Call to Order: Harvey Ginsberg.
Pledge of Allegiance: led by Harvey Ginsberg. [Editor’s note: Harvey had a flag and all Board members stood.]
Harvey Ginsberg’s Opening Remarks and Announcements: Marion is ill and unable to attend; therefore, I will be conducting the meeting.
[Editor’s note: Let’s just get to the matter at hand; Sue presented the agenda item, followed by Eileen as the co-host of the presentation, and there was a lot of discussion among the Board members concerning the matter.]
“1. Proposed Amendment: Presentation regarding 75% to 66 2/3% for common element changes.”
[Editor’s note: The item phraseology above, taken from the official notice of the agenda that came from the property manager’s office, is very misleading and completely unfair. The actual verbiage of the proposed Amendment appears below your Editor’s remarks.
The Amendment also includes a proposed reduction in the percentage of the budget for which projects whose budget exceeds that amount would require a community vote. Not including this as part of the notice was wrong, misleading, and outrageously irresponsible. We are not blaming the property manager. We blame whoever on the Board prepared and approved the proposed notice.
You might not like reducing the community vote requirement, but you might like the reduction in the percentage of the budget for projects whose budgets exceed that amount as requiring a community vote. So now, you’re going to have to make a choice that you never should have had to make.
We believe that mixing the issue of reducing the amount required to kick in a community vote with the separate issue of reducing the requirement for passage of a project was patently unfair and wrong. Those issues are separate and independent and should never have been lumped together.
We believe that lumping the two issues together in a single ballot, instead of separating them out as they should have been, irreparably taints the process, and we therefore recommend a “no” vote for that reason alone. This does not mean that we are necessarily against either or both; what this means is that the community should be presented with two separate ballots on these two unrelated issues. Let the people decide what they want on each issue. That is the only fair way to do this.
Do it over, and do it right.
Board member Sue Schmer stated during the meeting that they are together essentially because they are together in the Amendment. Our response: So what. That’s irrelevant in our opinion. Sue stated they are linked and that they really go together. We disagree. They are completely separate issues and never should have been presented in this fashion.
That being said, do you want things that require a community vote to require 75% of the community to agree to it (as it currently stands) or do you want it reduced to 2/3 of the community required to effectuate a change in a common element? Because the current percentage is 75%, in order to reduce it to 2/3, that itself requires a vote of 75% to pass.
To be specific, per the governing documents, 75% of the voting households would have to approve reducing the required passage rate to 66 2/3%, and a majority of households would have to have voted on that specific topic before this could be implemented.
There are 600 homes which means there is a maximum of 600 votes. This means that at least 301 houses need to cast a vote for the vote to even count. If 301 or more houses vote, then it would require 75% of those voting to pass such a resolution. If less than 301 houses vote, then the vote does not count even if it were 100% in favor of the change.
We here at the News Site do not believe that anyone should be pressured into voting one way or the other. We think that’s wrong. Vote for what you really want. Never mind what the chattering class is saying. We trust your ability to weigh the pros and cons and to make an independent decision on this matter.
For that reason, we are not transcribing herein the balance of the comments made by Board members pushing for one way or the other (other than what we reported above concerning Sue’s comments and some of the Board responses to residents’ comments below).
Again, we believe that lumping the two issues together in a single ballot, instead of separating them out as they should have been, irreparably taints the process, and we therefore recommend a “no” vote for that reason alone. This does not mean that we are necessarily against either or both; what this means is that the community should be presented with two separate ballots on these two unrelated issues. Let the people decide what they want on each issue. That is the only fair way to do this.
Do it over, and do it right.]
Here is the text of what is before you to decide:
“Item 1. Article VII, Section E of the Declaration of Conditions, Covenants, Easements and Restrictions for Cascade Lakes (“Declaration”) shall be amended as follows:
E. Alterations to Common Areas. The Common Areas may not be altered, modified or improved (not including an acquisition or conveyance of real property as set forth in Article II [B] above) without the approvals required within. Alterations, improvements or modifications of a single project costing up to, but not in excess, of one-half percent (1%) (1/2%) of the budget then in effect, including operating expenses and reserves, may be approved by the Board of Directors, provided that the total cost of all such alterations, modifications or improvements within a fiscal year will the last 12 consecutive months do not exceed five three percent (5%) (3%) of the respective budgets then in effect, including operating expenses and reserves. Alterations, improvements, or modifications of a similar nature, as determined by the Board, should be combined as a single alteration, improvement or modification for the purpose of determining whether a vote of the Members is necessary. Where the cost of any alterations, modifications or improvements exceeds the aforementioned monetary thresholds, the alterations, modifications or improvements must be approved by at least seventy-five percent (75%) sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the Members, present and voting, in person or by proxy, at a regular or special meeting at which a quorum is established, but where at least a majority of the total membership participates, or by written agreement with the participation of at least a majority of the Members.”
2. Resident Input Session: Questions and answers pertaining only to agenda item.
[Editor’s note: those wishing to speak, please raise your hand or indicate your desire to speak in the chat function.]