Short-Term Rentals (STR)

📋 THE $59 TENANT REGISTRATION FEE — WAIVED FOR SHORT-TERM TENANTS ONLY. DECIDED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION SEPTEMBER 8, VOTED IN PUBLIC OCTOBER 13.

What the fee is. CRRA charges a $59 administrative fee to register a rental tenant for gate access — in the Board’s words, “to compensate the Association for the cost of processing these tenants for access to our community.” A long-term tenant is registered, and the owner pays $59, every six months. A short-term rental registers new tenants every booking. Same staff, same gate, same work.

Where the $59 came from. On June 2, 2023 the Board emailed every owner a “Special Announcement” rolling out RFID amenity cards for short-term rental guests: “As a reflection of the increased guest experience and access to the resort amenities, the Board of Directors has voted to increase the administrative fee to $59 per reservation.” In the Board’s own words, the $59 was the price of a tenant’s access to the Common Area — the user fee By-Laws Art. II §8(i) and (v) authorize — and it was an increase to a rental fee that already existed. Three years later the same Board says the fee was only “to compensate the Association for the cost of processing these tenants.” Both statements are the Board’s. They cannot both be true.

Where it stands. As of October 13 the fee is waived for short-term tenants only. The Board’s own statement: “The $59 long-term rental administrative fee continues.” So the owners with the most tenant turnover now pay nothing to register them, and the owner with one tenant on a lease still pays. On October 16 the Board emailed owners a statement saying it “determined it would discontinue this fee” in executive session on September 8 — the same meeting at which, in open session, the president told owners the fee was “still in review” and set October 13 as the date the Board would have “something to vote on.” What the Board voted on October 13 was the statement. Nothing replaces the waived fee. The $800,000 line it funded is now a shortfall the Board says it will address “in the coming months,” and the only other place that money can come from is the rest of us.

