Embellishment of community

Do any Covenants allow the BOD to spend association money for embellishment projects?

If not in the covenants, should these be amended by a 75 % or more vote of the membership to allow such spending, often frivolous needless to add!

Your thoughts, John

Read your covenants closely. Usually there's a section called duties & responsibilities of the Board in it or in your bylaws. Often it says something like the Board's job is too maintain the common areas. A lot of maintenance may be purely functional/operational. But some may be aesthetic as in the landscaping example, improving the appearance of an entrance monument, etc.

In that same section, you should see what the Board may NOT do.

My job as President and board member was to act on the behalf of the entire membership/majority. So if the majority of owners wanted us to "Paint the roads red" then we painted the roads red. I would have to get 3 bids, buy supplies if needed, get the city's approval, and arrange our HOA funds to pay for the project. That's what the HOA board is designed to do whether or not it's exactly in the CC&R's/By-laws. The board is elected to represent the whole of the HOA membership. It's the non-activity or apathy of the owners that allow the board to act on their own at times.

There are some "frivolous" items everyone buys. Flowers don't add value to a property but they do make it more attractive. Do you think buying flowers for nice landscaping is frivolous? What is your definition of frivolous? It may not match others same definition. I have a picture of "Dogs playing poker" in my house. Who says I need pictures when I need to put gas in my car? In a HOA, you sometimes get pictures even though you will always need gas...Doesn't mean the HOA is wasting money. If gas cost $100 and a picture $25 and your HOA only has $50...Let's say the "Picture" represents making the property attractive to potential buyers. Which choice do you think your HOA is going to make? Save the money till they get to $100 and look shabby or spend the $25 to buy the "pictures"? Sometimes frivolous purchases aren't so frivolous...It depends on how you look at them.

I am with Glen, I think we need a further scope of what your talking about. Boards do have discretion, however, they can only get away with what the membership will let them.

Well, one person's beautification is another person's embellishment, I suppose. You mention that your board has had a high turnover, so if they're not doing what you think they should be doing, it may be time for YOU to run for a seat.

As for the assessments, you don't say if these are annual or monthly or what they pay for - what they pay for should drive the rate. There are all sorts of reasons why community A pays more or less than community B - unless you have budgets from both communities (or several), it really doesn't matter what they pay because you don't live in that community. That said, if it seems community A is doing a better job at controlling costs, perhaps you can talk to members of its board to see if there are some ideas you can take back to yours.

I am a bit confused on the situation. Does the Developer still own the HOA or is it member only ran? The developer would have had the right to drain the pond if it's still under his control and ownership. The board may be made up of the membership but they still answer to the developer until it's officially turned over.

The selling/creating the 9 more lots only holds to benefit the HOA. That means 9 more lots to pay assessments. It sounds like investing than running away. Which most developers would have left town already instead of building. Must mean something there.

You stated there was a drought and then the additional adding on of a sprinkler system? Explain to me why then the retention ponds would NOT have been 2 inches drained of water? The purpose of the sprinkler system is to provide water during drought times and/or spread the water evenly to keep the grass/landscape alive. I would expect in extreme conditions that water would be lower than normal. However, I am sure the grass/landscaping stayed alive better than without it. So don't understand the issue other than water lowered due to drought and water useage...

A HOA does NOT keep anyone's home values up. That is a HUGE misconception. There are many factors in home values and HOA plays little to actual value. What a HOA does do is adds to the "sale-ability" of the properties. A HOA is a sales tool of sorts. It attracts owners who like the idea they have rules in place for everyone to follow so that the property stays maintained to certain standards. It also allows people to pool their money in support of this endeavor plus take care of amenity maintenance. It's cheaper to pay $150 a month to have access to a pool, lawncare, garbage pickup, or nice landscaping than it is to pay for it on your own. Believe me I pay $40 every 2 weeks on my lawn being mowed in the summer. My HOA I paid $50 a month for garbage pickup, amenity access, and lawncare. A HOA purpose is to just make sure it stays in good shape to attract buyers. It doesn't do a thing about how much those new buyers are going to pay for a house. That's dictated by the market in the area, location, and what the banks approve.

There are many reasons a HOA raises it's dues. That's because it is ONLY budget is from the members FOR the members. If an owner isn't paying their dues, that's less money and more the other owners have to pick up. So if you have owners who are disgruntle on the operation of the HOA refusing to pay their dues, that means they possibly lose their right to vote to change things AND put an additional financial burden on ALL the members of the HOA. Thus you get an increase in dues. Plus if the majority of membership agrees they want a sprinkler system, that costs money. That means the cost is spread out evenly amongst all the owners to support. So dues should reflect the financial needs of the HOA so it breaks even at the end of the day on costs and collections.

John

I would say this, you are right the Develope has to abide by the rules, however, good luck short of court getting them to. The board is incorrect, even if something happened in the past it does not necessarily create a precedent and pumping water out of a pond is not a long term answer. Focus on what you can control, which is the board and their actions. Soon the developer will be out of your hair and you can remedy that problem as well.

The covenants state "No pumps should be placed in a lake, pond or creek for the purpose of removing water for irrigation purposes." What is vague about that?

"No pumps" = some pumps?

Melissa now you are trying to parse words like the H/O's who brake the rules and come here trying to find something to justify it and get themselves off the hook. If the Covenant had an exception for the developer or the BOD it would be spelled out in the Covenant.

"No pumps should be placed in a lake, pond or creek for the purpose of removing water for irrigation purposes except be the Declarant or the HOA Board."

John,

How much money are you talking about? Is the embellishment an item covered in your reserves or considered a capitol improvement? To my knowledge the 75% requirement would be for capitol improvements meaning something new paid out of operating but reserved for as a major component the following year.

What is stopping the homeowners from changing the Covenants to rid themselves of this loophole?

Paul since you're in CA, check out the davis-stirling.com page on capital improvements including the case law at the bottom.

http://www.davis-stirling.com/Capitalimprovements/tabid/349/Default.aspx#axzz2CK7GiiPQ

Paul

My friend...they gotcha...and you know it...you just do not like.

I can understand.

Paul

The real issue is your are a full-time owner resident in a part-time owner, vacation rental enviroment.

The three (full-time, part-time, vacation rental) types are always going to have issues.

As an example what are the numbers/% of:

Full-time livers, part-times livers, vacation rentals?

Thanks.