As many Meadowcreek neighborhood readers are aware, board President Doug Parker indicated in the November 12th meeting that the assessment increase and changes in restrictions and covenants was "off the table". To most of us this would indicate that they were no longer being considered.
Now it appears that a meeting was held at the clubhouse on November 17th, with rumors being that this was a "new committee" meeting to discuss, guess what, changes in the restrictions and covenants and the annual assessment increase. Hopefully someone who attended this meeting will take the time to comment and let everyone know exactly what the purpose of this meeting really was.
It's past time for the board of directors to understand what transparency really means. As residents of Meadowcreek, we deserve full disclosure and the ability to make informed decisions regarding how we are managed and governed. The members of the board are not our parents - and we are not children.
In fact, it's time for the board to make all of the financial transactions that have depleted our resources public. A report that simply shows totals, and not the line items that make up the totals is long overdue. Where exactly is our money being spent. How about an audit Mr. and Mrs. Board Members. An audit by a real CPA would be appreciated, and perhaps explain a lot of things. Before the December meeting would be nice.
And speaking of the December meeting - remember to be there on December 10th (second Thursday) and observe and listen. You might even try and get your unanswered questions answered. Unless the board decides to duck behind the executive session curtain again.
Now it appears that a meeting was held at the clubhouse on November 17th, with rumors being that this was a "new committee" meeting to discuss, guess what, changes in the restrictions and covenants and the annual assessment increase. Hopefully someone who attended this meeting will take the time to comment and let everyone know exactly what the purpose of this meeting really was.
It's past time for the board of directors to understand what transparency really means. As residents of Meadowcreek, we deserve full disclosure and the ability to make informed decisions regarding how we are managed and governed. The members of the board are not our parents - and we are not children.
In fact, it's time for the board to make all of the financial transactions that have depleted our resources public. A report that simply shows totals, and not the line items that make up the totals is long overdue. Where exactly is our money being spent. How about an audit Mr. and Mrs. Board Members. An audit by a real CPA would be appreciated, and perhaps explain a lot of things. Before the December meeting would be nice.
And speaking of the December meeting - remember to be there on December 10th (second Thursday) and observe and listen. You might even try and get your unanswered questions answered. Unless the board decides to duck behind the executive session curtain again.
OK, first of all, getting signed up on this blogspot site is waaay too complicated.
ReplyDeleteNow, I'll respond to the "The Plot Thickens". I attended the Nov 17th meeting, as I had signed up at the Nov 12th meeting on the sign-up sheet that was there, as a volunteer to work on a committee to try to help come up with some solutions to the current problems. It was not a secret meeting, just some non-board members, and Doug Parker, that want to try to help if possible. The purpose of the meeting was to try to see what people thought about how to address the budget shortfall for this year, and the need to increase the budget for next year. The meeting was very informal, many questions were asked, some suggestions were made, and it was boiled down to the fact that people in Meadowcreek do not want a new set of deed restrictions - that idea had been thrown out at the Nov 12th meeting. But, there is a real need to increase assessments for next year in order to maintain the level of amenities that we enjoy here. It still stands that the board maintains assessments need to increase $100 in 2010.
Yes, there is a need for a budget plan to explain where the increase will go. But realistically, who thinks that any entity can operate in 2009 or 2010 on a 1978 budget? Does anyone make the same amount of money that they did 32 years ago? First class postage in 1978 was 15 cents, now it's .44, a three fold increase. Gasoline in 1978 was around .80, now it's $2.40 or so, another 3 fold increase. Utilities are up, printing, chemicals, everything is much more expensive than it was back then. Raising the assessment should not be that big of an issue, as long as it is explained where the money needs to go.
Now, in order to raise the assessment, there has to be a change in the deed restrictions. Just one change. Not a complete rewrite. And the message was conveyed loud and clear at the Nov 12th meeting that the residents do not want a new set of deed restrictions. But it seemed like the common sentiment was that everyone could see how it is more expensive now than in 1978 and raising the assessments was understandable.
