Open Board Meeting - 16 September 2010

September's open board meeting had a little bit of drama but, overall, was very quiet, much like August's meeting. The board's treasurer was absent.

Homeowner Forum

There were only three homeowners present for this portion of the meeting during which only one spoke, and that homeowner directed her comments/questions at me. She was particularly concerned with some of the comments I made in regard to a parking permit that was pending issue. Here is some background:

Prior to the August meeting I met with a homeowner to verify his information in connection with issuing a parking permit. During the course of the visit, the homeowner suggested that the association consider issuing a second parking permit to homes in the community. At first I was reticent since parking is always such a touchy subject. However, the homeowner suggested that the cost of the second permit be much higher than the first, something on the order of 3 to 5 times as high. This would discourage people from buying a second permit just because they could afford it (alleviating my concerns about over-parking) and also provide some much needed revenue to the association. I told the homeowner that the idea sounded good to me and that I would take it up with the rest of the board.

At the August meeting, I raised the idea of issuing a second permit to people who were willing to pay $500 or even $1,000 for a yearly permit. I said that because the association had only issued approximately half of it's allotment of 25 permits, the issuance of (what I expected to be) one or two "secondary" permits was something that should be considered in light of the extra money that could be brought in with minimal impact to the parking situation. The idea was quickly rejected by the remaining board members.

Now, back to September's meeting. The homeowner at the meeting had several concerns about this, but they all seemed to revolve around 2 points:

1. That when I spoke to the homeowner again after the board meeting, I would portray the remaining board members in a bad light, e.g. "I really wanted to do this thing, but those mean, old board members just wouldn't go for it."
   
   and
   
   
2. How could I think that this was a good idea? And more to the point, what qualifies me, as a non-resident member of the association and board, to proclaim this a good idea, e.g. why would I care if parking goes to hell in a hand basket subsequent to the adoption of such a policy.

To the first point I replied that I had not spoken with the homeowner again. Since he had intimated to me that he had raised the idea previously to no avail, I didn't feel it necessary to contact him to tell him that nothing was going to change. I further replied, though, that if I did contact him, I would not hesitate to tell him that I liked the idea, but the rest of the board did not. Furthermore, I cannot control what a homeowner thinks about the association's policies and/or the individual members who vote for or against them. I would have (to the best of my ability) related to the homeowner what happened at the meeting, and he would have been free to draw his own conclusion(s).

(I should add, at this point, that the remaining board members came to my defense, explaining that they would have acted similarly when talking with the homeowner who suggested the idea of issuing a second permit. That is, they, too, would have politely listened to the homeowner and brought the issue to the board, i.e. it is generally the M.O. of board members in such situations not to argue with a homeowner. I thanked them for speaking up but made clear to the homeowner at the meeting that I did think that the idea had merit.)

To the second point, I explained that I do not make decisions for the association; the board does. The very reason that five people sit on the board and not one is to prevent one person from instituting whatever policy he or she deems to be a good idea. Sometimes the members of the board agree; sometimes they don't. There is nothing wrong with that disagreement, though. That is just the way things work. I thought issuing a second permit was a good idea; the rest of the board disagreed; and the issue was dropped. (I wish that I had specifically addressed the canard that being a non-resident member somehow diminishes me or the work I do as a board member, but it didn't seem the place, nor does this. I will likely address it in a future post, though.)

Open Board Meeting

The highlights of the meeting are covered in the bullet points that follow. Some points require further explanation/analysis which I will get into in later posts.

• Minutes from the 19 August 2010 meeting were unanimously approved with one change: the approval of the architectural change requested by a homeowner was unanimously carried. (I do not intend to obtain a new copy of the minutes to reflect this change, so the "draft" minutes posted will have to suffice unless someone else obtains the final minutes and provides them.)
• A number of landscaping proposals totaling $563.00 were approved.
• The issue of the rabbit fencing in the tot lot was raised. During the summer there hadn't been any problems, but now apparently kids are using it to give themselves a boost to jump over the fence. The board is looking into adding curved extensions to the top of the fence that would prevent climbing over the fence.
• The board approved the purchase of a temporary speed bump to be placed just inside the Belflora entrance gate as well as two stop signs to be added at two points within the community. If the temporary speed bump alleviates the speeding at the entrance, it will likely be made permanent.
  
• The board reviewed the association's financial statements and noted that the association is currently running almost $26,000 under budget. This is still less than the amount of outstanding debt that the association is owed by delinquent homeowners, though. Statements for the month of August were approved.
• The board reviewed the delinquency report and found that a number of homeowners have not yet paid the special assessment that was due 1 September. There is optimism that most will pay, though, based on the fact that regular assessments due 1 September were paid.
• The board approved the 2010 reserve study and the budget for 2011. The budget included an increase in the regular assessment of $11 per month. (I will write more about these soon.)
• The board discussed the proposed bylaws amendments. I spoke up saying that I was in favor of all but the change to eliminate cumulative voting. I felt that there is a minority of homeowners who have the best interests of the association in mind but who for one reason or another are unwilling or unable to attend the meetings. I said that I was aware of the possible dangers of cumulative voting but that I felt the probability of those occurring was low. The board president felt that the elimination of cumulative voting would bring us in line with most corporations and every governmental process of holding elections. I reiterated that I understood the rationale, but that I was still not in favor of the amendment.
  
  It was at this point that a "sort of" vote was held. Of the four members present, two voted "aye", I voted "no", and one abstained (admitting to not having read the changes). This should mean that the measure was defeated, having failed to garner a majority of votes. However, at this point, the property manager suggested that the issue be tabled until all five members are present, and the board president agreed to table the issue. I'm not sure of the legality of these actions, but I was not inclined to make a federal case out of it (I expected to be the sole "no" vote against four "ayes").

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:50pm.

Minutes posted

Minutes from May, June, and July's regular board meetings are now posted.

Note that the password has been updated to match the new resident gate code.

Filling in the blanks

As I mentioned here, I've been trying for awhile to obtain a number of documents from our property management company. I finally picked them up this morning and have scanned and uploaded them.

• 2008 Reserve Study
• 2008 Reserve Accounting
• 2008 Minutes
• 2009 Budget
• 2009 Reserve Accounting
• 2009 Minutes

I have no further requests outstanding for any documents. If my collection is somehow incomplete, let me know.

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.

More minutes and budgets

I've obtained minutes for May through October of 2009, and they are now posted in the "minutes" section. I've also posted budgets from 2008 and 2010.

Governing documents and minutes posted

After a (very) quick Google search, I came upon a free web hosting service. They provide 1.5GB of space and 100GB of bandwidth all for the low, low cost of free. I've set up an account with them, and now the association's governing documents as well as all of the minutes for which I have electronic copies are posted for immediate download. As before, documents can be accessed with the username of "parklane". The password is the same as the current gate code.

It's not required, but I've placed a link to the web hosting service, 000webhost.com, on the page. It is really the least I could do in thanks for hosting our files for free.