San Ignacio Vistas II – Happenings

18 April 2012

OPEN LETTER TO SIV2 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The San Ignacio Vistas II Homeowners Association (HOA) is requiring that its homeowner  members pay annual dues to an organization known as Green Valley Council (GVC), a lobbying group incorporated as an Arizona 501(c)(4) corporation. GVC touts itself as a quasi-governmental organization with an agenda of being an interface between Green Valley residents and County governmental departments.

HOA membership in GVC requires payment of a one-time HOA fee of $1,500. In addition, individual homeowners under an HOA membership are assessed an annual membership fee which is collected by GVC. HOA membership in GVC allows an HOA Board member to represent the HOA at GVC meetings; individual HOA homeowners are allowed to attend GVC meetings but do not have HOA representation privileges.

GVC sounds like a well-meaning group. Their agenda is driven by inputs from the various groups who have paid the one-time initial fee for joining up. GVC’s agenda encompasses many greater Green Valley issues along with political issues which may or may not be to the likings of some homeowners within an HOA. This brings up the issue of whether an HOA has the right to force a homeowner to pay dues to a group (i.e. GVC) that has views which are contrary to the views of that homeowner.

We don’t force homeowners to contribute to religious organizations, or charities, or political groups, or worker unions – monetary support of such groups is an individual choice, it is not part of the charter of an HOA to dictate whether homeowners must contribute to such groups. Our purpose as an HOA is seeing that our Community maintains a certain level of upkeep of common-areas and individual properties such that the value of these items does not deteriorate – our obligation of monetary contributions should be limited to direct HOA needs.

If the Board feels that it can require homeowners to contribute to an organization like GVC, it needs to demonstrate where in our governing documents individual homeowners are required to do so. I look forward to your response within the next two weeks.

Arizona enacted a new State Law, HB2245, on July 20, 2011. The law allows homeowners to videotape or voice-record HOA board and committee meetings that are open. On July 18, I asked to videotape the Board proceedings for the scheduled meeting that day and was told it would be OK to do so – this was a trial run to see how well my camcorder would work.

The results of the recording were surprisingly good. The picture and sound were better than I expected. Next time the picture quality will be downgraded to allow for a longer recording time.

The law allows for the HOA Board to set some rules for how recordings can be conducted. Those rules may not, however, preclude tape recording or videotaping by those attending the meeting. If you have read the article in the most recent San Ignacio Vistas II Newsletter (Vol.9, Issue2) you’ll have noticed that there are six rules our HOA has set. Of those rules, No. 2 and No.5, in my opinion, need further clarification. And, by the way, when did the Board convene to discuss and set these rules? Was there an open meeting of the Board which would have allowed Homeowners to ask questions and voice their opinions? If there was, I didn’t hear about it.

Rule No. 2, which would require someone who wanted to record a meeting to provide three days written notice to the Board, raises the questions: WHY and is this legal? Is this an attempt to preclude a Homeowner from making a recording? I will be asking our Board these questions soon.

Rule No. 5, which will prohibit distribution of a Board-meeting recording without the Board’s consent, seems to invite censorship. I don’t think the Law’s intent was to preclude anyone who did not attend a particular meeting from getting the benefit of seeing what happened at that particular meeting.  The open parts of meetings are just that “open” and “transparent” to all. The Board may not preclude videotaping of their meetings by legitimate attendees . Once those videotapings exist, the Board should not have the option of picking and choosing who gets to see them. If the Board is concerned about videotapes being altered or ‘doctored’ in some unfavorable way, there are remedial courses of action for that. Getting Board consent doesn’t necessarily prevent maliciousness by someone intent on such action.

Got any opinions on this? Send a COMMENT – anonymously if you want.

In January 2011, I posted my annual list of HOA issues. Now that it’s almost half a year later, it’s time for a review to evaluate the progress (or lack it) that has been made in resolving issues and what remains to be tackled. It’s notable that the HOA Board, in the past 5 months, has not been forthcoming with comments about the list so here’s hoping that this will give them something to think about. If you feel way I do about these issues, please let our Board know it (and copy me if you want).

It’s also encouraging to see that the Arizona legislature has passed some laws that are more homeowner friendly. These laws will go into effect on 20 July 2011 of this year (see HOA LAWS for more information).

On 20 July 2011, some new laws will go into effect to give Arizona homeowners greater access to their HOA meetings and to establish some new Homeowner rights.

A summary of these laws are (click here for actual wording):

HB 2245  (recording HOA associated meetings)

HB 2609 (HOA/Homeowner interaction and procedural rules)

HB 2717 (“For Sale” sign charges)

SB 1148 (dispute resolution HOA/Membership)

SB1149 (home sale transfer-fee restrictions)

SB 1326 (flag display regulations)

SB 1540 (political material distribution regulations)

The  2011 HOA  Budget, which was first shared with Homeowners in a mailing dated January 18, 2011, is the basis for establishing the annual assessment each homeowner will pay this year.

