tennis court neglect? Need Advice asap!

ASAP? Whats another 10 years? LOL.



Maybe, maybe not. The devil is in the details of your docs. If you win on legal grounds, be prepared to put your money where your mouth is. If a dues increase or special assessment is required by every condo owner, you will also be one paying.

The reason the tennis court is not being maintained is likely a financial one. ie, no money.

Thank you for your timely responce.........I frankly don't think it was a money issue........I think it was partly due to an aging community. My problem is some of the members of the Board are the older co-owners. They could care less if we even had a tennis court! I'm getting bids on the tennis court now and wanted a solid "legal" reason for maintaining it before our next board meeting next week. I appreciate any added advice you might have.

Thanks Tim............believe me, I won't be "overstepping my authority". The Board is 6 men and me! (Too much testostrome to out-vote me!)

Thanks Melissa......I see your point which is probably what's happening here. Isn't there some problems with getting a mortgage if it's in the Master Deed and not there on the property? Removing something on common elements does require a 100% approval from co-owners as stated in our by-laws. This condo is in a affluent area......I don't get it but of course,I have to see it from other points of views also.

Marilyn

I expect your docs not specifically mention a tennis court thus there is no obligation to it. I say either maintain it or get rid of it. I do expect to get rid of it, the majority of owners would have to agree to do so.

Marilyn,

One last fact.....our dog park conversion project was completely monitored by our city inspectors and the town's water quality expert. We won a small beautification grant from these same people for the novelty of the idea in removing a dilapidated eyesore.

WOW........what a great idea that you made happen!! Was your dog park open to everyone in your city community or just the condo residents?

My belief is that when a community installs anything- whether it be a tennis court or pool- they are obligated to maintain it. If you had 100% of the vote of the membership to get rid of the tennis court, then that should be acceptable. Otherwise, it is not my belief that a HOA has the right to create eyesores by neglect. Every HOA should be planning and saving into a reserve account to cover the cost of resurfacing and repairing the courts and there should be a line item in the general budget to include cleaning and maintenance costs. It is recommended that court surfaces be cleaned monthly in order to maintain them. If a HOA does not have enough money in the reserve account (or no reserve account) then the HOA needs to consider passing a special assessment to pay for the repairs. Above all else, the membership needs to be given all of the options and they need to choose what they want to do- either repair the court or do something else that will enhance their community.

In a Perfect World Anne that would be correct. However, this is not a perfect world and a HOA can modify what it wants. I really like Kelley's approach with the dog park. It is a great option for us dog owners and keeps the dogs off the grass. It sounds like a solid resolution for an elelement that can never rcover its worth. A pool can recover and be an attractant but rarely is a Tennis court. A dog park now adays is a very welcome idea for many buyers. Many coming from apartments or downsizing homes who want pets or have pets.

It is a good option to check into after finding out IF the HOA has to keep this amenity at all.

Reality is the realization that an HOA and its dues payers never save money by holding down dues at the expense of ignoring slow and creeping maintenance. Since tennis isn't as "hot" as in decades past, the court could be safely ignored in order to save maintenance costs. There isn't a loss to the community because tennis isn't being played. The loss is the eyesore and useless amenity created because tennis doesn't serve your community well as a modern amenity.

If this were a debate about converting a functional tennis court asset into a dog park, the support should be given towards maintenance of the courts. This is not the case as the amenity is wholly expired - I'll trust the post I read above as the reference point. What you're defending is the preservation of a liability in its current 100% unusable condition as a preferential property maintenance and community enhancement strategy.

For the critics who'll rise up:

1. Critic, your HOA budget, whether written or not, contains a liability for the maintenance and replacement of the tennis court. No, it can't be ethically ignored. Since the tennis court, in order to function, needs immediate replacement, the reserves need the replacement cost, in cash, sitting in the bank to do the job - but we know that won't be the case. So, a minimal investment will remove the tens of thousands of dollars in liability, lessening the financial burden on the HOA and its dues payers overnight. Whether you own a dog or not, helping the dog owners helped you financially because it's your responsibility to care for your property and pay adequately for its upkeep.

2. This community features a pool, which will enjoy much higher usage rates and thus a dog area won't top the pool for enforcement matters. No way.

3. A dead amenity is useless to 100% of the community while possibly affecting the aesthetic appeal of 100% of the neighborhood for people shopping and passing through. A niche conversion of the courts into a dog park offers a service to a sub-set of the population. The pool is useless to shut-ins yet offers a services to larger sub-set of the community, rendering the dues parsing argument against "my money funding this amenity" moot. No amenity is 100% necessary to 100% of dues payers.

4. If the courts need $50,000 in a complete rebuild yet a wood chip filled area need $4,000 in one-time conversion costs and $500 annually to maintain, you're looking at 40 years of dog park maintenance costs for the single cost of a court overhaul, which would be due again WELL before 50 years. Once again, critics win financially because they experience a lower financial burden of saving money against a tennis court they don't play on.

5. You're not removing the tennis court. In regards to "changing the amenity usage," it was done through board neglect of maintenance from tennis surface to cracked, generic asphalt surface. You're converting generic space into something different. Say the board changes its mind and tennis becomes the new craze......the core court subsurface is there. Hence, I think the by-laws are adhered.

From my perspective, a board that uses the "padlock it and forget it" maintenance strategy is lazy, non-creative and neglectful. Dues payers who insist that padlocked and dead amenities are an asset over reinvestment are short-sighted of what it means to live in a shared-amenity community. I don't use the dog park I created because my dog has a bit of aggressiveness and I'm responsible. But, as president and a non-user, I recognize that our Reserve Funds no longer need $40,000 in additional cash and the neighborhood no longer has a padlocked tennis court that Realtors mistakenly promote to the buyers and sellers' chagrin.