HOW THE $59 TENANT FEE SAGA UNFOLDED

1. Before June 2026
   A $59 fee to register every rental tenant
   Adopted by Board rule (Rules & Regulations, not the covenants), never by a member vote. Charged per tenancy: every six months for a long-term tenant, every booking for a short-term one. Paid by the roughly one owner in ten who rents, the short-term side alone carried an $800,000-a-year line in the budget the Board adopted.
   Source: By-Laws & the fee · the STR numbers
2. December 2025 – May 2026
   The STR Committee talks for six months and never votes
   Four sets of committee minutes (December 15, February 12, April 27, May 28) list a cost analysis and legal review as outstanding at every meeting, then move straight to “a formal Board motion” — with no recorded committee vote, no recorded recommendation, and no analysis ever completed. The committee’s charter requires its chair to be a short-term renter; its members are STR owners. No committee minutes have been posted since May 28.
   Source: STR Committee minutes as posted to the owner portal; October 13 recording, 0:37:16 (charter)
3. June 9, 2026
   Suspended, 6–1, “pending an impact and financial analysis”
   Director Jackson moved a revocation resolution he had emailed the day before, confirming on the record it came from the STR Committee; it declared the fee “lacks clear, express and enforceable authority” and that rental fees must be authorized by the Declaration and “approved by a vote of the membership.” That resolution was tabled and never passed. The suspension that did pass came from the floor by director Ross MacLaren (“it was done illegal”); the chair “quibbles with the term illegally.” Recorded roll call: MacLaren, DeVries, Jackson, Anthony, Fernandez yes; Brown no. Collection stopped that day. No director disclosed an interest and no one recused — the Secretary confirmed on October 13 that no written disclosures exist for this vote. The analysis the motion was conditioned on has never been produced.
   Source: June 9 recording, motions begin about 1 hr 30 min in
4. June 24, 2026
   An owner’s replacement proposal goes to the Board
   A per-occupant, per-night fee in place of the per-booking fee — the tenancy-based structure the Board would itself describe four months later. It was never taken up.
   Source: the proposal (PDF)
5. July 14, 2026
   Ruled out of order. No vote.
   The STR Administrative Fee proposal was ruled out of order “on the grounds that a change to the Rules and Regulations could not be completed before the end of this session of the Board.” The Zoom audio of this meeting is largely unintelligible; the Association acknowledged that two days later.
   Source: approved minutes (PDF), pp. 2–3 · the recording
6. August 25, 2026
   New Board seated; July 14 minutes approved
   Officers elected. The minutes confirming that no fee vote was ever taken were approved and posted to the owner portal on September 2.
   Source: August 25 video & transcript
7. September 8, 2026 — open session
   “STR fee review, still in review.”
   In front of the owners, the president told the STR Committee chair: “Nick, I’m literally gonna give you till October 13th to deliver the full package … that October 13th meeting, we need something to vote on, okay?” The Treasurer reported the budget already $131,000 short as of July because of the suspension.
   Source: September 8 video & transcript, 1:21:30
8. September 8, 2026 — executive session
   Behind closed doors, the fee is ended
   The Board’s own words, five weeks later: “In executive session during the September 8, 2026 meeting, this Board determined it would discontinue this fee.” Executive session is the part of the meeting owners cannot watch and that does not appear in the open-session minutes. It exists for personnel, litigation and contract matters. A fee paid by owners, and the $800,000 it funds, is none of those — which is presumably why the Board’s own attorney later told it to take the decision in public, with the interested directors out of the room.
   Source: Statement from the Board of Directors, emailed to owners October 16, 2026
9. October 13, 2026
   The closed-door decision is voted in public
   At the regular meeting the Board approved the statement discontinuing the fee. There was no package, no analysis and no replacement to vote on — only the decision already made in September. On the Association attorney’s advice, received the night before, the three directors who own short-term rentals (Jackson, Anthony, DeVries) were told they could not vote and left the meeting under objection. That is the first time anyone recused on this fee — four months after the June 9 vote that suspended it with those same directors voting, and only after owners had put the conflict question to the Board in writing, in records demands from June onward and in public comment that night. The remaining directors voted; three yes votes and one abstention are audible on the recording, and no tally was stated. Eleven minutes earlier the same Board had raised construction impact fees by 52% to 900% with no study, under the emergency clause, “without objection” (same night, two rulebooks). In public comment, former president Tom Kenney read a May 4 text from Director Jackson — “Ross said you’d be on board with voting to remove the short-term rental fee” — and the Secretary confirmed no director had filed a written STR-interest disclosure before the June 9 suspension vote.
   Source: October 13 video & transcript — statement read 1:16:21, attorney’s advice 1:17:33, vote 1:29:50–1:31:08, Kenney 0:10:07–0:15:17
10. October 16, 2026
    The statement goes out; the shortfall is deferred
    Owners are told the elimination “creates a significant revenue shortfall” that “will be addressed by the Board in the coming months.” Rental owners will register their own tenants. The $59 fee on long-term rentals stays. The statement dates the suspension to a June 12 meeting; it was June 9. The same day, an owner filed a request under O.C.G.A. § 14-3-1602 to inspect the record of the September 8 executive-session vote (inspection date October 23).
    Source: Association email of October 16, 2026
11. October 20, 2026
    A tenancy-based amendment to the rule is put in front of the Board
    Art. VII §4 was never amended, suspended or repealed under the Rules’ own change process (Art. VII §1: written proposal, open-session submission, 60 days of owner comment, two-thirds vote) — not on June 9, not on October 13. An amendment to §4 — an Occupancy Registration and Use Fee rule — $59 per term for tenancies of thirty days or more, a per-occupant-per-night fee for shorter stays, owner self-registration through the portal, interested directors to disclose and abstain — submitted in writing to the President under Rules Art. VII §1.B with a request that it be read into the November 14 open session. Under §1.C the Board has 60 days of owner comment and then a two-thirds vote.
    Source: the motion and memorandum (PDF)
12. October 30, 2026
    The Board “clarifies” — and concedes the fee was authorized
    A six-point email to owners, “Approved by the Board of Directors October 30” with no noticed meeting. It drops “illegal” (the fee is now “no longer necessary”), cites By-Laws §8(i) as the fee’s authority, paraphrases §8(i) into a “services” clause it isn’t, keeps the $59 for long-term tenants, promises a new fee for management-company registrations on “staff recommendations,” and apologizes for not informing owners. Art. VII §4 remains unamended.
    Source: Board email October 30, 2026 — analysis

What is missing from the record. Any reason why registering a long-term tenant still costs $59 and registering a short-term tenant now costs nothing (the By-Laws authority is the same for both). The impact and financial analysis the June 9 suspension was conditioned on. The “full package” the president demanded for October 13. Any replacement for an $800,000 line. The vote tally. And the record of the September 8 executive-session decision — which is why a request to inspect it is now pending.