It is important that line item expenditures remain closely within the budgeted amounts, otherwise what is the use of making a budget? Owners can be overcharged on their annual assessments if budgeted amounts are inflated.

Some comments and questions:

• Has the gated-lot gate maintenance contract actually decreased in cost from the actual 2010 amount to what is shown for 2011?
• The Reserve Fund ‘Expenses’ entry shows $7,960 – how is that figure gotten from the December 2010 Financial Report?
• The major budget expenses (shared by ALL homeowners) are:
• Landscaping          $ 45,000                                                                                   
• Reserve Fund Contribution (actually a future expense)          $ 21,199      
• Management Fees          $ 12,720
• General Repair & Maintenance        $  6,600

A review of the SIV2 2011 Budget line-items prompts the following comments and questions:

FIXED EXPENSES

• Property Taxes
  • Why were 2010 Property Taxes much higher than previous years?
  • Why are 2011 Property Taxes expected to be much lower than 2010?
  • Income Taxes
    • Why were income taxes high in 2008 & 2009 and there was a rebate in 2010?
    • How was the 2011 estimated Income Tax of $500 arrived at?
  • Backflow Preventer Tests
    • Why wasn’t a backflow preventer test done in 2010 (even though it was budgeted)?
    • Aren’t backflow preventer tests required each year?

 UTILITIES

• Water/Sewer
  • Why were water costs so high at the end of 2010 ($875 in December 2010)?

 OPERATING EXPENSES

• Contingency
  • What accounts for the $1,725 Contingency expenditure in December 2010 when the previous 2 years had no Contingency expenditures recorded?

GENERAL REPAIR & MAINTENANCE

• General Maintenance
  • Why was General Maintenance almost $4,200 over budget? What happened to cause the large $6,466 billing in March 2010?
  • Minor Street Repairs
    • Why were Minor Street Repairs $3,900 over budget? What happened to cause the budget to be exceeded by so much?

GATE

• Gate Repairs & Maintenance
  • Will non-budgeted gate repairs, which cost $610 in April 2010, be paid by gated area residents (approx. $30 each)? If not, why not?
  • Is the Gate Maintenance Contract going to remain at $3,480 for 2011? 

 LANDSCAPING

• Maintenance Contract
  • Why the substantial increase in contract cost over previous 2 years ($7k-$10k). How does TPAC contribute to reduce Landscaping costs?
  • The same question as above for the Tree Maintenance line-item. No significant reduction in Tree Maintenance is evident from 2011 budget.
  • Pre Emergence
    • Although no pre-emergence expense is shown for 2010, it was observed being applied during 2010. Why are no expenses shown for it in 2010 and 2011?
  • Landscape Improvements
    • Improvements in methods of carrying out maintenance are OK. If improvements mean changes or additions to existing landscaping, they should be considered capital expenses and treated as such per conditions given in the CC&Rs.

 ADMINISTRATIVE

• Accounting/Tax Preparation
  • Why are Accounting/Tax Preparation costs so high? Isn’t Accounting part of the Management Company responsibility under its contract?
  • Postage
    • In view of 2010 actual expenditure and running an HOA website, why is $800 budgeted for postage?
  • Legal Fees
    • What is the reasoning behind budgeting $1,500 for legal fees?
  • Membership
    • Does the Membership know what the actual benefits are that we derive from GVCCC?
    • Does the Membership know that it was not given the opportunity to vote on whether our Community should join GVCCC?
  • Miscellaneous
    • What were the $294 worth of Gift Cards bought in December 2010 specifically used for? In which Board Meeting was the resolution made and passed to spend on Gift Cards?

Budget information distributed to Members also shows:

Actual cash on hand @ year end (2010): $15,343

 Cash on hand @ beginning of year (2011): $12,551

Why is there a $2,792 difference?

Will the Board be so good as to provide some insight into the questions raised above? Answers can only be gotten from those who established the budget. Please let us know at the Annual Meeting on February 16, 2011.

A list of what I consider outstanding HOA issues is periodically sent to our Board at the beginning of the year.  Some items on the list are resolved during the course of the previous year, others are not, and some are no longer considered to be issues because they no longer seem problematic. The list for 2011 is shown here, as well as an open letter to the HOA Board of Directors. Let our Board know what you think is needed to improve our Community.

OPEN LETTER TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

OF

SAN IGNACIO VISTAS II HOA

Dear San Ignacio Vistas II Board Members,

 Homeowners will soon have a newly elected member on their Homeowners Association (HOA) board. This change brings with it the hope that some long-standing issues will, once again, be reviewed by the Board and resolved to the favor of the Community’s membership.

