Post by BagLady on Dec 6, 2013 9:37:09 GMT -5
I have gone to an outside source for more input into the situation about the possible mandated park internet. It is my opinion that the deep problems in this community are being created by MANBOD and it is futile to expect that MANBOD will be receptive to solving the problems they have created and nurture. MANBOD seems to be focused on establishing new controls over owners in many ways that stand to benefit them to the detriment of owners. Therefore, outreach is indicated.
This source is not a legal one, but one that is experienced in HOA governance and detailed in approach to problems. One respondent has said that the procedure for RE-submitting a vetoed/non-ratified budget would be in the governing documents and be the same as the procedure for the initial budget proposal. In the absence of any conflicting language either in our governing documents or FS720, this would seem to make the most sense.
The person who replied provided a very detailed and thorough analysis of the question I submitted. This respondent was also somewhat perplexed by the unusual nature of the question. I then replied with a description of the larger context as to why this question was being raised.
The outreach available to people via the internet is awesome. It has shown me that there is very little that is "new" in the world and we keep playing the same tunes on different instruments over and over. One of the benefits of these resources is that you invite other experienced, educated and sophisticated brains to analyze a problem and discover new insights and more resources from the comfort of your LazyBoy--without spending a dime! Here is a synopsis of the problem; I will update with any new ideas.
This source is not a legal one, but one that is experienced in HOA governance and detailed in approach to problems. One respondent has said that the procedure for RE-submitting a vetoed/non-ratified budget would be in the governing documents and be the same as the procedure for the initial budget proposal. In the absence of any conflicting language either in our governing documents or FS720, this would seem to make the most sense.
The person who replied provided a very detailed and thorough analysis of the question I submitted. This respondent was also somewhat perplexed by the unusual nature of the question. I then replied with a description of the larger context as to why this question was being raised.
The outreach available to people via the internet is awesome. It has shown me that there is very little that is "new" in the world and we keep playing the same tunes on different instruments over and over. One of the benefits of these resources is that you invite other experienced, educated and sophisticated brains to analyze a problem and discover new insights and more resources from the comfort of your LazyBoy--without spending a dime! Here is a synopsis of the problem; I will update with any new ideas.
12/05/2013 11:21 PM Quote Reply
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful response.
What you describe makes sense; to act contrary to the basic budget adoption protocol would NOT make sense. I doubt that it was anticipated by the maker of our bylaws that a situation would emerge whereby a budget was not vetted at the Town H all meeting, appropriately amended and subsequently ratified at the Annual Meeting.
You observed that it would be unusual for a membership to reject a properly-prepared budget. Unfortunately, there is a very unusual situation in this HOA that has been developing for a couple years. As background, you might also recall from another thread I began that there is a serious issue in my HOA regarding expired Covenants.
The problem is bigger than my budget question suggests. It involves a private business which has been permitted by the Board of Directors to establish a commercial business on common property. Now, the board is sponsoring a mandate to force a new amenity (provided by that business), to every owner with the cost to be added to the budget, increasing the assessment fee.
The anticipated fee increase amount does not exceed the statutory limit on increases. The commercial business is prohibited by the Covenants but the HOA has been quietly supporting the business costs financially for years (for example, insuring the equipment). When cH allenged on these expenses, HOA refuses to discuss. The business is a highly discretionary service (internet signal).
To add to the mess, our Covenants on the common property (arguably) expired prior to the business establishing itself on the common property. This is currently pending litigation. And, the cherry on top: there is very likely a director or two with undisclosed but apparent financial interest in the business.
It is a very complex situation that is likely beyond the ability of the membership to handle through "normal" channels. Members are talking about saying NO to the Budget as a way to deal with it (at least in the short term). I and others are trying to identify resources. When it was discovered that our own governing documents were silent on the question of failure to ratify the budget, and that the FS720 also did not address this, I steered here. So far, we have identified two FL HOA statutes which address the cancellation of the contract the Board is expected to execute.
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful response.
What you describe makes sense; to act contrary to the basic budget adoption protocol would NOT make sense. I doubt that it was anticipated by the maker of our bylaws that a situation would emerge whereby a budget was not vetted at the Town H all meeting, appropriately amended and subsequently ratified at the Annual Meeting.
You observed that it would be unusual for a membership to reject a properly-prepared budget. Unfortunately, there is a very unusual situation in this HOA that has been developing for a couple years. As background, you might also recall from another thread I began that there is a serious issue in my HOA regarding expired Covenants.
The problem is bigger than my budget question suggests. It involves a private business which has been permitted by the Board of Directors to establish a commercial business on common property. Now, the board is sponsoring a mandate to force a new amenity (provided by that business), to every owner with the cost to be added to the budget, increasing the assessment fee.
The anticipated fee increase amount does not exceed the statutory limit on increases. The commercial business is prohibited by the Covenants but the HOA has been quietly supporting the business costs financially for years (for example, insuring the equipment). When cH allenged on these expenses, HOA refuses to discuss. The business is a highly discretionary service (internet signal).
To add to the mess, our Covenants on the common property (arguably) expired prior to the business establishing itself on the common property. This is currently pending litigation. And, the cherry on top: there is very likely a director or two with undisclosed but apparent financial interest in the business.
It is a very complex situation that is likely beyond the ability of the membership to handle through "normal" channels. Members are talking about saying NO to the Budget as a way to deal with it (at least in the short term). I and others are trying to identify resources. When it was discovered that our own governing documents were silent on the question of failure to ratify the budget, and that the FS720 also did not address this, I steered here. So far, we have identified two FL HOA statutes which address the cancellation of the contract the Board is expected to execute.