Important Issue Our Board Can Not See Eye to Eye

Happy Sunday HOA TALK,

I have posted earlier regarding this but it our sitation has changed in regards to how our board wishes to proceed with this. Please forgive length of this post.

Approximately 2 weeks ago we have a tenant ( rental ) rent our clubhouse for a party. The agreement for the clubhouse specifically stated it does not include the pool or common area.
During party day there were greater then the posted # of guests in the pool who belonged to this group. The noise consisted of kids screaming which is also againste our rules and there were lots of people coming and going out of the pool area, all belonging to this party.

I approached the board with this issue. The majority * 4/7 felt it wasn't a big deal, and the guests/ tenant did nothing wrong. The majority also stated that the rules agreement was changed and that they didn't agree with the " No use of the pool" etc. Several weeks before the agreement, and the interaction with our PM was sent to us all. We all had access to what this agreement read, and how the tenant was to behave with her guests.

One board member said that she didn't think that 25 guests in the pool area appeared as an intimidation to owners not to use thier own facilities. The truth is that the city law allows 20 pool guests in the area. The number was exceeded. The minority of the board was challenged with "if I rent the clubhouse are you saying I can't use the pool with my 12 grandkids?" etc. The race card was even drawn. The meeting did not end with any agreement, and I can vouch, that race had nothing to do with it.. however it appears. The multiple guests that were there were as varied as our complex,

We have no # or limit to unit guests allowed in pool. We have board members who feel 25 personal guests using the pool does not mean they are using it exclusively. We have board members who are not reading emails and or knowing the rules or city laws. It is extremely frustrating to the point our own manager who always refrains from speaking stated she doesn't understand the point of view nor the city laws. How in the helll do we proceed with this?

I have thought of doing an membership survey on a couple of items here seeking input. Does the membership wish to not have the cluhouse rentals use the pool area. Do they feel that a number limit should be in place, also would they feel comfortable using the pool that was being occupied by 20 outside guests. etc.

Any other ideas?

I'll start where I left off with your last post of this topic, Nicole. I think you're on the Board but I'm not sure. Please clarify this time. Thanks.

Did the Board create this agreement in this case? Doesn't your HOA have a generic agreement when someone wants to rent the clubhouse? If not you should create one that applies equally to all residents.

What do you mean when you wrote re: the board: "The majority also stated that the rules agreement was changed and that they didn't agree with the 'No use of the pool' etc. Several weeks before the agreement, and the interaction with our PM was sent to us all. We all had access to what this agreement read, and how the tenant was to behave with her guests" ? I have hard time following it.

Sometimes residents rent our community lounges for parties and some of the guests also use the pool and or the billiards room too. These guests are not using them EXCLUSIVELY as anyone else also can use them. It sounds like Melissa's HOA is the same.

It also sounds like some of the board's conversations about this topic are taking place online (you complain that some don't reply), but as you know, in CA, all such discussions should take place at open meetings of the Board unless an executive session matter is involved.

Does your municipal code specify the number who could be in the pool at one time or in the pool "area" at one time as you wrote. If the law wash being broken, you should have called the proper authorities. Too late now.

Finally, Nicole, is this the same tenant you've complained about in the past? I think I recall noise and unruly kids?

in my HOA: 'activity' users of the clubhouse may NOT use the pool

PERIOD

this is a chlorine vs. carpeting issue

NOT

a don't have fun issue

OUR POOL is for the grandkids and our guests to have a ball !

A tenant has the SAME right to usage and enjoyment as an OWNER, since that is what the OWNER rented away.

We are old (55+) but not yet dead.

THANKS FOR YOUR VERY POLITE RESPONSE. YOUR INPUT WAS MUCH APPRECIATED.

THANKS FOR YOUR VERY POLITE RESPONSE. YOUR INPUT WAS MUCH APPRECIATED.

THE AGREEMENT HE TENANT SIIGNED STATED NO GUEST WERE TO USE THE POOL. THAT IS THE AGREEMENT.. THE OTHER CONCERN IS THE NUMBER OF GUESTS WAS ABOVE THE STATED NUMBER ALLOWED PER LOCAL FIRE SAFETY MARSHALL. OUR RULES STATE THAT NO LOUD NOISE SHOULD INTERFERE WITH ANYONES PEACE. 25 PEOPLE IN THE POOL AREA .. SUPPOSE I SHOULD OF HAD SOMEONE CALL THE FIRE MARSHALL.. THIS IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE, AND CONCERN OF LIABILITY FOR ALL OF THESE DRUNKARD GUESTS WHO HAVING FUN. BOARD MEMBER

Nicole, can you tell us what you think your fellow Board directors should do about this long-past incident? What steps should the board agree on and vote on to deal with that resident? As others have pointed out the owner in CA is responsible unless your docs, --probably CC&Rs say otherwise.

Can you place on your next board meeting's agenda written rules for clubhouse rental and a schedule of fines for noncompliance? These rules must be consistent for all residents.

