According to Stauss' sources, Bright's idea of borrowing to avoid a referendum is that any dollar value project could be accomplished if the yearly principle and interest payment was under $1 million.

Stauss writes his "source" asks why hold a referendum when it would pass anyway because everyone wants a new firehouse.

That might well be the case. However, the devil is always in the details. Stauss overlooks the details.

Under the new bylaws approved by the membership, a stand-alone referendum requires that 40% of eligible voters cast a vote. So..... if 39% of all eligible voters cast their vote to approve a $3 million expenditure and every one of them voted to approve the referendum question, the referendum would fail. Yep. That is exactly what association members voted to approve.

The exception would be if the vote on the referendum was held as a part of the Board of Directors election ballot. Of course, that is too late for this year. The fear of now holding a referendum is not that a majority of voters would vote NO. The fear is that less than 40% of eligible voters would vote.

The bylaws also place a limit on the maximum the board can borrow:

(f) The Board may borrow money, but in the event that any transaction would increase the total of all outstanding debt of the Association to an amount exceeding fifty percent (50%) of the current income derived from annual charges, it shall require approval of the members by a referendum.

That maximum might be in the range of  $4 million, assuming bulkhead fees are not a part of the annual income derived from charges.