Read it yourself: Open BoD Minutes 7.14.2026 FINAL (PDF) · October 13 video & transcript · September 8 video, transcript & decisions · August 25 video & transcript · the Rules & Regulations dated June 9, 2026 — one-page memo

Sources: Statement from the Board of Directors regarding the Short-Term Rental Fee, emailed to owners October 16, 2026 (“Approved by the Board of Directors in Regular Meeting October 13, 2026”); CRRA’s own Zoom recordings of the Open Sessions of June 9, September 8 and October 13, 2026 (timestamps as marked); Open BoD Minutes 7.14.2026 FINAL.pdf, approved August 25, 2026. Quotations are as written or as spoken on the recordings; the Association’s approved minutes, when issued, are the official record. Corrections welcome.

📜 “ISN’T THE FEE ILLEGAL?” — WHAT THE BY-LAWS SAY

The power to charge a tenancy fee is in the By-Laws the members adopted, not in anything a Board invented. Three provisions, quoted from the recorded 2022 By-Laws and the June 9, 2026 Rules:

By-Laws Art. II §8(i) (p. 3) — every owner’s right of use of the Common Area is subject to “the right of the Association to charge reasonable admission and other fees for the use of any portion of the Common Area or Area of Common Responsibility, to limit the number of guests of Lot Owners and tenants who may use the Common Area …”

By-Laws Art. II §8(v) (p. 3) — an owner “shall be deemed to have made a delegation of all such rights to the Occupants of his or her Lot, if leased. If a Lot Owner uses the Common Area … while the Lot is leased, the Association may impose a user fee for the term of the tenancy. If the tenant fails to pay the user fee, the Owner shall be responsible for the fee and such fee shall become a lien against the Lot …”

Rules & Regulations Art. VII §4, “Administration Fee for Rental Properties” (p. 21) — “By authority of the By-Laws of CRRA (Article II, Section 8, Paragraphs i and v), an administration fee will be charged for every rental/lease or contract for deed property each and every time a new rental/lease or contract is established. This fee will apply to both short-term and long-term arrangements, regardless of the duration.”

What that means. The Board may make, change and repeal rules (By-Laws Art. VI §1), and the members may repeal any rule by majority vote at an annual or special meeting. Neither has happened. On October 13 the Board did not repeal Art. VII §4; it kept the rule, kept collecting on long-term tenants, and stopped collecting on short-term ones. Whatever one thinks of the $59 figure, “illegal” cannot describe a fee the Board is still charging under the same paragraph.

The real legal question is “reasonable.” §8(i) says reasonable fees. Nobody has produced the basis for $59 — the June 9 suspension was conditioned on “an impact and financial analysis” that was never done. That is an argument about the amount, not the power. A fee tied to use — per occupant, per night — is the form §8(i) describes, and it is the form the Board’s own October 16 statement says the fee should have taken.

Quotations are from the Association’s own documents as posted on the owner portal: Complete By-Laws updated 2022 (scanned; §8(i) is reassembled from a two-column page and should be checked against the recorded original before being relied on in a filing) and Rules & Regulations revised June 9, 2026. The Community has not submitted to the Georgia Property Owners’ Association Act; the By-Laws and Declarations govern. Nothing here is legal advice.

📨 OCTOBER 30: THE BOARD “CLARIFIES” — AND CONCEDES THE FEE WAS AUTHORIZED

On October 30 the Board emailed owners “Clarifications from the Board of Directors Regarding the Short-Term Rental Administrative Fee,” six numbered points, “Approved by the Board of Directors October 30, 2026.” Read it next to what the Board said in June, in 2023, and in its own By-Laws.

WHAT THE BOARD CONCEDED

The word “illegal” is gone. Six points, and not one says the fee was unauthorized. Point 3 says it was “no longer necessary.” That is a different claim, and it is the end of the one that has been repeated since June.

The fee has By-Laws authority — in the Board’s own words. Point 3: “Article II, Section 8(i) of our Bylaws authorizes the Board to charge…” The authority question is answered, by the Board.

Still no attorney opinion. Four months, three statements, and no legal opinion cited, quoted or produced.

An apology. Point 6: “The Board recognizes that we did not adequately inform property owners about this significant governance decision. We apologize.” First time in writing.

