The meeting minutes for any monthly meeting are approved (or approved with any corrections, typos, etc.) at the following month’s meeting.) We usually receive the monthly meeting minutes in sets of three, every quarter. We receive the minutes for January and February, and (sometimes, depending on the date of the Annual Meeting) March, in an envelope with a letter announcing the Annual Meeting. Sometime in the Summer, we receive the monthly meeting minutes for April, May and June. However, no meeting minutes are sent out for the month of Annual Meeting of the current year, but they are sent out for the previous year. The meeting minutes for the Annual Meetings are approved for the previous year by all the homeowners at the following year’s Annual Meeting. Sometime in the Fall, we receive the meeting minutes for July, August, and September. In January, we receive the minutes for October and November. There are no meeting minutes for December, as there are no meetings in December.
As was said above, the meeting minutes for any monthly meeting are approved (or approved with any corrections, typos, etc.) at the following month’s meeting. The only exception to this rule is the meeting minutes for the Annual Meeting. The Annual Meeting minutes for the prior year are approved by the homeowners at the following year’s Annual Meeting. No meeting minutes are supposed to be distributed until they are approved. So for 2006, the meeting minutes for the 2006 Annual Meeting will not be available until after next year, when they will be approved by the homeowners at the 2007 Annual Meeting.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Friday, January 20, 2006
Letter from the Attorney [date 09-2005]
The following is the response to the above letter which was written by the associate (Mr. Dean Pody) of the Attorney for the Association:
"Hi. I've outlined below the reasons for amending the provisions related to the easements and lien priority. I've also briefly listed several other areas of the Declaration that could be changed in a rewrite to address recent issues that have come up at Kenthill. Let me know if you'd like me to address any of these areas in greater detail. It appears from your e-mail that you have an excellent understanding of the current issues regarding the Association's Declaration.
"The most recent issue that's come to our attention that has resulted in our recommendation for the Association to amend its Declaration has to do with the current status of the Kenthill/Easthill easement for the use of the recreational facilities, including the pool. It's our recommendation that the Association amend its Declaration to clarify the Association's authority to negotiate the easement on behalf of the Kenthill owners with the owner's of Easthill and to allow the Association to subject owners to rules covering the use of the recreational facilities located on Easthill property. As currently written the enforceability of the easement by any of the parties is unknown.
"We've also recommended that the Association revise the section of its Declaration dealing with dues priority. Pursuant to Washington law an association is entitled to up to a six month “super priority” over mortgage holders for liens for unpaid assessments. However, in order to take advantage of this law the Association must first amend its Declaration. Section 12.02 Priority of the current Declaration provides in pertinent part:
"The lien for assessments shall be prior to all other liens except for (a) tax liens on apartments in favor of any assessing unit or special district and (b) all unpaid sums on mortgages of record against the apartment made in good faith and for value. . . . (emphasis added)"
"Thus, every time a unit is sold at a trustee’s sale the Association is only able to collect dues from the new owner from the date of the sale forward.
"However, if the Association amends its Declaration to be consistent with the New Act, the Association would also be entitled to collect up to six month back dues from the date of the sale. Thus, for example, if the dues were $200.00 per month the Association would be entitled to collect an additional $1,200.00 ($200.00 x 6) from the new owner after a trustee's sale.
"In addition, because the Association has priority over the lender we would be able to name the lender in any lawsuits initiated by the Association against owners to collect delinquent dues. We've found that in most cases where we name lenders for dues priority purposes the lender will either pay the six month dues priority to be dismissed from the lawsuit or be defaulted for failing to respond. If the lender pays the six months dues priority the Association may still be entitled to additional priority when/if the lender eventually foreclosed. If the lender didn't respond to the lawsuit paperwork the Association would be entitled to default the lender and the Association's lien would then be in first position.
"As you can see the cost of this amendment can be recouped in a relatively short period of time.
"Some of the other issues that have come up recently that could be addressed through a Declaration rewrite include revising the definitions of unit boundaries and maintenance responsibility, authority of the Board to adopt rules and regulations, revision of provisions pertaining to pets, clarification of voting and proxy procedures, authority to tow improperly parked vehicles, authority to revise late fee charges and responsibility for uninsured losses.Let me know if you have any questions or would like examples of additional issues that could be addressed a Declaration rewrite. Dean."
