is somehow due to the need for more watering in 2006 than in 2005 has no merit.

Moreover, much of the increased utility cost (a total increase in utility costs for 2006 over 2005 of $1870 or 24.3%) has nothing to do with weather whatsover -- e.g., the 24% increase in the cost of electricity for the pool.

I have asked the PPHA board to explain to me the various increases in utility costs for 2006 over 2005, but it refuses to do so. It seems to me that these increases should have been explained in the newletter.



By Jim Bruggeman