WHERE THE BOARD REWROTE ITS OWN BY-LAWS

Point 3 changes what §8(i) says. The Board’s version: §8(i) “authorizes the Board to charge administrative fees for services beyond those covered by the annual assessment.” The By-Laws’ version:

Art. II §8(i): “the right of the Association to charge reasonable admission and other fees for the use of any portion of the Common Area or Area of Common Responsibility…”

A fee for use. Not a fee for staff services. The Board paraphrased the clause into the cost-recovery story it needed, and the words “administrative,” “services” and “annual assessment” appear nowhere in it.

Point 2 adopts a reading of §8(v) that the Board itself rejected in 2023. The Board now says a fee “may be charged only when both the property owner and the tenant exercise those rights for the same property.” But the sentence it is reading makes the tenant the payer (“If the tenant fails to pay the user fee, the Owner shall be responsible”), §8(i) stands on its own, and on June 2, 2023 the Board raised this very fee to $59 “as a reflection of the increased guest experience and access to the resort amenities” — an amenity-access fee under §8(i), with no mention of owners and tenants swimming at the same time.

Point 5 contradicts Point 3. If staff registration work is the only basis for a fee, and short-term owners now self-register through DwellingLive, then a long-term landlord registering one tenant twice a year generates less work than an STR ever did — and still pays $59 each time. The Board’s own logic makes the asymmetry worse.

Point 4 announces a new fee by staff memo. A fee for registrations through management companies, set on “staff recommendations.” No proposal under Rules Art. VII §1, no 60-day owner comment, no 2/3 vote. The same method that produced this mess.

“Approved by the Board of Directors October 30, 2026.” There was no noticed Board meeting on October 30. By-Laws Art. IV §13: all Board meetings are open to members. If this was approved by email or in a session owners were not told about, it is the third decision on this fee taken out of public view — and once again nobody knows who voted. A records request for the October 30 action is going in.

And Art. VII §4 is still in the Rules, unamended. “Eliminated” by statement, twice now; never repealed by the process the Rules require.

JUNE 9: WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID, FROM THE RECORDING

Nick Jackson, chair of the STR Committee and an STR owner, emailed the Board a resolution the day before and moved it on June 9. The Secretary read it aloud. Asked by the chair whether it came from the STR Committee, Jackson answered “Yes.” From the recording (transcript, 1:32–4:59):

“…whereas the Governing Documents permit reasonable and uniform fees related to the use of common area and amenities, but do not provide express authority to impose fees based solely on an owner’s rental activity, and whereas the Board has reviewed the short-term rental gate fee and finds that such fee lacks clear, express and enforceable authority within the governing documents… the short-term rental gate fee is hereby immediately revoked and shall no longer be imposed, collected or enforced in any manner… any prior Board action, policy or administrative practice establishing or enforcing the STR gate fee… is hereby rescinded and declared void… Any fees specifically applicable to rental activity must be (a) expressly authorized by the Declaration and (b) approved by a vote of the membership… Any fee that treats owners differently based solely on rental activity shall be invalid unless clearly and specifically authorized by the Declaration.”

Jackson, speaking to it (5:22): “I don’t believe the Board has uniform authority to charge fees to one group over another… all owners are created equal to a degree.”

Ross MacLaren, moving the suspension (20:42–21:05): “The rule was made outside of exactly what you’re saying… But right now, it was done illegal. That’s why I’m saying we suspend it until we get the information from Access.”

President Bob Hazzard, chairing (21:05): “The chair quibbles with the term ‘illegally.’ However, I rule that this is a legitimate suspension. It is not changing the rules. It’s not permanent.”

Recorded roll call on the suspension (23:00): MacLaren yes, Brown no, DeVries yes, Jackson yes, Anthony yes, Fernandez yes. Jackson’s revocation resolution was then tabled — it never passed. The suspension was conditioned on an impact and financial study. The study was never done.

MEASURE OCTOBER 30 AGAINST JUNE 9

Every principle in Jackson’s June resolution has now been abandoned by the Board that adopted its outcome:

The only thing that survived from June 9 to October 30 is the result: the owners who sit on the Board stopped paying. The reasoning changed every time it was tested — “covenant violation,” then “no authority,” then “no study,” then “processing cost,” now “no longer necessary” — and the rule in Art. VII §4 was never once put through Art. VII §1. A Board that will not follow its own Rules to change a rule, and will not follow its own June resolution when the resolution would cost its members money, is not interpreting the governing documents. It is working around them.

