Result of November 11, 2010 Association Meeting - Part I

The long awaited association meeting occurred Thursday night. Here is a brief summary, which is part one of a two part post. These are not necessarily in the order of the actual events of the meeting:

1. The new board member (me) and the positions assigned during the budget workshop were affirmed and voted. All board members who were present affirmed the CAI code of conduct. Two board members were not present; our Treasurer and our Director who has no specific assignments.

2. The budget for 2011 was approved unanimously. This included a 6% reserve funding increase and a 1% Operating and Maintenance budget increase. The total increase is 7%.

3. Our Architectural Director resigned. He explained this is due to a change in work assignment, which will require extensive travel. As a result he will miss too many meetings. He read a brief statement, and handed me several folders, so that I may carry on the work. Note: He and I had collaborated for the period since his election and we had discussed improving documentation system and methods. As part of that, he had begun a spread sheet of all major improvements at each address in BLMH. At my request, he had emailed me a copy of the original. I promised to maintain and expand this.

4. I was asked to assume the position of Architectural Director, and I accepted, and this was passed by the board. Note: This means that for the present, I am both Vice President of the association and the Architectural Director. (Note 1).

5. The repair to the building at 1731, which requires the installation of pressure piers, will finally proceed. We had obtained two bids, but I noticed that there was a serious problem and it seemed a bidder may have had incomplete information. I discussed this with the Architectural Director and then with management. Finally, after a re-bid, we were able to approve a bidder and this work will now proceed. The owner of one of the units in that building asked if this would correct an issue with the out-of-square brick surrounding the window frame (he wants to replace that window). With Management's approval, I read aloud a statement included in the proposal of the successful bidder. (Note 2).

6. During the "Homeowners Forum" owners were given an opportunity to speak. Statements included:

• A former board member volunteered her services to fill our board vacancy. This former member also  volunteered last year, but was passed over. She has extensive experience and could certainly do any position if asked. Our board president thanked this owner for the offer. There was no other statement by any board member.
• A unit owner, who is also a former board member (treasurer), addressed the board and requested that we seriously consider the candidacy of this person. 
• A unit owner stated that he understood the necessity of the 7% fee increase, but felt that it was "punitive." He asked that the board attempt to smooth these fee increases and keep them consistent. This to avoid owner distress and undue hardship. He stated the opinion that it should be a priority to avoid these types of financial see-saws. 
• Several owners expressed the difficulties of the current economy. I expressed that I understood the issues with the two consecutive COLA freezes for those on Social Security, and the many unemployed and underemployed. Note: I did not state this at the meeting, but my business experienced a 50% decrease in revenue in 2007-2008 and I am personally aware of these difficulties. I recently sent a written statement to the board which included this information. Of course it is personal in nature, but I sometimes think there are those in this association who think we really don't "get it." Be assured, I do. 
• A unit owner stated that she found "the bench" to be a nice place to sit, when she takes her strolls through our property. (See Item 6) 
• An owner expressed dismay about the costs of the roofs, and the timing of the replacement of some. I repeated what a former Architectural Director stated and pointed to him in the audience as I did so. "If we replace a roof a year earlier than necessary, there is a financial consequence. However, if we replace a roof a year later, there is possible discomfort and inconvenience to an owner, as well as costs of repairs, which can be excessive." I expressed the statement made to me by management of the selection process. I also stated the average age of our roofs, and the need for some diligence in the program. The average age for remaining roofs will be 17 years, but some may be replaced in as little as 10 years as one was this year, and others may wait longer. Note: I have posted an explanation in this blog and some details. (Note 5).
• The minor fire that occurred in an electric space heater in the water closet of the garage at 1731 was discussed briefly by a couple attending. They made several independent statements during the forum. They were not involved or live in the building, but they stated their concern about "being safe" at BLMH. They asked about inspection methods and also expressed a concern that there is no fire detector in the garages. They acknowledged that they are aware of the smoke detectors in the hallways. They reiterated their concerns about safety. I advised the owners that I have begun research into a possible, lower energy and potentially safer replacement for these heaters. It is too early to state if this is reasonable. Note: I did not ask them if they have replaced all of the 30 year old utility or bathroom vent fans in their unit. This has been an ongoing discussion because of two recent fires. (Note 6).
• An owner asked for the final cost of the water main break at Gloucester. Management provided that information as requested to all present.  Management also passed a piece of the remains of the pipe to owners for their inspection and made a statement about the condition of the main, and status of the project. All repairs, including patch to the driveway, are now complete. 
• An owner inquired into sealcoating for the new driveways. Management stated that this is not to be done for a year. Early application of seal coating will damage the asphalt.  Note: Our budget includes funding for sealcoating in 2011. 
• An owner asked if this board was developing a long range financial plan of 10 years duration. She also wanted assurances that our financial plan includes provisions for accruing reserves in a timely way for ongoing projects (for example, are we accruing reserves for the most recent roofs). She was assured that we are developing a long range plan, and that the financial program does include building reserves for current AND future projects. I stated that the initial work on this was the basis of the charts and data that had been provided to all owners as part of the release of the proposed budget. I advised her that I had prepared additional charts for presentation at this meeting. Management and I advised the group that there is more work to be done in 2011. Note: At the conclusion of the meeting, the owner asked me for more specific information and I again assured her that the board was intent on working on this and it is my personal commitment to develop a 10 year (and longer) plan.
• Owners expressed their opinions about real estate sales in the association and in general. An owner stated that there were professional opinions that in 2013 things would be improving.

