Special Assessments

You have to keep in mind what common area means. It means it is owned by ALL the owners/members of the HOA. Hence why there is even an HOA to begin with. It's a situation of "Majority rules". Whatever a majority of the owners want to do with the common area and are willing to pay for, can be done.

My job as President was to FASCILLITATE what the majority of the owners wanted. If they wanted to paint the roads "red", my job as President was to represent that majority and make it happen. The rules of the HOA are setup to represent the wishes/desires of it's members.

I would say that if a majority of the owners vote and agree to pay for the work, then do it. It's what they want to do with their investment of the common area. Just as long as it is understood that ALL the owners must pay the special assessment and NOT those who voted for it. It can't just be the majority who voted it in to pay. A HOA is only funded by it's member for it's members. So the members must pay for what they want....

Dorothy

to answer your specific questions, special assesments can be used for wants, needs, pie in the sky, whatever. As to what percent, I am not sure, our documents spell out exactly how it is to be passed. You would have to have a meeting to vote on it and you would have to provide notice to your members of the meeting, cost and purpose of the assessment.

Our CC&Rs state the board can vote for a special assessment, no input from the community needed. I woulldn't reccomend putting a special assessment with just a vote of the board though.

It all depends on what the majority wants and what your CC&R's say.

Out of curiosity, does the court get a lot of use today? How much per house are we talking?

Daryl,
No, of course this court does not get a lot of use. It gets some, but it really was a pet project of a few really tall guys. But it still got approved because they are nice, charming, good-looking guys who couched it all as, "you know, for the kids!" Having said that, it does get used for the Annual Kids Talent Show, which is priceless. It was somewhere between $6,500 and $6,700, for $160.00 per household, collected and paid for within the year. I am curious what this "extension" would cost, but the proposal has not been written yet. The homeowner was just testing the waters last night at the meeting.

I would want to have a meeting of the Association for the purpose of discussing the proposal. Any meeting NOT the annual meeting is considered a Special Meeting and needs 20% of the association vote to hold one. I'm pretty sure I could get that 20% when it involves the possibility of a special assessment. I guess my question still is, in the event we don't get the 20%, and a meeting does not happen, can the architects and the supporters of this proposal do this door-to-door conducting a legitimate vote?

If your asking if the people can possibly avoid the special meeting requirement and go door to door for voting purposes the answer is yes but not how you think...Here's how it would have to legally be done. The members would have to draft a document for the member/owners to sign giving up their right to a special meeting. By giving up their rights to this special meeting they are agreeing the vote they are casting by the actual vote/petition is their decision.

So members can give up their right to hold/participate in a special meeting in order to cast their vote individually. Which can enable the people gathering the votes to go door to door to gather those votes. However, they would need to possibly hire an attorney to draft this document and the vote/petition document. A cost that may not be covered by the special assessment portion of the cost of the project.

We had to do this when we were modifying our CC&R's/By-laws/Incorporation. It was impossible to have a special meeting so our attorney drafted us 2 documents. Member will have to sign 2 documents in the end. It frees up the restriction of a special meeting and being able to gather votes on a better accommodating schedule such as door to door.

Melissa,
I am curious where you are referencing your information. What legal statute are you citing that says:

"The members would have to draft a document for the member/owners to sign giving up their right to a special meeting. By giving up their rights to this special meeting they are agreeing the vote they are casting by the actual vote/petition is their decision."

First of all, the Special Meeting I am talking about is a preliminary meeting to present the proposal, after it has been distributed to the homeowners, and they have had a chance to read it, and can now ask questions and discourse. I would not assume a vote would necessarily take place at that meeting. Now, it could, of course, and would be presented with this potential.

Secondly, how is casting your vote individually door-to-door any different from casting your vote individually in a meeting? Either by ballot or raised hand you are still casting an individual vote, AND you can still, in effect, "give up" the right to vote by abstaining.

Thirdly, I'm not sure I understand your logic regarding giving up the right to hold/participate in a Special Meeting just so you can cast a vote individually door-to-door and ensuring that the vote being cast is one's own decision. Who else's would it be?

Finally, I've never heard of hiring a lawyer to properly effect a Special Assessment.

Dorothy

Well,Kelly, this is a most astute response, for which I thank you.

Incredibly, after repeated reading, I find nothing in our Bylaws or CC&R's that specifically address Special Assessments. I'm discovering that this is a mighty big omission. My main concern is whether this omission contradicts or circumvents legal precedence in the state of Washington. While the previous Special Assessment went through, I'm not convinced it went through properly, as the Board was at that time, how shall we say, less than enthusiastic about learning the role of the Board. So, the "wants" vs. the "needs," is the first question that came to mind when proposing a Special Assessment.

However, my gut tells me that my fellow respondents here are right: as long as the membership is fully informed, has had the opportunity for discussion, and as long as a vote is conducted based on this information, then what came before, what is now (no defined policy for Special Assessments)in practice does not prohibit a Special Assessment for a project to which a majority agrees. I am not sure the Board passing a Resolution for Special Assessment protocol would not be seen as an intentional specific prohibition against the current proposal.

BUT! This is all important food for thought, which I will continue to pursue.

Dorothy

Kelly hit it on the head, as president if you think there is enough steam to get this to a voting stage take the reigns and I would if I were in your shoes give a presentation at the meeting about your financial state, the upcoming needs of the association and how that relates to your current reserves and dues. When it is all said and done if the homeowners want it you can't stop it, however, giving them as much information as possible doesn't hurt.