What owners should ask before November 14: Who voted on October 30, where, and with what notice? Why does a self-registering long-term landlord pay $59 when a self-registering STR pays nothing? Why did the 2023 Board call this an amenity-access fee and the 2026 Board call it a processing fee? And where is the attorney opinion — or is there none?

Sources: Board email “Board of Directors Clarifies Short-Term Rental Fee Decision,” October 30, 2026; Board Special Announcement, June 2, 2023; June 9, 2026 recording (machine transcript, unofficial); 2022 By-Laws Art. II §8, Art. IV §13; Rules Art. VII §§1, 4. Corrections: see the standing offer above.

⚖️ SAME BOARD. SAME NIGHT. TWO RULEBOOKS.

Eleven minutes before it waived the tenancy fee for short-term rentals, the Board raised construction impact fees. Here is the schedule the Architectural Review Committee presented and the Board adopted on October 13:

The $150 application fee is new, “to have people have a little skin in the game.” A director asked whether the new fees had been studied or benchmarked. The answer on the recording: “In the time constraints we had, we didn’t have time.” The increase was adopted under the emergency clause of Rules Art. VII §1 — no 60-day owner comment period — and passed “without objection.” No roll call, no count.

Then the Board turned to the tenancy fee and waived it — for lack of a study.

Why does anyone pay an impact fee? The Rules define one as “a monetary charge levied by CRRA,” and the Rules’ own FAQ answers the question in one sentence: “Why do I have to pay an Impact Fee? Answer: The Impact fee was established by the CRRA Board of Directors.” That was enough for builders and campground owners. It was not enough for the one fee the directors in the room were paying themselves.

WHY TWO RULEBOOKS? COUNT THE BOARD.

Nine directors are seated. Five have a short-term rental interest. Three said so on the record on October 13 and were sent out of the room: Nick Jackson (STR owner and chair of the STR Committee), Graham Anthony and Kurt DeVries. A fourth, Mike Padgett, stayed in the room and said nothing: Gilmer County’s active STR license list shows four licenses in Eagles Mountain held by LLCs whose licensee and mailing address are the same as his, and the county tax roll lists the lot next door to one of them in his and his wife’s names. The fifth, President Ross MacLaren, made the June 9 motion that suspended the fee and voted October 13 to end it; asked at the candidate meet-and-greet whether he sells his inspection service to STR owners, he said he sells to anyone.

That is a majority. A majority with that interest does not need a plan; it only needs to vote the way its interest points. The fee that STR owners paid was waived for lack of a study. The fees that builders and campground owners pay were raised without one. Every short-term rental added to the Resort is one more customer for an inspection business, one more vote for the STR Committee’s charter, one more owner who benefits from the next waiver. The long-run direction of a Board built this way is more short-term rentals and lower costs for running them, paid for by everyone else. That is an inference from the votes, not a quote from anyone; the votes are on the recordings linked below, and the license records are public.

The August 25 oath every director signed says: “I will disclose to the board the existence of any personal interest, direct or indirect, that I have in any … association matter to be voted upon by the board. I will also refrain from voting in such a manner when I have a conflict of interest.” Apply it to all five and four directors remain. The By-Laws require five for a quorum (Art. IV §12), and say an interested director does not count toward one (Art. IV §6). This Board cannot lawfully decide this question by itself. Georgia law says what happens then: the members decide (O.C.G.A. § 14-3-863).

So the $800,000 is being “addressed” now — by the owner pouring a foundation or putting a roof over an RV, not the owner turning over tenants every weekend. And it doesn’t come close: at $3,000 a house you would need hundreds of new houses a year to cover it.

Source: October 13 video & transcript — fee schedule read 0:54:59–0:56:04, “skin in the game” 0:55:09, study question and answer 1:13:34–1:14:07, motion under the emergency clause 1:12:49, adopted 1:15:12; tenancy-fee discussion 1:26:27. Fee definitions and FAQ: Rules & Regulations revised June 9, 2026. Impact fees were last raised years ago and construction does wear the roads; the point is not that the increase was wrong, but that the Board applied two standards to two groups of owners in the same hour.

🧮 THE FEE IS WAIVED FOR SHORT-TERM TENANTS. WHO PAYS THE $800,000?

The fee the Board waived for short-term tenants on October 13 was not a rounding error in this budget — it was a line worth $800,000 a year. Nothing replaces it. Unless the spending is cut, that money has to come from somewhere, and the only other place it can come from is the rest of us.