I'd say offhand that SG is incorrect that a lifeguard must be on duty in CA. In addition, the PM probably won't enforce if the Board doesn't instruct him/her to do so. And what the PM should enforce in this case still is murky to me.

"I'd say offhand that SG is incorrect that a lifeguard must be on duty in CA. "

I did not say California requires lifeguards. What I said:

"Is there a lifeguard present there? There are supposed to be a certain number of lifeguards depending on the number of people in the pool. One LG can not watch over and manage 20+ people."

I am talking about pool safety. There's more to things, safety here, than whether the law has been laid down yet by the government.

Some good info here:

http://njcooperator.com/articles/107/1/Pool-Safety-Liability-and-Management/Page1.html

On the alcohol use at the pool. From the article:

"There's a fifty percent increase of a lawsuit if diving boards or alcohol are allowed," says Sherwood. "You get cheaper insurance rates if those two things aren't permitted." In other words, don't drink or dive."

I knew someone who became a paraplegic drinking and diving into a pool (no board) at a holiday party.

Sounds like everyone involved in this incident has their panties tied up in a knot, therefore it will be doubtful anything can come of it. Until all emotions are taking out of it, these feelings will only perpetuate the upset and not the solution.

Those that are deeply offended by the actions of the party goers should change their stance and approach the board with "ok, so regardless of how this happened etc, what can we do moving forward to make sure this doesn't happen again?"

Nicole,

I posted this earlier, it may have been overlooked.

the only guarantee against recurrence would be the elimination of the pool and clubhouse

OR

hiring 24/7 security AND RAISING ASSESSMENTS TO PAY FOR SAME

news flash:

there will ALWAYS be rule violators

speeders

state sales tax evaders (on line shopping w/o declaring same on tax return)

petty thieves (taking a pencil home from work)

horror of horrors: midnight swimmers and children squealing with delight

get freakin' lives and let people live theirs

Ahh, but safety does cost money. So how much are you willing to pay in assessments before you say there is enough safety and (keeping with the pool instance) you think adults should act like adults and parents should supervise their own children?

An Association could go from having a pool with no fence, no phones, and no lighting to having a full time staff (and all the expenses that go with it) or simply not providing a pool as an amenity. Those who don't use the amenity may say that they are paying too much for something that they don't use and those who use it may be wanting more and more and are willing to pay for it.

It's a shame that it isn't as simple as your statement: "Take care of that and the other will take care of itself. "

However, the reality simply is that it's a juggling act and it's typically the level of risk of liability that persuades decisions in Associations.

I think safety always comes first. So if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. There are guidelines and laws to define what needs to be in place. If you follow them, doing your best and providing a safe environment, you are likely to win a lawsuit.

I thought the NJ article was interesting. It states there are state and national laws. Apparently this is how they operate with regard to lifeguards:

"While exceptions can be made for hotels, retirement communities, and some other specialized residences, the rule of thumb is that swimming pools at condominium complexes must be attended by lifeguards at all times when the pool is open."

Our pool was closed. That isn't what we were sold, so many people were not happy, but good thing, as we probably would have been sued by now. Who knows, maybe that was what shut it down. That or the insurance company. They did opt to have a lifeguard for a while even though it is not required by law.

The problem with HOA's is they cheap out and it comes back to bite them. It isn't always the membership. Our board is cheap -- and they are the ones who make all the calls.

The number of guests in the pool area were exceeded.. There is NO limit of guests per unit for the pool. But the fire marshall has sent the limit fort the clubhouse and the pool area. Both were exceeded . The tenant's agreement clearly states there is no use of the pool. Unforunately bing relatively new on thsi board, there is a big issue with the rental agreement. There is no ramification of breaking rules. and losing security deposit. This will be a key focus on preventing issues like this, also I read a great article that suggusted that ANY rental of them an HOA clubhouse must have homeonwers insurance proven, insurance for the event and if more than 20 adults with potential with alcohol they suggest a security gaurd. ( a little over the top, but the insurance rider was an enlightenment that will be researched)

Glad to hear it will be an issue that the board will focus on, sometimes events like this just have to happen in order to "wake up" everyone to the possible liability etc. It should be noted that it's not just the Board's job either. Everyone in the HOA is responsible, but most homeowners think the board should be or is omniscient in it's care of the HOA as a whole. In this case the event just continued on with no one wanting to "police" the party and throw them out when they violated the no swimming rule. They allowed it to continue which wouldn't look good to a judge.

"Everyone in the HOA is responsible, but most homeowners think the board should be or is omniscient in it's care of the HOA as a whole. In this case the event just continued on with no one wanting to "police" the party and throw them out when they violated the no swimming rule. They allowed it to continue which wouldn't look good to a judge."

So, someone could call the FM about overcapacity of the facility but what are they supposed to do about the no swimming rule? No way could a resident intervene and either ask or throw out others around here. I would expect that could not be accomplished pretty much anywhere.

Or, to solve these issues permanently, just don't rent the clubhouse or pool to anyone. Once money starts changing hands beyond HOA fees, everyone thinks they have a say. These amenities are for the residents of your HOA.