The expired tennis court, if applicable, would, by Reserve schedule, be the #1 replacement item on our Reserve Fund list. As president, I read the by-laws and we were bound to care for the developer-installed amenities and not "destroy or remove them." We did neither with the conversion to a dog park. Following that decision, we've re-plastered our pool with high grade quartz plaster, re-piped the pool, converted from straight chlorine to a salt-generator system, paid off a a prior "pool rebuild/clubhouse renovation" loan debt caused by a lack of Reserve Fund savings, installed entirely new pool pump equipment, re-strapped all the pool chairs and renovated the pool bathrooms. Those jobs would just about cover the cost of rebuilding that tennis court. My critics grumbled three years ago but reaped lower liability from eliminating the useless amenity from required Reserve Fund savings (which they'll never understand) and saw the freed money and property maintenance focus shifted to the crown jewel - the pool operations. It was a winning play that benefited our community. Of course, your results may vary but I doubt it. Yes, the idea is EXTREMELY outside the box, especially for HOAs that are traditionally stacked with mature people that hold established viewpoints.

Great debate. Wish I saw more of it on here.

Go for the court refurbishment but remember the tennis courts are not a priority to your community. Likely, the current owners are NOT the same ones that purchased from the developer who installed the tennis courts to sell the units originally. Therefore, they didn't buy in your community to play tennis.

It seems your tennis court issue is best resolved by proposing (and passing) a special assessment for a refurbishment or generating interest to professionally remove the courts and restore the space to general park or grass. I think you'll not generate interest in a special assessment and threats of a lawsuit to force the board's hand will only cost you money as it will - if you win - trigger a special assessment + attorney compensation fees. In winning, you lose. I'm being presumptuous on this latter opinion but when new residents come to this forum to outline a board's neglect, a lawsuit is in the back of the person's mind if they can't force others' hands.

Push the court rehab. When it fails, look to age-appropriate usage (since you say the condo owners are older) - like shuffle board and or horseshoes - a lot less asphalt replacement and removal is needed to accommodate either options if tennis fails and the "pad lock it and forget strategy" is not an option. Cracked asphalt is fine for basic walking upon.

Honestly, I bet your board keeps dues at a rate low enough to pay the monthly bills and not really save enough to replace the property amenities. Older boards will pinch pennies and I can't blame them. But they end up with broken tennis courts and no viable way to solve it, effectively choking themselves and creating financial crises their family budgets can't easily handle - the pound of cure. 68 condos is a small number of dues payers to cover such a big job. At an assessment of $1,000 a head, that's a lot of YMCA dues payments for the same service not to mention city park access.

Good luck and tell us your feedback from the board! The fact you're thinking about this is a step in the right direction!

Community consultation is a must for a large-scale project or proposal that isn't subject to minimum petition requirements and the board is considering taking a leadership action to correct an obvious violation of the community's by-laws or promises to all property owners to maintain the property as best possible under quality budget strategy. First, the dog park idea wasn't my idea - two residents inquired because the old concrete was perfect for dogs to play in anyway....and they were doing so as tennis was out of the question. We consulted our community by reaching out to those property owners who have opted-in to receiving more news and information than the legally required communication for meeting notices (some folks don't want our contact). So, we did the best we reasonably could to consult. No one objected given the scenario except people who "didn't know" what we were doing after three public meetings, multiple emails and HOA website updates of which they've been asked to opt-in, but haven't. Of course, widespread rejection would've stopped the project as I'm not wishing to be a petty tyrant. We'd just save the money and repair the courts, which would affect pool upgrades due to our cash flow intake, debt payment and reserve fund levels. No biggie, just business, however disappointing to me personally.

I knew our community didn't want tennis any longer. Long-term residents hadn't seen meaningful use since the mid-nineties and told me as such. Newer residents did not care at all.

Anyway, I too floated a playground idea for an abandoned sand volleyball 'Facility' - another developer installed amenity that surely went into immediate decline. The answer was a resounding "No" in consultation around the community, leading me to swallow the idea. Basketball goals were proposed for the dilapidated tennis courts prior to the dog park. It affected our liability insurance coverage negatively as well as led residents to suggest it would spike trespassing occurrences as ball courts are easily filled in our city parks. Good point. Dead notion as a result.

The only debate I refused to engage in as the then-new board president was a discussion of the "merits" of doing nothing when the courts are prominent in view. That strategy violated the tenets of our by-laws and was illogical because you can't ignore maintenance. Approving a demolition required a majority voting threshold so high as to be prohibitive - and for good reason. But the tennis courts, in my neighborhood, were a symptom and not an illness. Our operating budget, in actual cash dollars, was higher then (2009) than it is today in 2013. We were leaking money in places (audit costs, insurance, water bill and electricity) and it was painless. We were broke and crumbling. The pool broke down and we were forced into a loan. The clubhouse was threatened with insurance condemnation, requiring a re-financing of the existing loan. The debt payments were to run 7 years by schedule....and pool plaster work begins aging out as early as 8 years into its life. See the cycle when you can't demolish and a special assessment would be harsh considering the Great Recession was raging? It was a debt swirl.

It would've been cruel to hit retirees and families with an assessment late last decade, so I went to selling an "outside the box" idea that had won a five-to-one matching city grant. It worked and tennis has never been requested in the courts' absence.

I really hope Marilyn can start down the road to financially sensible approach to her tennis court refurb or repurposing.

I'm glad he did. Interesting thread on this topic that was not focused on laws that might have changed, but rather what a community may or may not want to do with such an area.