So, that said, there is going to be another try at getting the assessments raised, this time with a clearer, more concise plan that does not hide any background agenda or leave too many unanswered questions.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteSorry that it was difficult for you to sign up for the blog. Thanks for taking the time to do so though - it's important to see everyone's opinion.
Now a few comments I have regarding the new committee. You indicate that the meeting was not secret. I personally did not receive information regarding the meeting, nor did I see information posted anywhere. So, while not secret as you state, it certainly was not a published meeting that would welcome all to attend.
Also, you might recall that Doug Parker stated that the deed restriction changes and the increase were being "taken off of the table" during the November general meeting. In fact, he indicated that the board would make do with the present $180.00 - and then turns around and sets up and attends a meeting to discuss a revision that allows the board to increase this amount. This seems a little "tricky" to me.
Also note that full disclosure as to where our funds are being spent has been requested several times by many members of our neighborhood. This means line item accounting - not consolidated figures. To date this has not been provided. How can we determine if an increase is absolutely necessary when we don't have this information?
Finally it has been said that Quail Valley has a maintenance assessment that is higher than ours. In fact, they do pay about $396 per year - but this figure included trash pickup. I pay Waste Management $52.34 per quarter or $209.36 per year. When added to the $180 this gives a comparison figure of $389.36 per year. If the $100 increase is approved, this would make us $93.36 higher than our close neighbors to the South.
And now the "BIG" question - where has the entire surplus that should have accumulated over the years gone? If we were in fact paying $180 in the 70's we should have a huge surplus. Why? - because we were contributing a lot more when things were cheaper. The same $180 was going in - but gas was as you stated $.80 and postage $.15 - so where is the surplus? Think about it. You simply cannot spend every cent you get simply because it's there. Remember the old adage to save for a rainy day.
The time for transparency is long overdue.
OK, so as far as being invited to the meeting, there was a signup sheet at the first meeting for people to volunteer to be on a commitee or help in other ways. I signed up and that's how I got invited.
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as transparency, I totally agree with you on that. There needs to be full disclosure on where the money has been going and where it will go in the future. I said that previously, if the money is justified, then I have no problem with an increase. But I want to see the spending reports vs. the budget for the previous year or two, or as far back as possible, as well as the projected budget for next year.
Wow, Bob is right . . . I have tried to connect with this bad boy in several ways. I posted two things to the wrong section. Here they are!
ReplyDeleteFirst I posted this:
Actually, everyone who signed up at the original meeting was invited to sign up on the same table (as the sign in sheet). He encouraged everyone to sign up on that sheet. I am the lady who had lived in the neighborhood for two weeks. I signed up, and only ten folks showed to the review of those deed restrictions. Honestly, I was very suprised after all of the hub-bub at the first meeting. I was one of those who actually showed to review them. I saw the document. All other elements were taken off the table except the $100 increase to keep the pool open, the CPI index was off the table entirely. There will be a copy to sign to turn in to the county and have a copy to keep for your own records. No secrets there.
Then I realized upon reading that I was not quite as eloquent as I would have preferred and added the following. Bob, thank you for putting it so precisely:
An additional comment, at the original meeting everything was tabled. The board invited everyone to sign up for a review of the deed restrictions. I signed up, and 1 week later I showed up. After much discussion, reviewing expenses and so forth, we said that the $100 was not the problem. It was the pages of deed restrictions and the CPI index.
If the increase doesn't pass, the board will make do and make the necessary cuts. I will even volunteer to organize a community garage sale for the pool repair. Things like insurance, electricity, and so forth have gone up since 1977.
We all live here, and we all want our property to continue to appreciate. A broken pool, streets that need to be repaired, and other basic repairs doesn't help with that goal.
Most in the HOA reform movement know very well that the HOAs do not publish a detailed budget and are not required to by law. That is because the legal vendors that run the Austin lobby TCREA/CAI/ULI have carte blanche to write the property code which does not protect individual property owners, but does protect the industry.
ReplyDelete