Issues which have been brought up in the past are listed below. Most, if not all, of these issues will not cost the Membership any money but they will create a greater sense of ownership, participation, and belonging to homeowners within our Community. Sometimes it feels like our HOA’s direction is totally in the hands of the Board and we, as Homeowners, are left with a feeling that we have handed the Board total control over all aspects of our Community. This is not the intent of an HOA – the board of directors is elected to be a representative body, which acts on our behalf, to uphold the rules and directives of the Community’s governing documents as well as applicable Arizona and Federal laws. It can be shown that, in the past, some very costly Board actions were undertaken that did not have recorded support of a majority of Homeowners, yet these actions were taken by the Board as being “in the best interest of the homeowners”’. Unfortunately, the rest of the Membership, as a whole, has in all too many cases not been given the opportunity to express what they consider to be in their best interest.

As the HOA Board, it would serve you, and the Membership, well to be totally transparent about contemplated actions that involve changes and spending of unbudgeted monies for major modifications to common-areas. Splitting the Community into various areas to get each area’s recommendation for what it wants done, and then unilaterally deciding which area’s recommendation is to be implemented, is neither a democratic, nor a legitimate, way to determine what the majority of homeowners want done to the common areas of their Community. It is just a way to impose a minority viewpoint on the overall Membership while making it seem like the decision was made by a majority of the Membership. Changes that will affect all in the Community need to be voted on by all in the Community – whether these are changes in governance or changes to common physical property.

The following LIST OF ISSUES shows items which the HOA needs to bring to the attention of ALL homeowners within our Community. The Board needs to organize open forums for discussion and debate on these issues. Ultimately, community-wide votes need to be held to determine what is in the best interest of the membership. In the past, we have, all too often, seen that board-conceived plans, with little or no input from the Membership, have resulted in projects that have been inadequately thought-out and costly in execution and consequence. This has happened under the guise that the Board’s actions have been taken in the “best interest of the homeowners”, but in retrospect it is difficult to find any bases for such claims. This is unacceptable – Homeowners have a right to determine, by majority vote, the direction of changes in their Community’s governance and common-property affairs.

LIST OF ISSUES

 Publish Board meeting minutes, including attachments, on website

Conduct all HOA deliberative meetings (Board and Committee) transparently

Excess YE funds – establish a written policy for their allocation

Repeal by-law Art VII, Sect. 1.e (HOA hire attorney w/o member consent)

Budget: stay within line-item allowances

Establish and follow a written expense-report policy and procedure

Maintain recorded Landscape Committee records with full Membership access

Maintain recorded Architectural Committee records with full Membership access

Maintain recorded Finance Committee records with full Membership access

GVCCC – organize a Membership referendum to ‘stay’ or ‘get out’

Membership review CC&Rs before rewrite by attorney – establish ad hoc CC&R review Committee open to all Homeowners

Enforce Continuous Access to Estates common areas per CC&Rs (Sect.5.5)

Allow Member rebuttals to Board personal accusations in HOA Newsletters

Open Letters to the Board need to be available to the Membership

By-law amendments need the Homeowners vote of approval

Homeowners need participation in HOA capital and legal expenditure decision-making

Nominating Committee members should be excluded as candidates for election

The Management Company should in no sense authorize checks to itself

Sincerely,

Albert W. Weggeman

Homeowner – Lot 9

It’s been a while since new posts have appaeared in this blog . With Board elections coming up in the 2011 Annual Membership Meeting on February 16, it seems like a good time to highlight some items and issues which effect us all in one way or another.

First,  let me say that the main goal of this blog is to increase Homeowner participation in Board decision-making that affects the Community as a whole.  In the past, the Board has decided to make major, costly changes, without a majority vote of approval from the Membership as a whole. The changes that have occured have gone well beyond the normal maintenance of common areas. More on this topic in the near future.

Also, I’ll be updating my annual list, to the Board, in which Community items that could use some serious Membership consideration and discussion are brought up.

A look at the 2011 budget raises some questions about line-item estimated expenses. Why do we show large year-end surplusses but never seem to be able to reduce our annual assessments? Again, a closer look at, and questions about, our financial dealings will be a topic of discussion at a later date. I hope we can get more Homeowners involved in discussions with the Board on this item.

We need to learn from our past mistakes. Maybe if some of our past, less-favorable, actions are brought to light, they won’t be repeated.

An issue that I hope that we can have a Community-wide discussion about is the separation of the gated community (“Estates”) from San IgnacioVistas II. I believe there are significant advantages to all in making such a separation. Again, more on this later.

By now, everyone should have received a postcard which indicates how this blog can be reached on the Internet – just type siv2u.info into your browser.

I hope we all have a healthy and rewarding New Year and continue to improve our Community.