I am not sure what Melissa is referencing in regards to this waiver of a special meeting, it may exist, however my documents do not give us that ability. The vote has to happen at a meeting, at least that is what my docs say.

Hey there. The Annual Association Meeting and follow-up took me away from this thread. So, I just wanted to thank everyone for their input. If and when this proposal comes to fore I will most definitely make sure everyone knows the pros and cons of the project. Probably with providing hard copies for review at their leisure, then the meeting for discussion, and then a vote. Keep it simple, yes?

Brad,
Yes,and, actually, I think I have the opportunity to have quite a strong standing with this dual position of President, as well as a homeowner living directly across the street from the park. I can present concerns from both sides of the issue -- communally and personally. While those who live far from the park or never use the park often approach such concerns with ambivalence. This is of course, faulty thinking, but as we know, what isn't in our "direct" backyard, is someone else's problem, even when indirectly it affects us all.

On another issue, our covenants require underground sprinkler systems. They also require the property be kept free from, "weeds, underbrush, refuse piles, trash, garbage, wast or other unsightly growths." They do not say anything about having to have a "green lawn." We have one homeowner who keeps his yard well-tended, mowed, weeded, nice garden in the back, in fact is always seen out in his yard doing something. Except apparently watering. They seem to like to have their yard brown out in the summer.

Recently we sent out our first community survey with this question: "Do you think all covenants have equal merit and should be enforced consistently and uniformly. If no, please comment." We received this response: "Yes, but we currently aren't enforcing all equally." "I would like to see a covenant requirement that lawns be kept adequately irrigated (clarification of Covenant #6, Sec. H). . . seems odd we're required to install an irrigation system but then not required to use it."

If this homeowner is talking about us not "enforcing" this particular covenant by allowing the "unsightliness" of his lawn, I would like to address these concerns. Mainly, because I know we are enforcing all covenants equally, as we get grief about it, which is what inspired this question in the first place. It has always been my mandate that there is no such thing as a "minor" covenant, whether it is dropping a garden shed in your back yard with a crane, or leaving your garbage can out. But secondly, I am curious about this. Does this homeowner have a legitimate complaint? My immediate thought was Xeriscaping. We have two houses who have no front lawns -- only natural plants, rocks, etc. They don't use the irrigation that was installed on their property. So, is the question, "Should we be required to use the required irrigation system?" or, "Is there some standard of how every lawn is 'supposed' to look?" To me, these are two very different questions.

Dorothy

Susan,
I like the idea of a workshop or information session, prior to a full-on meeting. Granted, this is a "small" court, one basket, one slab of concrete, that's it. Certainly not designed to play an actual game. Even so, I was one of 6 out of 42 who did not vote for this. To expand this to accommodate a full-on game, AND a tennis wall, or whatever the hell the guy is envisioning, is most definitely going to receive some opposition, more than the last time, I predict. We already have had problems with non-residents discovering our little park, and using it, precisely because they don't have to compete with others for use of the public ones for a little pick-up game. Why, this past summer, I looked out my window and saw four guys, their wives and kids, playing basketball and spread out with a full-blown picnic, blankets, coolers, the works. I could not believe it. I went on over and told them this was for the use of residents and their guests and they would need to leave, pointing to the five signs. Their response? "Why?" "You don't want us playing here because you're racist." (they were Hispanic). I started to laugh and said, "Really? You're playing the racist card? This property is owned and maintained by these residents. You don't see me coming onto your front lawn having a picnic and playing ball do you?" He said, "We'd let you, man." "There ain't no reason we can't play here. What's it hurting?" I said, "I've got two words for you: private property. So, you can either leave now and not return to use this as a public park, or stay, play, and the police will come and help you find another court." They started cussing and the women started hissing, the kids started crying. It was quite the scene. I stood there and wrote the license plate number down as they drove off, in case I woke up the next morning to a vandalized park. Then I called the police just to have it on record of the possibility of retribution. Later that day? I saw the same group enjoying their game and picnic at the public courts in another park.

The most important part of this story is that I looked out my window because I had received a call from the neighbor whose house is closest to that court. She was afraid to ask these guys to leave and so called me. My husband was none to happy with me going over there either. Any homeowner has the right to ask a non-resident if they are a guest of a resident, if they are uncomfortable for some reason with them in our park, and ask them to leave. Nobody ever does. In fact, when the park went in, the committee in charge didn't even want to put "Private Property" on the signs because nobody wanted to be the "police." Now, we have signs that don't accurately reflect what we really want.

Also, our park has a chain link fence dividing it from a public park with a great,paved 3/4 mile walking trail next to a creek, and a big open field, used for soccer when in season, but most of the time, just as big ole' green space. That field is next to the city-owned baseball fields, which are also used by the high school directly across the street from them. So, we get plenty of foot traffic coming through our neighborhood to and from the school, the fields and the walking trail. We're not trying to stop that, even if we could, which we can't. We are on public streets, have a nice neighborhood, and people like to walk through it to get to the public parks. That's cool.

BUT! Our small park is very attractive as an alternative to the public arenas. And amazingly, there are people who just think they can use our park as if it were public. We had a debate last year on the private vs. private with public benefits. I wound up taking it to our attorney who said it is private property, it falls within the boundaries of the plat, and people who bought in there had the reasonable expectation that it was not for public use. As an association we can get together and make our own policy, but it was clear that most of the residents did not want public use of our park to be advertised or actively supported.

Enter the expanded basketball court. . .