Open Board Meeting - 18 March 2010

March's open meeting was called to order at about 6:30pm with about 25 homeowners and all 5 board members present. The entire open forum portion of the meeting revolved around a single topic: expenses (and the cutting of them).

• A homeowner came with a prepared list of items that she insisted not be considered in an attempt to cut costs/save money. These included locking the gates open; reducing the security patrol, pool cleaning/maintenance, landscaping, regular maintenance, gate maintenance; etc. After about 5 minutes, she was cut short by the board's president for running over time.
• Two other homeowners rose to speak against locking the gates open for safety reasons (speeding cars and protection of children). One of them suggested that the street sweeping service should be stopped.
  
• A homeowner rose to speak against locking the gates open and presented a map of sex offenders living in the area as a reason. She also raised the concern that it would allow people who don't reside within Park Lane to use its parking spaces.
• A homeowner spoke against the cutting back of the landscaping maintenance within the community.
• There being no other speakers, the first homeowner was allowed to continue down her list. Her reasons for not making cuts quickly devolved into finger pointing at current and previous board members for their misdeeds (perceived or otherwise). At one point I interrupted the homeowner to point out that her facts were incorrect. She curtly asked me not to interrupt her "3 minutes".

The open forum portion of the meeting was then closed (though homeowners were allowed to speak at various times during the regular meeting). Minutes from the 18 February 2010 regular board meeting were approved unanimously. The board moved then to committee reports.

• Architectural: A request to replace the windows on a home with more energy efficient versions was unanimously approved by the board. The board president reported that another architectural improvement within the community was still in progress.
• Landscape: The board approved unanimously a proposal to remove a willow tree at a cost of $250 whose branches where allowing rodents access to an adjacent home and dripping sap everywhere. It would have cost $150 annually to keep and trim the tree. No replacement is likely due to the confined space. The board tabled, with the committee chairperson's approval, a separate proposal to replace a rosemary bush at a cost of approximately $100.
• Social: The next garage sale will be May 16th.
• Other committee reports were inconsequential.

The board elected unanimously not to foreclose on a homeowner who has fallen behind on his/her payments. This article explains why. At this point, the board treasurer explained the financial situation to the board and homeowners who were present. All of that information can be found here. He then listed some prime places that can be cut from the budget which would keep the association's expenses from overrunning the budget, i.e. these cuts would simply make up for the revenue shortfall created by homeowners who are not paying their assessments. It was at this point that I spoke up to point out that these cuts would simply keep us afloat and do nothing to address the problems with the reserves. The board treasurer also pointed out that 2009's reserve study assumed a starting fund of approximately $177,000 that would be depleted by 2019. Since 2010 actually started with approximately $100,000 in reserve, this depletion will likely occur sooner. The board discussed cuts to the association's expenses at this time but no actual motion was made. It's not clear to me what is going to happen with regard to those cuts.

Prior to the approval of the financial statement, the board treasurer and I both asked the property manager about discrepancies on the financial statement and for an explanation of various charges. She was able to answer some of the questions ($2,000+ in printing costs in January were due to the annual meeting). On others however, she deferred to her accounting department, with whom the board treasurer and I will be meeting next week. During this portion of the conversation, we learned that as part of the management contract, the association is charged for every phone call made by the management on the association's behalf. [It appears to me that despite the lowered management fee (in comparison to previous management companies), we're being nickel'd and dime'd on individual charges.]

The board president then moved to approve the financial statement. Prior to the vote, I interjected to reiterate what I had brought up previously during the executive session, and that was that the reserves were not funded in January. I told the board that, to me, this represented a loan to the operating account, and that I believed we are acting in contravention of the relevant law concerning loans from the reserves. No one spoke at this point [the board president and I discussed this issue briefly during executive session, but I'm not sure of the legality of relating the substance of that conversation in an open forum], and the review of the financial statements was unanimously approved.

The last item before the meeting concluded was the issue of scheduling a special meeting to address the petition presented by a number of homeowners wishing to reverse the recently adopted rules. The board president read the petition and then stated that the board had no choice but to schedule a meeting. This led to questions from and discussions among homeowners and the board about the legal rights of the petitioners, the costs of holding the meeting, and the legalities of handling the vote. I spoke up and suggested that the board meet with the petitioners to see if something could be worked out. The president replied that there was no way to stop what had been put into motion by the petitioners. I suggested that they (the petitioners) could all agree (in writing) to reverse their request and that no one would sue us for not holding the meeting if the petitioners reversed their request. The board president insisted that the letter was delivered to him and, as such, was his responsibility and that the meeting must go forward.

A homeowner involved with creating the petition then spoke up to say that she would favor a meeting between the petitioners and the board and that no special meeting would be required if the petitioners and the board could come to an agreement. There was some minor discussion about the possibility, but the board president again insisted that the issue was his responsibility (to which I vocally disagreed) and that no such "arbitration" was possible and a special meeting must be held (to which I again vocally disagreed). The special meeting was scheduled to coincide with May's open board meeting, currently scheduled for 20 May 2010.

The meeting was adjourned a few minutes prior to 8:00pm.