Length of Campaign for Going Mandatory with Dues

Our BOD is in the process of trying to achieve a 50.1% majority vote in order to make our dues mandatory. We're now a voluntary association of 263 homes with a pool/tennis court to support that is a real contentious issue. How long should a covenant campaign be allowed to run before you stick a fork in it and call it done! Even their own attorney supposedly recommended concluding it within 6 months.

They started collecting signatures for this change over a year ago. When questioned about a time limit, the previous Board president declared that it would go on "as long as necessary". Which means they intend to keep twisting and harassing residents until they finally get the required 132 households to sign on the dotted line. As of January they stated that they had "just a little over a hundred signatures" but they refuse to say how many people they still intend to contact directly. Every resident was provided a copy of the proposed changes. They had two meetings at our community church where people could come by to sign (which is only required if you're voting for the proposal). They've had three signing days at a Board members house.

To make it a little more interesting, several of the residents had an attorney contact them to advise them the HOA would be sued if a lien were ever filed against their property for nonpayment. The Board then amended the proposed covenants and wrote in a grandfather clause that exempted current residents from ever having liens filed against them. So in reality the mandatory dues will only apply to new residents. Hopefully the majority of current members will continue to contribute their dues.

The Board never went back and acquired new signatures from the residents that had signed before the amendment was added so I would think the amendment would invalidate those signatures now, or would it?

My opinion is that everyone that wants to sign has had a chance to sign and they should just admit defeat. All the arm twisting that's going on is unethical in my opinion. If they'd been a little more open with their communications and about their activities before they started the campaign they might not be having this much trouble.

If they do manage to find a 132nd homeowner (no matter how long it takes), I've no doubt they'll build a pedestal, jump up on top of it and start shouting, "SEE, WE TOLD YOU THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED TO GO TO MANDATORY DUES!"

Roger - you didn't address the issue, but attacked Randal instead. But to answer your question: Maybe because Randal doesn't use the pool, tennis courts, or care to fund covenant enforcement because that was all voluntary when he purchased his home. I agree: if the proposed amendment was changed after some people signed, then their signature is void. But I'd wait to challenge it until they claim enough signatures.
Roger, you just mentioned in another post that your HOA values have increased 60%. Do you mean 60% more than your neighboring non-HOAs? Frankly sir, I wouldn't believe that. Where is the property value of these grandfathered homes if they have to disclose a mandatory HOA to the next buyer? I think they could successfully sue their HOA for lowering their property values. I'm sure you are aware that recently real estate is being touted more and more as NO HOA, so obviously this would have to affect their property values negatively. I have yet to see a real estate ad shouting THIS HOME IS IN AN HOA! Have you? Harold

Harold,
Do these places without HOAs have any extra ammenities or common areas? If so, how do they administer the cost of those things?
Kevin

My question is: who owns and administers the amenities? Is it by those that pay a fee or are these things privately owned and those that pay a fee allowed to use them? I don’t care about whether some other people are looking for places without HOAs.
So for the point of the post, they have a pool/tennis court that is a "real contentious issue".
Randall also said: "To make it a little more interesting, several of the residents had an attorney contact them to advise them the HOA would be sued if a lien were ever filed against their property for nonpayment."
I am reading this like the homeowners would be sued if a lien were filed against whoever owned the pool.

I know there are country clubs that have memberships. To play golf, you have to belong to the country club and often have to pay monthly fees and spend certain levels at the restaurant.
Randall, is that how your pool/tennis courts work?
Are you saying that if you are a member of a "pool/tennis" club then you cannot be sued, but if you are a member of an association that owns a "pool/tennis" club then you can be sued? Or are you saying that anyone associated with the pool can be sued and that is why some don’t want to be a legal part of the association? Is that the contention?
Also, I have read in other posts that a neighborhood cannot change into a mandatory association unless 100% of the owners agree. My understanding is that a mandatory association is mandatory by virtue of the deed restrictions recorded with the property. How can my neighbor force dues on me?
Or conversely, if I were a president of an association board, how can non-members force me into only campaigning for a year for changing the status of the association?
It seems Randall has a very strange situation. I would like to know more.

Roger, As to your question about why I oppose providing my fair share of financial support.... I don't. I'm going to pay my HOA dues this year. I probably would even if I wasn't going to use the recreation amenities. Though I am tempted to use the money instead to buy a pool membership in a different neighborhood that doesn't close their pool in the evening for the swim team.

As for signing off on the covenants.... I oppose that on several grounds. First off I don't think it's fair for 50.1% of the neighborhood to cram something down the throats of the remainder of the neighborhood. Even if they can't file liens for nonpayment they'll still carry those individuals as delinquent and do their best to ridicule and demonize nonmembers to the rest of the neighborhood. In my opinion this should not be allowed to pass by such a minimal margin. If a 75% majority is required for residents to call a special meeting then 75% should be the requirement to pass any changes to the covenants. But our covenants and bylaws are so screwed up, contradictory, and vague, they don't address anything like this. Which brings me to my second objection.

Fix the rules and regulations first! Spell out the limits of authority, establish realistic procedures and processes and then follow them.

My third objection is that the Board does not communicate with, or seek the input of the residents, on anything. They consider themselves the final authority on everything and nothing is to be discussed with anyone outside the Board. And that was their policy even before they decided to become the "secret society" this year and close all their meetings to keep residents from attending. That's where I kept getting in trouble when I was on the Board. Most people knew I had an open door policy and they could call me up to get answers to their questions. No BS, no beat around the bush. They would get the same information that they would have heard had they made it to the meeting. They are the residents, they are the Boards customers, we were there to serve them... not the other way around.

Kevin - the recreation amenities are deeded to the HOA and until this year it was operated on a user fee basis ($300 additional per family/year). It seemed to work very well until they started closing our pool in the evenings so the swim team could practice. Once that started, residential and outside memberships started to drop off. Then the Board decided that the HOA should start picking up the expenses for the physical assets and only use the money collected from the recreation dues to go towards operating expenses like chemicals and lifeguards.

I know of no limit on how long can signatures be solicited to amend the Declaration unless a time limit is specified. Proxies are good for 11 months in Colorado (or less if specified in the By-laws) but this doesn't apply since proxies should not be accepted for amending the Covenants.

I know of an association that tried unsuccessfully for 3 years to amend roofing materials since their Covenants only allowed cedar shakes (which were considered undesirable and had been outlawed in the adjacent Boulder County. Their Declaration required 90% approval to amend which they never achieved. A few owners chose not to vote; several moved and the new owners were then required to sign; some were never at the home; and probably there were other reasons of which I am not aware. In addition, as Harold indicated, if anything was changed during the process of seeking approvals then the owners would need to approve the new proposed amendment(s).