Who paid it until October 13. The fee is $59 per tenant registration — per booking for a short-term rental, every six months for a long-term one. About 390 rental licenses inside the gates are owner-held — roughly one owner in ten (the county license data). At $59 a booking, an $800,000 line implies something on the order of 13,500 bookings a year.

Who pays it now that short-term tenants are exempt. Everyone, equally, through assessments — about $202 a lot. The nine owners in ten who rent to no one would pick up roughly $720,000 of the $800,000. A household with one lot that has never taken a booking pays the same $202 as a full-time rental operation.

It has already started. The Board was told on September 8 that short-term-rental fee income was running “over $131,000” short as of July (1:49:17) — about $33 per owner account in the first seven weeks of the suspension. That figure also checks the budget line: two months of an $800,000-a-year fee is about $133,000, and the reported shortfall is $131,000. The same meeting heard that one and a half budgeted inspector positions are unfilled “because we haven’t addressed the shortfall from the … short-term rental suspension” (0:27:04).

What this arithmetic does not prove. $800,000 is the budgeted line (GL 44000, “Administrative Fees”), not audited collections — and on September 8 the Treasurer told the Board the Association’s accounting “has been a failure since 21/22” and does not follow GAAP, so the actual figure could be lower. The Board is also not obliged to raise assessments: it could cut $800,000 of spending instead, or replace the fee with the combined “STR gate fee” now being drafted — which is exactly what the October vote is about. And “eligible votes” (3,955 certified August 5, 2026) is the closest public proxy for owner accounts; the assessed-lot count may differ. The point of the division is not a precise bill. It is that a fee paid by one owner in ten becomes a bill paid by ten owners in ten.

👷 THE 1½ INSPECTORS — WHAT THE SHORTFALL IS ALREADY DECIDING

The clearest sign that the fee question is not academic: two compliance positions the Board has already budgeted are sitting unfilled, and management said on the record why.

The budget carries them. They are not hired. From the ARC chair’s report on September 8: “the current budget year has one and a half additional inspectors that are approved. However, we haven’t filled those positions yet because we haven’t addressed the shortfall from the … short-term rental suspension” (0:27:04). The two posts are budgeted at $16 an hour — one full-time, one part-time (0:27:19). Later in the same meeting the Board amended a motion to instruct the General Manager to hire them “right away” (0:49:53), and that instruction passed — though only seven of the nine directors were called in the roll (1:15:39).

What those inspectors are carrying. “Right now we have two people doing inspections full time and we have two administrative staff in the offices dealing with the paperwork. Not too long ago we had 10 people doing this work, but over time we’ve lost those people. Which led to a lot of the violations that we’ve had” (0:27:27). The open workload named at the meeting: 185 building permits, decks and additions included, “they all have to be inspected and ensured that they’re not in setbacks” — and the same two people also run the compliance inspections that keep fines in force (0:50:21).

And what is happening while they are short. In the chair’s own list: “builders who are laying foundations into the setback that we’ve stopped. Builders clearing lots that they don’t even own. We’ve got driveways being installed where they haven’t been permitted … Builders actually ignoring stop work orders” (0:29:22). And the consequence the Board keeps meeting at its own table: the Association “give[s] variances after the fact, which is a direct violation of our rules” (0:27:58) — or, as the president put it to the ARC chair, “your frustration over how come we keep having all these variances come to us because we didn’t have anybody out looking at this” (0:56:34).

The case against hiring them — also made at that table. A director answered: “you can’t hire one and a half people because of one issue. That’s my problem. We’ve got more staff now than we’ve ever had in ARC. Do the job, guys” (0:55:58). The meeting also worked through a process fix instead of headcount — inspect the footing and the final rather than every week, because the weekly visits are “just making work” (0:57:16). Both points deserve an answer before anyone assumes more staff is the only remedy.

Why this belongs on the STR page. Nobody has argued the positions are unnecessary — they are in the budget the Board adopted. What is deciding them is cash: the suspended fee. At $16 an hour, one full-time and one part-time post is roughly $50,000 a year in wages (3,120 hours; payroll costs on top) — about six percent of the $800,000 line now going uncollected, and a fraction of the $131,000 already short by July. Meanwhile the freeze on new permits has a price of its own: each building permit is “approximately $1,500 in impact fee revenue … $100,000 in the current budget” (0:28:28). Fee, inspectors, permits and enforcement are one decision. On October 13 the Board took the fee part of it — and left the other three where they were.