DanielF4 (California)
Posts: 3
Posts: 3
Posted:
I live in a 533 member California non-profit stock cooperative mobilehome park. Each resident member owns one share of the corporation. The community formed as a non-profit in the 1980s when the residents purchased the property. The original Articles of Incorporation and original Bylaws say nothing regarding the imposition of fees for use of the common area RV storage or overflow parking facilities. Subsequent to the formation of the non-profit stock cooperative, the Board of Directors (BOD) approved a fee for use of these common area facilities. The Bylaws were also changed to incorporate the fees. By way of comparison, there are plots of land in this community that members may use as gardens that are of comparable size as an RV lot and larger than an overflow parking spot. The HOA allows residents to use this land free of charge. The cost of water used by the residents with garden spots is distributed among the 533 residents (i.e. it is part of the general monthly HOA fee paid by all residents). Other common area amenities are also available at no charge. The only other amenities where residents are charged a "fee" is the laundry mat, coke machine and the office copy machine. In each case, the fee charged is aligned with the cost of the amenity.
The issue is this. May a California non-profit stock cooperative BOD selectively impose a fee for use of RV / overflow parking areas (common property owned by all residents) where such fee is disproportionate to the cost of maintaining those amenities? To give you an idea of the degree of disparity, the fees charged for the RV / overflow parking generate a revenue of approximately $25,000. This year's proposed budget increases the RV fee by 10% and the overflow parking by 15%. The fee increase will result in a 2017 revenue of approximately $30,000. The cost of maintaining these areas is approximately $200 per year. All of the RV / overflow parking revenue goes into the operating fund. Consequently, this revenue reduces the monthly HOA fee paid be each resident. In other words, the "profit" on the fee subsidizes the HOA monthly fee by about $8 or $9 dollars per month. What strains this entire issue even more is that the RV / overflow parking areas are used by other residents, contractors and the HOA's maintenance group. The BOD's myopic logic is that the fees are less than those available in the general commercial marketplace. They seem to overlook that we own this land and those facilities, and the BOD is treating the RV / overflow parking differently than the land used for gardens and all other fee based and non-fee based amenities.
If anyone has references to specific statutes or case law applicable to the above facts indicating that such fees are discriminatory, or represent a "taking" of property, I would be grateful if you would post a response. Similarly, if anyone has any reference to case law or statutes that does not support discrimination or a taking, please respond. Thank you and sorry this posting is so lengthy.
The issue is this. May a California non-profit stock cooperative BOD selectively impose a fee for use of RV / overflow parking areas (common property owned by all residents) where such fee is disproportionate to the cost of maintaining those amenities? To give you an idea of the degree of disparity, the fees charged for the RV / overflow parking generate a revenue of approximately $25,000. This year's proposed budget increases the RV fee by 10% and the overflow parking by 15%. The fee increase will result in a 2017 revenue of approximately $30,000. The cost of maintaining these areas is approximately $200 per year. All of the RV / overflow parking revenue goes into the operating fund. Consequently, this revenue reduces the monthly HOA fee paid be each resident. In other words, the "profit" on the fee subsidizes the HOA monthly fee by about $8 or $9 dollars per month. What strains this entire issue even more is that the RV / overflow parking areas are used by other residents, contractors and the HOA's maintenance group. The BOD's myopic logic is that the fees are less than those available in the general commercial marketplace. They seem to overlook that we own this land and those facilities, and the BOD is treating the RV / overflow parking differently than the land used for gardens and all other fee based and non-fee based amenities.
If anyone has references to specific statutes or case law applicable to the above facts indicating that such fees are discriminatory, or represent a "taking" of property, I would be grateful if you would post a response. Similarly, if anyone has any reference to case law or statutes that does not support discrimination or a taking, please respond. Thank you and sorry this posting is so lengthy.