Al Weggeman

It’s been a while since some new items have been posted. Time to get busy and catch up with what has been happening and what is yet to come. We’re going into a period when most of the homeowners will be in Green Valley hoping for some warm weather (not too warm though).

Pretty soon we’ll be deciding who to put on the Board. Will we keep the incumbent (if he’s running), or will we elect the only other person who decided to run. He was introduced at the Board meeting on November 15 and was asked to give an impromptu run-down of his qualifications. The rest of the homeowners will get to see his written CV when it gets mailed out some time in the next few months.

The HOA budget for 2011 has been established and according to the announcement at the Board meeting our dues will remain as they were in 2010 – no more and no less. It seems that landscaping expenses got the largest chunk of our dues.

I don’t know how many of you go to our HOA’s Website for news about our Community but I found the upkeep of the site lacking in upkeep and news about the HOA’s activities.  The Board nevertheless voiced their opinion that we were saving money and the site was worth it.

Landscape maintenance activity is supposed to pick up – it’s that time of the year when tree pruning is scheduled to be done. Some of the sloped common areas (Pinetop & Longmore) could use some work to take care of erosion which has produced some sizable ruts. Some areas are overgrown with Brittle-Bush (which some may consider a desirable plant – others consider it a weed which is pretty unsightly when the leaves fall off). All of Pinetop Drive used to be a beautiful tree lined street – the stretch on the North side between Mintbush Drive and Tropicana Drive still hasn’t recovered from the removal of some 13 mesquite trees that, at one time, added to the street’s appeal.

These are just a few things that come to mind. More will follow. Expect a card in the mail soon and keep this site in mind: siv2u.info

I’m always interested in COMMENTS. You can submit them anonymously if you want – none of your personal information is sent.

Al Weggeman

Is our Board overstepping its authority?

If you’ve wondered whether certain things that our Board does are really part of their rights under the governing documents of the Community we live in, then you’re not alone. Take a look at the latest Newsletter (March 2010) that’s on the HOA website. It states that if you want to reseal your roof (I’m assuming they’re talking about a flat roof) you must ask permission to do so by submitting a Design Modification Request (DMR) to the Architectural Committee. Well, first of all, resealing a flat roof is not a modification – it’s a preventative maintenance procedure. It’s something that is done to maintain the integrity of your home and to prevent future deterioration that could result in high-cost maintenance or compromise personal safety. Such maintenance cannot be denied a homeowner. There is nothing in the Architectural Design Guidelines which prohibits homeowners from carrying out maintenance on their home – permission from the Architectural Committee should not be required in such cases.

Secondly, resealing a flat roof does not change the outward appearance of your home to those who are at ground level (which is everyone except possibly those who are flying over). This maintenance is no different than repainting the interior of your home – the Architectural Committee, in these cases, has no jurisdiction over what a homeowner decides to do.

It would be interesting to see what grounds the HOA could come up with to deny homeowners the right to maintain their property. Let the Board know what you think about this – e-mail them at: siv2board@yahoo.com

Leave a COMMENT – I’d also like to hear your opinion on this.

Al Weggeman

The following request for answers to some questions was sent to the Board before this year’s Annual Meeting. We’ll have to wait for the minutes to see if the recorded answers will appear there – let’s hope they do.

Some questions that I’d like to have the SIV2 Board address at the Annual Membership meeting on February 16, are:

• Since San Ignacio Vistas II, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation, how do the surpluses that are carried over each year affect the Federal and State income taxes that have to be paid. Each year our taxable income has been increasing and consequently our taxes have also increased. How do carried over surpluses affect our taxes?
• Why don’t carryover (surplus) funds from one year show up as an ‘Income’ in a succeeding year? Isn’t it equivalent to additional money and wouldn’t it help reduce our annual dues?
• Are the roads into flag-lots 240, 244 and 247 in the Estates maintained at the expense of those lot owners?
• Do we now have a contract with the landscaper Coonts Brothers? Are they insured and bonded? Where can their contract and other papers be seen?
• Why doesn’t the 2010 budget show a reduction in Website expenses over 2009? Wasn’t our new website supposed to deliver a savings since it would be run by Members instead of Cadden?
• Maintenance is a very significant and costly operational expense for the HOA. In our budget, LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS have been lumped in under the LANDSCAPING  heading even though improvements are not LANDSCAPE maintenance – improvements are additions to existing assets and need to be planned and accounted for as ‘capital’ expenses. Our CC&Rs recognize this and have put conditions and restrictions on capital expenditures so that Members have an equal say in determining what additions their HOA will implement and how it will pay for the additions. Why does the Board persist in denying the Membership the CC&R right to determine the scope and cost of additions to the common-areas?
• Why is the Board against a referendum vote by the Membership to see whether we want to continue being members of GVCCC?

Al Weggeman