The $1,999,999.60 Special Assessment

Board position

The September materials ask owners to authorize $1,999,999.60, or $20,408.16 per unit.

The same Board material says an actual roofer quote puts expected roof replacement cost at around $1.6 million, with the balance intended for cost growth, unexpected contingencies, and ultimately reserves if unused.

What the record shows

The difference is roughly $400,000. That does not automatically make the proposal improper, but it makes the calculation material. Owners are entitled to understand the factual basis for the contingency and reserve component before approving a fixed assessment.

Read the Board's ballot package → (opens in a new tab)

Cross-check: the Board’s June 2026 major-project document lists roof underlayment replacement at $1,617,000. Open the June 2026 Board document →

Legal / governing-document framework

California Civil Code § 5600(b) provides that an association may not impose or collect an assessment or fee exceeding the amount necessary to defray the costs for which it is levied. Cantrice Court CC&R § 5.2 likewise states that Special, Capital Improvement, and Reconstruction Assessments are to be used exclusively for the purposes for which they were levied.

That does not decide whether a documented contingency or stated reserve component is permissible. It does mean the stated purpose and amount should be capable of being reconciled with evidence.

California Civil Code § 5600 → (opens in a new tab) · Cantrice Court CC&Rs → (opens in a new tab)

Board position

The Board's Additional Information says the Association loan would be a non-revolving line of credit up to $2 million and would generally mirror the owner payment plan.

What the Board's own financing document says

The line of credit becomes a term loan after the draw period for the amount actually drawn, not automatically $2 million. Loan funds are drawn when roof invoices are submitted, and the bank pays contractors directly.

So the owner-side obligation and the Association-side borrowing mechanism are related, but they are not mathematically identical obligations.

Read the Board's Additional Information →

Why that matters

If actual roof invoices total materially less than $2 million, owners should be shown precisely how the fixed assessment balance, owner payment plan, Association debt, prepayments, reamortization, contingencies, and any unused assessment proceeds interact.

The site does not claim that different assessment and loan balances are inherently unlawful. The point is disclosure and reconciliation: two different financial obligations should not be described as though they are automatically the same number.

Board position

The Board relies heavily on the Association's weak reserve position and the urgency reflected in the 2026 Reserve Study.

What the study supports

The study reports Cantrice Court at 8.8% funded, identifies a high risk of reserve cash-flow problems, and calls for substantial near-term reserve work. Those are real problems and should not be minimized.

But the reserve specialist recommended a special assessment or loan for upcoming major projects including roofs, paint, and asphalt — and expressly stated: “Final project proposals should be obtained before approving the special assessment or loan.”

Open the Reserve Study Executive Summary → (opens in a new tab)

California reserve-study law

Civil Code § 5550 requires a reserve study to identify major components, probable remaining useful life, estimated repair/replacement costs, necessary contributions, and a funding plan. It also requires annual review and adjustment.

A reserve study is therefore a planning tool built around estimates and funding assumptions; the study itself says timing and costs can change. The later fixed assessment still needs its own project-level support.

California Civil Code § 5550 → (opens in a new tab)

What the Reserve Study shows

The 2026 study divides tile-roof work into stages. Stage 1 covers 8 units at $140,000, while Stages 2 through 12 are listed at $147,000 per 8-unit stage. The study assigns zero remaining useful life to Stages 2 through 12.

What that does — and does not — prove

It supports the Board's position that substantial roof work is due. It also proves that the reserve model itself contemplated the roof program in stages.

It does not, standing alone, prove that stretching work out is cheaper, safer, or better. Owners need current condition data, leak history, repair history, insurance implications, current contractor proposals, and financing costs to compare the alternatives honestly.

Open the full Reserve Study → (opens in a new tab)

The real question

What changed between the staged reserve model and the later community-wide replacement plan, and what specific evidence supports doing all remaining roofs now rather than continuing a staged program?

Records that matter

The current roofing proposal or executed contract; comparable 2025 and 2026 roofing records; the calculation supporting any claimed 30% cost increase; final or operative financing terms; and the calculation supporting the amount above the expected roof cost.

California records law

Civil Code § 5210 requires access to properly requested current-year Association records within 10 business days. The broader records-inspection statutes govern which Association records are subject to inspection and applicable redactions or privileges.

California Civil Code § 5210 → (opens in a new tab)

Owner fact-check

William Mills' September 15 letter identifies the specific records requested and explains why the roof quote, financing structure, claimed cost increase, and treatment of the approximately $400,000 difference matter to the vote.

Read the public fact-check letter → (opens in a new tab)