JoyceS1 (Indiana)
Posts: 140
Posts: 140
Posted:
Our reserves are underfunded. Our roofs (just one component) ended up needing replaced earlier than anticipated by 5 years, and there is just enough money to cover the replacement. We are in the process of correcting the underfunded Reserves by upping the maintenance fee to boost the reserves to cover the other components.
We have a handful of individuals who constantly believe that we each should “pay for our own” roofs (or whatever) if we don’t have enough funds to cover the cost through our reserves or monthly maintenance fee. (Our Covenants outline HOA responsibility for specific component maintenance, repair and replacement)
In this instance, I’m wanting to explain to them that if they have lived here for 15 years, they have used the roof for 15 years, contributed toward its replacement for 15 years; thus if they paid for it themselves instead of the Association, they would actually be paying more than the cost of the roof.
Similarly, someone who has lived here for 7 years, the previous resident has already contributed for 8 years of use. Therefore, the 7 year resident would be paying more since money has been contributed toward the roofing by the previous owner.
Since what I have outlined above doesn’t seem to register with some people, is there another approach that I can take to explain that they would actually be paying more even if they were allowed to pay for any component themselves?
We have a handful of individuals who constantly believe that we each should “pay for our own” roofs (or whatever) if we don’t have enough funds to cover the cost through our reserves or monthly maintenance fee. (Our Covenants outline HOA responsibility for specific component maintenance, repair and replacement)
In this instance, I’m wanting to explain to them that if they have lived here for 15 years, they have used the roof for 15 years, contributed toward its replacement for 15 years; thus if they paid for it themselves instead of the Association, they would actually be paying more than the cost of the roof.
Similarly, someone who has lived here for 7 years, the previous resident has already contributed for 8 years of use. Therefore, the 7 year resident would be paying more since money has been contributed toward the roofing by the previous owner.
Since what I have outlined above doesn’t seem to register with some people, is there another approach that I can take to explain that they would actually be paying more even if they were allowed to pay for any component themselves?