"Hi. I've outlined below the reasons for amending the provisions related to the easements and lien priority. I've also briefly listed several other areas of the Declaration that could be changed in a rewrite to address recent issues that have come up at Kenthill. Let me know if you'd like me to address any of these areas in greater detail. It appears from your e-mail that you have an excellent understanding of the current issues regarding the Association's Declaration.
"The most recent issue that's come to our attention that has resulted in our recommendation for the Association to amend its Declaration has to do with the current status of the Kenthill/Easthill easement for the use of the recreational facilities, including the pool. It's our recommendation that the Association amend its Declaration to clarify the Association's authority to negotiate the easement on behalf of the Kenthill owners with the owner's of Easthill and to allow the Association to subject owners to rules covering the use of the recreational facilities located on Easthill property. As currently written the enforceability of the easement by any of the parties is unknown.
"We've also recommended that the Association revise the section of its Declaration dealing with dues priority. Pursuant to Washington law an association is entitled to up to a six month “super priority” over mortgage holders for liens for unpaid assessments. However, in order to take advantage of this law the Association must first amend its Declaration. Section 12.02 Priority of the current Declaration provides in pertinent part:
"The lien for assessments shall be prior to all other liens except for (a) tax liens on apartments in favor of any assessing unit or special district and (b) all unpaid sums on mortgages of record against the apartment made in good faith and for value. . . . (emphasis added)"
"Thus, every time a unit is sold at a trustee’s sale the Association is only able to collect dues from the new owner from the date of the sale forward.
"However, if the Association amends its Declaration to be consistent with the New Act, the Association would also be entitled to collect up to six month back dues from the date of the sale. Thus, for example, if the dues were $200.00 per month the Association would be entitled to collect an additional $1,200.00 ($200.00 x 6) from the new owner after a trustee's sale.
"In addition, because the Association has priority over the lender we would be able to name the lender in any lawsuits initiated by the Association against owners to collect delinquent dues. We've found that in most cases where we name lenders for dues priority purposes the lender will either pay the six month dues priority to be dismissed from the lawsuit or be defaulted for failing to respond. If the lender pays the six months dues priority the Association may still be entitled to additional priority when/if the lender eventually foreclosed. If the lender didn't respond to the lawsuit paperwork the Association would be entitled to default the lender and the Association's lien would then be in first position.
"As you can see the cost of this amendment can be recouped in a relatively short period of time.
"Some of the other issues that have come up recently that could be addressed through a Declaration rewrite include revising the definitions of unit boundaries and maintenance responsibility, authority of the Board to adopt rules and regulations, revision of provisions pertaining to pets, clarification of voting and proxy procedures, authority to tow improperly parked vehicles, authority to revise late fee charges and responsibility for uninsured losses.Let me know if you have any questions or would like examples of additional issues that could be addressed a Declaration rewrite. Dean."
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Letter to the Attorney [date 09-2005]
The following is a letter which was sent to the Attorney for the Association asking for assistance in outlining the advantages in updating our governing documents:
"During our last meeting together at your office on August 3rd, we spent some time discussing how we could go forward with the “Revising of our Declarations Project” at Kenthill Townhomes. You explained in great detail where Kenthill Townhomes is at this point, because we are not a “New Act” Condominium. You went on to explain the many benefits that the new condominium law which was passed by the Washington State Legislature provides. In the end, we may be able to take advantage of them both, something that very few Associations have to ability to do. You advised that although the cost may seem initially high, the monetary benefits based on our financial history (especially in regards to collections, to name only one example), may quickly be overtaken by the savings obtained and by the income received (and again, based on our history, in a relatively short amount of time). You stated that our problems with collecting, that is to say, the fact that we are often, “last in line”, after the mortgage companies, etc., is in part due to our being a “pre-1990 law condominium”. In other words, our Declarations were written prior to the Washington State Condominium Act that the legislature passed in 1990. This problem of Homeowners Associations having difficulty collecting past dues was precisely one issue that the legislature tried to correct when they revised the law that year. You went on to explain that it seemed that over the years that Kenthill Townhomes typically had as many as two or three units in this predicament every year. By taking advantage of this aspect of the new law, Kenthill Townhomes could conceivably “pay off” the initial high price of going ahead and spending the $10,000 + for updating the entire Declarations to our liking. We would re-coup our initial investment, as it were, in a relatively short amount of time, by being able to be “first in line” when it came time to getting money.
