Open Board Meeting - 18 February 2010

The open meeting of Park Lane's board of directors began at 6:30pm with all board members and about 8 homeowners present. Three issues were raised by homeowners during the open forum portion of the meeting:

• A homeowner spoke up to say that [s]he felt that the newsletter circulated by Tom Crowder explaining that basketball hoops and such were going to be allowed in the cul-de-sacs so long as they didn't block the ingress/egress of vehicles was confusing and would lead homeowners to believe that these items would not need to be stowed out of sight when not in use. The board's president explained that the very next rule in the "rulebook", although not shown in the newsletter, stated that these items must be stowed out of sight. A discussion then ensued for another 5-10 minutes about the (in)ability of people to read, understand, and follow the rules.
  
  
• A second homeowner raised the issue of registering dogs with the association or proving their registration to the association. [S]he felt that it would be better for the association to simply reference the city ordinance requiring animals to be licensed and otherwise stay out of it. (This homeowner seemed to be aware that the board did not intend to pursue the enforcement of this rule with any real vigor.) The homeowner further felt that the non-enforcement of this rule could lead to liability for the association in the sense that the association, by passing this rule, is assuming responsibility for policing the dogs living in the neighborhood but not actually following through on that responsibility. The board's president replied that the rule was intended as a means to force people to properly license their animals. (He never actually said that the board did not intend to enforce this rule, but given his previous statements on the matter, I think the inference of such is reasonable.)
  
  
• Finally, the issue of a loud, threatening resident was brought to the board. The president stated that the board was already aware of the issue and is addressing it via the association's rules enforcement policy/procedures.

The regular open board meeting then began with approval of minutes. Minutes from the 21 January 2010 regular board meeting were approved with one abstention (mine, I wasn't present for the entire meeting and could not approve of items that I don't even remember happening). Minutes from the 21 January 2010 annual meeting were approved with one abstention (mine, I didn't feel that the annual minutes could be approved at a regular meeting. The property manager explained that the board could approve the minutes, but that the membership would also [have to] approve of them at the next annual meeting. I wasn't convinced, and voting "no" would have legitimized the vote, so I abstained.) Minutes from the 21 January 2010 organizational meeting of the board of directors were unanimously approved.

The board received no (new) applications or interest from members to serve on any committees. The current landscape and social committee members were reappointed to their positions. Two homeowners who were present also expressed interest in these committees and were appointed to them. The committee reports were of little, if any, consequence.

The board tabled the issue of the financial statement and bank reconciliation. One director (me) had questions about it, and the treasurer had not had time to review the documents, yet. It was my understanding that the board would come back to these documents near the end of the meeting during the budget/reserve agenda item, but it never happened.

The board voted to write off approximately $2,000 in bad debt. In this case, it was explained that the debt to the association remained after either a bankruptcy or a lender foreclosure. The only recourse open to the association is to sue the homeowner, likely in small claims court, but in many cases (these, in particular) the costs coupled with the unlikelihood of recovery outweigh the loss. Also of note here is that the 2010 budget calls for $4,500 in bad debt. It is February, and half of that is already used.

Nothing worthy of note was contained in either the management report or work order list.

The board briefly discussed the wood fence repair/replacement necessary in the community. The board has been advised by legal counsel that it is (entirely) responsible for the fences facing common areas and that individual homeowners do not bear half of the responsibility for this cost as is traditional. This is going to be a huge expense to the association, and the board is going to look for volunteers to join a "work party" to do the replacement of some/all of the fences.

Finally, the board discussed the budget/reserves. (Interestingly, every homeowner got up and left at this point in the meeting.) I presented the comparison of the 2008 and 2010 budget that I wrote about previously. There was some back and forth among the board members and a mild amount of finger pointing. In the end, though, using the comparison spreadsheet, I was able to show that even though prior boards had been able to cut contract costs (landscape, management, janitorial, etc.), those savings were not translating into money in the association's pockets. Instead, the savings is simply being diverted elsewhere in the budget to other costs. At this point, the treasurer spoke up and said that there are a number of "discretionary" costs in our budget, and like any other business or government entity, we need to cut costs/services. Much to my surprise, there was very little resistance to this. The remainder of the board was very amenable to the idea, and a committee was formed to look at the budget and recommend how to make cuts.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:15pm.