Updated Surplus Numbers

Updated Surplus Numbers
Updated Surplus Numbers: Actual surplus 2018 per audit was $85,163.
Boards 2011-2018 implemented policies and procedures with specific goals:
stabilize owner fees, achieve maintenance objectives and achieve annual budget surpluses.
Any surplus was retained by the association.
The board elected in fall 2018 decided to increase owner fees, even in view of a large potential surplus

Average fees prior to 2019

Average fees prior to 2019
Average fees per owner prior to 2019:
RED indicates the consequences had boards continued the fee policies prior to 2010,
BLUE indicates actual fees. These moderated when better policies and financial controls were put in place by boards

Better budgeting could have resulted in lower fees

Better budgeting could have resulted in lower fees
Better budgeting could have resulted in lower fees:
RED line = actual fees enacted by boards,
BLUE line = alternate, fees, ultimately lower with same association income lower had
boards used better financial controls and focused on long term fee stability

Friday, December 10, 2010

Your Unit Is Not Your Castle - Part I

The association issued an urgent safety bulletin to unit owners. The bulletin was prompted by a disastrous fire at a nearby condominium association, which is believed to have started in the fireplace, firebox, or flue.

Our condominium is similar in design and construction to that which experienced the fire, and is about 35 years of age. Some of our units have a gas fired fireplace. Not all do; this was a $1,500 option back in 1978. Doesn't seem like much money by today's standards, but it's helpful to remember that a decent home (3 BR, 1 bath, 2-car garage, 0.33 acres) could be purchased in Wheaton for as little at $52,000 back then. I know, because I did! On the other hand, wages were lower too, and $25,000 a year was a very good wage. That's inflation!

The bulletin has resulted in some owner comments. I understand that some have stated they have no issue with this, and in fact, are very willing to comply. I also understand a few have questioned the necessity to have the fireplace inspected. One has refused and stated "I'm going to use my fireplace as-is."

That's an interesting perspective. The issue is very simple. Our management has advised us that they observed the damage and is very involved in the coordination of the cleanup, etc. It is with their guidance that BLMH has issued the statement to unit owners. According to management, there was no indication that the unit owner did anything improper in the fireplace. It's reasonable to assume this fireplace had been used many times in the past. However, this year, it failed, and when it did, it did major fire damage to the building.

The goal of the inspection, which includes a brief list of guidelines, is to assure that your fireplace, firebox, flue and chimney are intact, and safe to use.

To complicate this further, during the November association meeting, an elderly couple took the opportunity to make a statement about their concerns about safety at BLMH. This was prompted, they said, by the recent "fire" at the 1731 building. That "fire" was a near miss, with very minimal damage. What's minimal? Probably $2,000 or so, including a damaged window. That meeting was about 12 days prior to the serious fire at the nearby community.

So, what is the real issue here? In an association with families and singles, in 336 units, with ages from their 20s to their 90s, what is the appropriate action? And why the resistance by some unit owners to an "Urgent Fireplace Safety Warning?"

Living in a condominium association, we give up some personal freedoms. That's the way it is in a "Common Interest Development" or CID. I suspect a few of us don't know that, or have forgotten.

I'm going to quote an attorney who specializes in these matters. “People have this idea that they have a deed to this particular property and this is their castle,” however, he often has to remind people “your home is not your castle; your home is part of everyone’s castle.”

According to this article from which I quote the attorney, developments such as BLMH are attractive to buyers because "they are low maintenance, and city planners like them because they make better use of increasingly scarce areas for development. However, those homes come with a complex set of rules and regulations. It might be something as banal, yet frequently irksome, as how many pets you can have, or even what constitutes a pet."

“As a result,” he says, “many people have a hard time adjusting to life in a common interest development.”

“For the most part, the general public is not aware of what their rights and obligations are in these kinds of arrangements...Buying into a CID means you have elected to live together and be bound to each other, not just physically, not just by party walls or common lot lines, but to be bound together by a set of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC & Rs) that are difficult to change.”

“The problem is the people who live in these units don’t understand what they have bought into,” says Richardson, “and the homeowner associations that run them do not always strike the right balance between a harmonious community and a viable business operation.”

It's my opinion that taking strong steps to protect the inhabitants of BLMH is an appropriate balance between being harmonious and a business. If your neighbor due to simple error, or accident, burns down the building you live in, that will certainly be an inharmonious event!

What we each do with the information that is provided to us, is our personal business. However, the failure of something in our unit can have serious consequences not only for ourselves, but also for our neighbors. Some examples include the dishwasher which springs a serious leak, a failure in our fireplace, or a fire in the clothes dryer, the utility fan, whatever. At times we will be inconvenienced by requests or rules of the association. Which is preferred, occasional inconvenience or disruption by serious events?

It's my opinion that how safe this association is, meaning how safe we are as owners and dwellers, is in part determined by our individual actions. I think it's useful to remember that we are, in fact, "bound together" and how we act as individuals does affect others in this community.

Comments, Corrections, Omissions, References

Note 1. Here's a link to the original article, from which I have quoted attorney Kelly Richardson. 

Kelly-Richardson-lawyer-interview.html

Note 2. The board or its members are not immune from making the same mistakes as owners. Recent boards, for example, have attempted to satisfy or placate each and every owner who comes before them with a problem or a complaint. In attempting to do so, at some point, a board will compromise some owners for the benefit of one or another. So how to make a good decision? Be familiar with the governing documents, and make decisions for the association as a whole, rather than for specific individuals, is probably a good start. 


Note 3. The bulletin was an association action, coordinated by the board and management. Management read and approved the notice, which was prepared by the board. This post is my personal opinion.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please leave a comment!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.