"At this time, as President of the Kenthill Townhomes Homeowners Association, I am faced with a dilemma. It is clear to me and the Board how we should proceed. Within the next 60 days, the Kenthill Townhomes Board together with Suhrco residential Properties will prepare and finalize our 2006 Budget. We need to build in the $10.000 into our 2006 Budget in order to accomplish our goal, and to complete the promise we made to all 82 homeowners. If we do not have the ability to communicate this initial high cost of $10,000 and then its resulting benefits, we will be faced with many upset homeowners who may resist what is clearly to everyone’s benefit in the long run.
Can you compose several paragraphs that will capture what we discussed in order to communicate some of the benefits of this endeavor? I think I pretty much have it, but I am afraid that since I only heard it verbalized once, that I may not have remembered it all correctly, and that the Board and I may not be able to communicate it when the time comes. [If you skim what I have just written, together with what is attached below, you will see that I have a good idea about it all, but it is just very loose and disconnected]. Thank you. "
"During our last meeting together at your office on August 3rd, we spent some time discussing how we could go forward with the “Revising of our Declarations Project” at Kenthill Townhomes. You explained in great detail where Kenthill Townhomes is at this point, because we are not a “New Act” Condominium. You went on to explain the many benefits that the new condominium law which was passed by the Washington State Legislature provides. In the end, we may be able to take advantage of them both, something that very few Associations have to ability to do. You advised that although the cost may seem initially high, the monetary benefits based on our financial history (especially in regards to collections, to name only one example), may quickly be overtaken by the savings obtained and by the income received (and again, based on our history, in a relatively short amount of time). You stated that our problems with collecting, that is to say, the fact that we are often, “last in line”, after the mortgage companies, etc., is in part due to our being a “pre-1990 law condominium”. In other words, our Declarations were written prior to the Washington State Condominium Act that the legislature passed in 1990. This problem of Homeowners Associations having difficulty collecting past dues was precisely one issue that the legislature tried to correct when they revised the law that year. You went on to explain that it seemed that over the years that Kenthill Townhomes typically had as many as two or three units in this predicament every year. By taking advantage of this aspect of the new law, Kenthill Townhomes could conceivably “pay off” the initial high price of going ahead and spending the $10,000 + for updating the entire Declarations to our liking. We would re-coup our initial investment, as it were, in a relatively short amount of time, by being able to be “first in line” when it came time to getting money.
"At this time, as President of the Kenthill Townhomes Homeowners Association, I am faced with a dilemma. It is clear to me and the Board how we should proceed. Within the next 60 days, the Kenthill Townhomes Board together with Suhrco residential Properties will prepare and finalize our 2006 Budget. We need to build in the $10.000 into our 2006 Budget in order to accomplish our goal, and to complete the promise we made to all 82 homeowners. If we do not have the ability to communicate this initial high cost of $10,000 and then its resulting benefits, we will be faced with many upset homeowners who may resist what is clearly to everyone’s benefit in the long run.