6. The "bench" which was installed in the common areas by a unit owner, in violation of the rules, was discussed. The couple that did this was present during the meeting. I stated my concerns, including the cost of maintaining and issues with owner annexation of common property. I acknowledged that there are many "nice and desirable" things that could occur in the common areas, including benches, lawn furniture, vegetable or flower gardens, a children's play area or areas and even a dog run. I expressed my concern about how best to proceed. Management stated that the board can, by decree, do whatever it wishes. The issue of rules violation was sidestepped and this was passed to the Landscaping Director, who was not present, to resolve. He will be asked to determine type and location of benches. (Note 4).

7. There was a discussion of aerators in the lakes. Currently there are none. An owner has requested that they be re-installed. (Note 4).


8. Management was asked the status of the experiment with a different wattage outdoor light bulb for the sconces on the exterior of the building. Management reported that the experiment was a success, and that exterior bulbs would be changed on an "as needed" basis. Note: Credit for this goes to our former LD. I was skeptical of this and expressed reservation about the possible reduction in lighting levels. However, management stated that the reduction was "slight." I recently discussed the next step and if lighting levels need to be increased, this could be accomplished with clear lenses. Cost to be determined.

9. At the conclusion of the meeting, I made a slide presentation which expanded upon the financial data and project funding. Some of this has been presented in the blog, in earlier posts. This presentation was optional and was made to several owners who stayed for this briefing after the main portion of the meeting.  Here is one of the charts presented, which shows how a typical owner's fees are spent on Operating and Maintenance item at BLMH. It does not indicate the reserves. This chart is a typical one, so don't use it to determine your exact fee. Our fees are based on percentage of ownership, and there is a variation between units. As usual, if you click on this chart, it will enlarge.

9. The meeting was attended by about 14 unit owners. There were several couples present, as were the spouses of board members. I did not double-count couples.

10. I personally want to thank those who attended and made statements and asked questions. It's my opinion that the owners were very considerate of their neighbors, fully engaged in the financial issues, and were cordial and attentive. That certainly made the evening somewhat easier for me.


Comments, Corrections, Omissions, References

Note 1. I have been working on a "task agenda" as Vice President, which I intend to submit to the board for comments. Due to this appointment, that agenda will be re-evaluated and modified prior to submission,

Note 2. This building foundation is one of two on the property that have, in recent years, begun to separate and settle. One was repaired several years ago. This building was languishing and there were now large, prominent stress cracks, visible on the outside of the building and inside the units(s). I made it a priority on being elected to proceed as soon as possible to guide management to correct this. I may provide some general information about the repair and the issue in a future post. In particular, if it cannot be in the newsletter due to space restraints, etc. I want to state here that it is my opinion that our association must vigorously and rapidly perform this type of maintenance. This is not only for the comfort and security of the owners, but to assure potential buyers that the property will be maintained.

Note 3. The "bench" and related conversation became somewhat disruptive this week, as board members discussed, via email, the pros and cons. However, there are one or two board members who seem completely committed to this. "Benches are good" is the current position, and details such as the cost to install, the cost to maintain and the fact that we may have "benches forever" seem to be of little consequence. As they say "where there is a will there is a way" and for benches, there is definitely a will. The timing of all of this was poor, because of last minute issues with the 1731 building repair, and of course, ongoing and time consuming financial matters. The bottom line for me is that I am opposed to owner annexation of the common elements. See Note 4 for a perspective on this.

Note 4. Here is another perspective, on modifying common elements, and a possible consequence. This  from the HOA Leader Newsletter -Tip of the Week November 12, 2010: I have sent this to the the other members of the board, for their information and guidance. This is an email publication of HOALeader.com. They also provide a subscription service. There is more information at the conclusion of this note.

"Is your HOA considering eliminating a common element to avoid the cost of maintenance or repair? If so,  consider this week's tip your fair warning: You probably can't do that without your owners' say-so.

A reader asks an interesting question: "We have a small play structure for children. It is now time to do maintenance on it, make modifications, install a new one, or remove it entirely. I understand that since it is an amenity, we probably have to have a vote from all homeowners, especially if we deem the maintenance to be cost prohibitive. Our governing documents also state that if an expenditure is more than 5 percent of our operating budget for the year, all homeowners need to vote to approve it. The
question: Since the play structure is 20 years old and doesn't meet the new, required safety codes, could it be taken down or modified without all homeowners voting?"

"The reader asks a good question," says Kyle Hooper, an associate at Atkinson, Diner, Stone, Mankuta & Ploucha PA in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., who represents about 40 community associations. "This is something we deal with frequently here in Florida--maintenance and repair, replacement versus additions, and alterations and improvements. Your governing documents control what the board can and can't do, and that's the first place to look. Generally there will be different sections in the governing documents covering these issues.

"An association has a duty to maintain, repair, and replace existing common elements, which would of course include a playground or play structure because it was there and approved through the process and should have been maintained," explains Hooper. "To simply remove it, I think, would be in violation of the maintain, repair, or replace rule. You can't summarily remove a swimming pool if it's 20 years old and doesn't meet safety codes. The board's obligation would be to maintain, repair, or replace the pool with a similar kind and quality that meets code standards.

"Otherwise, you're in essence taking away an amenity that has been furnished to unit owners by saying it doesn't meet code,"  continues Hooper. "That's not good enough.""

Comment: So, once we put benches in, it may be difficult or impossible to get them removed. Something to think about?

Note: HOALeader.com provides a free email newsletter, from which this is excerpted. They also provide a subscription service. There is more information go to

HOALeader.com - Practical Information for Homeowners Association Leadership


Note 5. For further information about the age of our roofs and details of our project, see "My Primary concerns" in this post:

BLMH - Making a Good Decision

Note 6. I attempted to be on my best behavior.  I did my best to be supportive to the owners, my fellow board members and represent the association in an appropriate manner. My spouse, who attended, congratulated me for being very controlled during the entire proceeding. To support me, she had brought a large sign to display from the audience, as a reminder to me. Here it is. The message was "Don't Get Hooked."