fiduciary responsibilty of Board

I am again needing help from you "good answer" folks! I have been on our Board for almost a year now. From the very beginning our Board has made it a project to get our tennis court renovated. It has been neglected for many years by past Boards and has been unplayable for at least 10 years. Our pool is in top notch shape. We have budgeted for this project and the money is there.
This tennis court is an eyesore to the property.
Now, here's the problem, we had a raise in HOA dues of $23.00 monthly. Everyone is up in arms over this and thinks it is for the tennis court project. They are starting a petition not to have the tennis court done.

Isn't it our fiduciary responsibility to make sure all "common elements" are in top notch condition as written in our By-laws??

Our pool and tennis court are in our By-laws and referred to as "common elements".
Does anyone know of cases where the co-owners have sued the Board for not taking care of their common elements and won?
This tennis court is going to be a muti-purpose court with tennis, basketball, pickleball, basketball, schuffleball so everyone can use it.

Obviously, the Board didn't do a good enough job informing the membership of the reason for the increase.

I'd suggest you do that. Perhaps a "what does my monthly assessment pay for" article. See attached example.

Let me rephrase what Carol posted. If you were not renovating the Tennis courts, would that large of an assessment be needed? This is what needs to be answered and thoroughly explained to the membership.


You know the answer to that one.


I'm sure that they are out there. Are you now having to convince other Board members to continue the tennis court renovation and need the cases for that?

You should check to see whether your governing documents have anything to say on this.

We had a somewhat similar situation this year. Our common elements include an artificial turf putting green. This was installed by the developer over 10 years ago. It is located in front of our clubhouse and was obviously intended as a marketing tool. The green was not properly designed or installed. Its slope was so steep that no matter how softly you stuck the putt, the ball rolled all the way off the green. As a result, nobody used it and it received no maintenance of any kind. It had begun to develop mold and was falling apart.

The board obtained estimates of nearly $35,000 to refurbish the putting green and correct the design and installation defects. Our reserve study included $39,000 to refurbish the putting green. The board was reluctant to spend that kind of money on an amenity that nobody used so we passed a motion to delete the putting green and restore the location with sod.

Our governing documents state that if the board votes to remove an amenity, the members have 30 days to submit written objections. If more than 10% of the members object, the amenity must be maintained. We received well over 20% objections. The board has now awarded a contract for $38,000 to install a new, larger putting green at a location near the tennis courts and golf driving cage. The result will be an amenity that can actually be used and that it is hoped will prove to be a draw for potential buyers.

David

To me 10% being able to stop the BOD from removing an amenity is a very low amount. Any others have an opinion or experience with removing an amenity?

Thanks

Our CCRs said if our pool was closed for two consecutive years, we needed a homeowner vote of 75% or more to close it for good. Two years ago (after the pool was closed for three years - didn't hear a peep from anyone for or against), the Board got a bid on what it would cost to renovate and reopen the pool vs. closing and removing it.

We put that in a letter to homeowners along with an information sheet listing the information, the costs of running a full season (Memorial Day - Labor Day) and the percentage of residents who actually used the thing (about 3% according to the last year it was open). We then explained why the Board recommended permanent closure (high delinquency rate, usage rate didn't justify the cost, we'd save money on the liability portion of the master insurance policy for the association and could replace the pool with an outdoor entertainment area that could be cheaper to maintain and more likely to be used.

Since it really came down to a dollars and cents (and SENSE!)issue, you would think everyone would have stampeded to cast a vote for or against, especially as everyone howls about assessment increases being "too high," but it took two years to get what we needed - despite sending a stamped self addressed envelope with the initial ballot and resending a ballot (minus the envelopes) to people who hadn't voted after a year and a half. Maybe it was owner apathy, maybe people thought the board would do whatever it wanted regardless of how they voted (although we kept reminding everyone of the CCR requirement because no one on the board wants to get sued!)

So, all I can say is educate the members and push for a vote (even if it's against the Board's recommendation, that's ok, as long as people know what the consequences will be - maybe they don't mind). You may have to do some personal lobbying as well - we have a lot of off-site owners and so phone calls and emails or visits (if they live in the area) will be necessary. In our case, we had homeowners who didn't (and still don't) care what goes in in the community (another conversation) and in the end, we really had to hammer the money side to get them to move one way or another.