Can you compose several paragraphs that will capture what we discussed in order to communicate some of the benefits of this endeavor? I think I pretty much have it, but I am afraid that since I only heard it verbalized once, that I may not have remembered it all correctly, and that the Board and I may not be able to communicate it when the time comes. [If you skim what I have just written, together with what is attached below, you will see that I have a good idea about it all, but it is just very loose and disconnected]. Thank you. "
Monday, January 16, 2006
Not permitted
This is an example of what NOT to do. A real estate sign was erected in front of our monument signage for both Kenthill and Easthill Apts. at the corner of 106th Ave. This area is owned by Easthill Apts. with a shared usage agreement with Kenthill Townhomes. Kenthill Townhomes use of this area is limited to the existing monument signage. This is apparently a Kenthill owner that is selling. If Easthill were to remove the signage it would not be considered a shared expense. Kenthill will be billed the full amount of labor involved in removal. This signage is unquestionably a violation of Kenthill sign policy and is in fact not even on Kenthill property.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Letter from the Attorney [date: 08-2005]
The following is the response to the above letter which was written by the associate (Mr. Dean Pody) of the Attorney for the Association:
Hi. This is in response to your e-mail from this morning. I'm not aware of pre-formatted forms for Declarations and By-laws. I suppose you could try to revise documents from another Association to fit Kenthill's specific circumstances. However, I would strongly advise against doing this.
Each Association is different. Each Association has unique common areas, limited common areas, units and parking spaces. When we draft a new declaration we make recommendations to the Association based on our past experience, what the Association requests, the legality of its requests and how all of the Declaration sections relate to each other.
Because Kenthill is an old act condominium it can draft its new declaration to take advantage of specific provisions of both the new and the old act. As you indicate in your e-mail, owners have already made several suggestions regarding Kenthill's particular situation. I'm not sure how the Association could address these issues in a standardized format. In addition, we wouldn't be able to vouch for the legality of the new documents if the Association drafted them on its own.
Our standard fee for a single Declaration amendment is $1,850.00 plus costs. Our standard fee for re-writing an Association's Declaration is $10,000 plus costs. We would charge on an hourly basis for rewriting the By-laws and the House Rules.
Based on our firms long relationship with the Association and the previous legal issues that have arisen during the course of our representation I think rewriting the Declaration is a good idea and would be the most economical way to proceed.
Let me know if you have any additional questions.
Thanks, Dean.
Hi. This is in response to your e-mail from this morning. I'm not aware of pre-formatted forms for Declarations and By-laws. I suppose you could try to revise documents from another Association to fit Kenthill's specific circumstances. However, I would strongly advise against doing this.
Each Association is different. Each Association has unique common areas, limited common areas, units and parking spaces. When we draft a new declaration we make recommendations to the Association based on our past experience, what the Association requests, the legality of its requests and how all of the Declaration sections relate to each other.
Because Kenthill is an old act condominium it can draft its new declaration to take advantage of specific provisions of both the new and the old act. As you indicate in your e-mail, owners have already made several suggestions regarding Kenthill's particular situation. I'm not sure how the Association could address these issues in a standardized format. In addition, we wouldn't be able to vouch for the legality of the new documents if the Association drafted them on its own.
Our standard fee for a single Declaration amendment is $1,850.00 plus costs. Our standard fee for re-writing an Association's Declaration is $10,000 plus costs. We would charge on an hourly basis for rewriting the By-laws and the House Rules.
Based on our firms long relationship with the Association and the previous legal issues that have arisen during the course of our representation I think rewriting the Declaration is a good idea and would be the most economical way to proceed.
Let me know if you have any additional questions.
Thanks, Dean.
Letter to the Board [date: 08-2005]
"The Kenthill Townhomes revised House Rules were voted on and were passed by the Association on July 27, 2005. It is now August, and we must begin the task of examining our governing documents to revise them. When this is complete, our documents will have the necessary provisions in them to address our many needs, as well as the power to carry out them out. Then we will go back and revise our House Rules again, this time putting back several items which had to be deleted, because the Declarations as they now stand make no mention of them (such as towing, Building Reps, etc.).
In the interest of getting this project started, on August 1, 2005, I wrote the following letter to the office of Kris Sundberg, the Attorney for the Association. I wrote:"
Dear Mr. Sundberg,
On March 22, 2005 you sent a letter to the Kenthill Townhomes Homeowners Association. In the letter you answered five questions that the Board posed. In answering question number three, you stated that in accordance with our Declarations, the House Rules and Regulations of Kenthill Townhomes needed to be approved by all of the homeowners.
The Kenthill Townhomes Board was not able to conduct this vote at the Annual meeting March 31. The board carefully reviewed the House Rules for any corrections that need to be made. They also provided a copy to Mr. Dean Pody who also reviewed the document and made his suggestions and comments. The revised and corrected House Rules were sent out to homeowners in early June, and a Special Meeting was called for on June 27th to approve the House Rules. A 51 percent majority was not achieved at that time. A second Special Meeting was called for on July 25th (using Article II Section 6 of our Bylaws). This time the House Rules were approved by the membership by 37 percent majority.
While reviewing the House Rules, Mr. Pody discovered many items that needed to be deleted. Some of these items were not objectionable, but because they were not in our Declarations or because they conflicted with our Bylaws they could not be included in our revised House Rules. During the past several months many homeowners have expressed ideas and suggestions that they would like the board to consider when preparing the final draft of our House Rules (to occur sometime in the future). In order to accomplish this, and keeping in mind the comments of Mr. Pody, the Board is considering revising the Kenthill Townhomes Declarations and Bylaws. When this is completed, they want to revisit the House Rules and revise them a second time (all this hopefully by the end of the year).
We would like you to counsel us as to how to proceed at this time. A former property manager from our old property management company advised us that there are pre- formatted forms for Declarations and for Bylaws that Homeowners Association Boards can use as a guide when revising their official documents. Is this true and would these forms even apply or be of use to Kenthill Townhomes? In your letter to us on March 22nd, you pointed out that Kenthill Townhomes is not a “New Act” condominium. In other words, it is not subject to the law which was written by the Washington State Legislature in 1990. Would it be advisable to attempt to bring the Kenthill Townhomes Declarations and Bylaws into compliance with the law as it's now stands in 2005? Or is that even possible? Would be advisable for the board to attempt to amend our Declarations and Bylaws, keeping those rules and sections which might be best for us to keep intact?
The current Kenthill Townhomes Board is comprised of four members with limited experience and one member who has years of experience but who will be leaving shortly. Therefore we look forward to any advice and counsel you may give us.
Sincerely,
Thomas Flynn
President
Kenthill Townhomes Homeowners Association
In the interest of getting this project started, on August 1, 2005, I wrote the following letter to the office of Kris Sundberg, the Attorney for the Association. I wrote:"
Dear Mr. Sundberg,
On March 22, 2005 you sent a letter to the Kenthill Townhomes Homeowners Association. In the letter you answered five questions that the Board posed. In answering question number three, you stated that in accordance with our Declarations, the House Rules and Regulations of Kenthill Townhomes needed to be approved by all of the homeowners.
The Kenthill Townhomes Board was not able to conduct this vote at the Annual meeting March 31. The board carefully reviewed the House Rules for any corrections that need to be made. They also provided a copy to Mr. Dean Pody who also reviewed the document and made his suggestions and comments. The revised and corrected House Rules were sent out to homeowners in early June, and a Special Meeting was called for on June 27th to approve the House Rules. A 51 percent majority was not achieved at that time. A second Special Meeting was called for on July 25th (using Article II Section 6 of our Bylaws). This time the House Rules were approved by the membership by 37 percent majority.
While reviewing the House Rules, Mr. Pody discovered many items that needed to be deleted. Some of these items were not objectionable, but because they were not in our Declarations or because they conflicted with our Bylaws they could not be included in our revised House Rules. During the past several months many homeowners have expressed ideas and suggestions that they would like the board to consider when preparing the final draft of our House Rules (to occur sometime in the future). In order to accomplish this, and keeping in mind the comments of Mr. Pody, the Board is considering revising the Kenthill Townhomes Declarations and Bylaws. When this is completed, they want to revisit the House Rules and revise them a second time (all this hopefully by the end of the year).
We would like you to counsel us as to how to proceed at this time. A former property manager from our old property management company advised us that there are pre- formatted forms for Declarations and for Bylaws that Homeowners Association Boards can use as a guide when revising their official documents. Is this true and would these forms even apply or be of use to Kenthill Townhomes? In your letter to us on March 22nd, you pointed out that Kenthill Townhomes is not a “New Act” condominium. In other words, it is not subject to the law which was written by the Washington State Legislature in 1990. Would it be advisable to attempt to bring the Kenthill Townhomes Declarations and Bylaws into compliance with the law as it's now stands in 2005? Or is that even possible? Would be advisable for the board to attempt to amend our Declarations and Bylaws, keeping those rules and sections which might be best for us to keep intact?
The current Kenthill Townhomes Board is comprised of four members with limited experience and one member who has years of experience but who will be leaving shortly. Therefore we look forward to any advice and counsel you may give us.
Sincerely,
Thomas Flynn
President
Kenthill Townhomes Homeowners Association
Reason not often discussed
The following is an excerpt from the book, “Financial Management of Condominium and Homeowners Associations, by the C.A.U. (Community Associations Institute), entitled, “Capital Reserves Policies”.
“The development of a sound capital reserve policy requires the Association's Board of Directors to be familiar in detail with the overwhelming importance of Reserves and the implications of not placing sufficient monies into the Reserves Fund for long term periodic major repair and replacement. To do nothing must inevitable the lead to a decline in everyone's home values.
“Arguments for maintaining adequate reserves are many. One reason not often discussed or mentioned would include the fact that if an Association waits until the year that a certain cost must be addressed before raising the necessary additional funds, then those who lived in the community in the preceding years, but moved out prior to the raising of the Special Assessment funds will have contributed to the wear and tear of the communities assets, without contributing to the regeneration and replacement of those assets.
“The development of a sound capital reserve policy requires the Association's Board of Directors to be familiar in detail with the overwhelming importance of Reserves and the implications of not placing sufficient monies into the Reserves Fund for long term periodic major repair and replacement. To do nothing must inevitable the lead to a decline in everyone's home values.
“Arguments for maintaining adequate reserves are many. One reason not often discussed or mentioned would include the fact that if an Association waits until the year that a certain cost must be addressed before raising the necessary additional funds, then those who lived in the community in the preceding years, but moved out prior to the raising of the Special Assessment funds will have contributed to the wear and tear of the communities assets, without contributing to the regeneration and replacement of those assets.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Reminder
[Posted on the mailboxes]:
"Dear Kenthill Townhomes Homeowners,
As we approach the winter months, we would like to remind all homeowners and their tenants to keep the heat on in their units to an adequate temperature level to prevent any pipes from freezing during the cold weather (this is especially important with respect to unoccupied units). Kenthill Townhomes is insured by C.A.U. (Community Association Underwriters, Inc.). C.A.U. provides Kenthill Townhomes with its master insurance policy for our condominium complex. Please review the excerpts from the two page fact sheet from our 2005 policy sent to all homeowners on 10-27-2005. Please note the statements highlighted in bold regarding possible leaks".
"Dear Kenthill Townhomes Homeowners,
As we approach the winter months, we would like to remind all homeowners and their tenants to keep the heat on in their units to an adequate temperature level to prevent any pipes from freezing during the cold weather (this is especially important with respect to unoccupied units). Kenthill Townhomes is insured by C.A.U. (Community Association Underwriters, Inc.). C.A.U. provides Kenthill Townhomes with its master insurance policy for our condominium complex. Please review the excerpts from the two page fact sheet from our 2005 policy sent to all homeowners on 10-27-2005. Please note the statements highlighted in bold regarding possible leaks".
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Problems with roofs
This is an excerpt from one of the reports given to us by one of the roofing contractors who inspected our buildings (in 2003):
"We inspected the roofing on all the buildings at the subject property and are submitting following report with recommendations. Various issues of concern that we observed are as follows:
1. Delaminated plywood substrate.
2. Rotten siding and fascia boards.
3. Staples and fasteners protruding up through the shingles.
4. Wind damage repairs.
5. Dryer vent problems.
We observed a number of locations where the dryer vent ductwork has become disconnected from the discharge vent. This allows the warm moist air to enter the attic space. This is a probable cause for much of the serious plywood de-lamination in the buildings. There many areas where the siding between roof levels is extended too far down and is in contact with the composition roofing. This allows water to wick up into the siding causing de-lamination and dry rot to occur. There are also many areas where the composition shingles do not overhang the fascia board, which can cause premature deterioration of these areas between the two roofs levels."