Email Response to Board, December 23

From: James Nunn
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 2:35 PM
To: theboard@plantation-springs.com
Cc: James Nunn
Subject: Re: PSHOA Board response to James Nunn re: Request for Special HOA Meeting (Quarterly Payments Amendments)

Dear Board:

Thank you for your response to the request for a special meeting. I am writing to decline the Board's request (once again), for the following reasons.

First, homeowners do have the option to contact PMG to organize a payment plan if they are not able to pay their assessments all at one time. However, what the board fails to mention is that the payment is considered late and fees can be assessed for late payment. Currently it is my understanding that the board does not impose a fee, however PMG does apply a fee for the "management of your payment plan." Homeowners are penalized for a "post-payment plan option." The amendments would remove this penalty. Also, a homeowner is required to state the reason why they want to pay their plan over an extended period. It is my view that this is not something that any homeowner should be required to do, as this can cause unnecessary stress to the homeowner, especially if they have financial difficulty. Currently there is no other option just to elect to "pay off" a homeowner's assessments (without reason), however the amendment would make this possible.

Second, the board states that the HOA would need to have the amendments reviewed by PMG's attorney to ensure it is compliant. This is an unnecessary step given the simplicity of the amendments. I would like to remind the Board that the review of the governing documents that took place in 2004, and approved by homeowners in 2005 - a major review - was done without the need for the added expenses for an attorney review. From my understanding, In a review that was done by the PMG attorney a year or so ago, no issues were found with any of the amendments that were made by homeowners. I understand that PMG have advised that they need to have these documents reviewed by their attorney, however it is in PMG's interest to do this given the extra income that they will get with this. The board could choose to submit these simple amendments to the PMG attorney, however it is my view that this would be a fiduciary irresponsibile action by the board. Ultimately, it is the board's decision to incur these costs, no-one elses.

Third, the board provides a viewpoint that the change would not be possible for the 2010 assessments. The section of the CC&Rs that the board quotes is correct, and the board has fulfilled this requirement by sending out the Assessment Notice. Where the board is incorrect in their statement is in the application of both the old and new sections. Homeowners are not late, and by definition are in "good standing" until January 30, 2010 even if a homeowner has not paid their dues for the year. Homeowners loose their privileges (voting, etc.) if they fail to pay their dues before the expiration of 30 days from January 1. The proposed amendments provide that a homeowner could elect to choose the payment option, and a homeowner would be able to make this selection once the amendment has been past (providing this was done prior to the homeowner paying their dues before January 30). The filing that is required at the County level and the distribution to homeowners is a formality and does not affect the effective date of any change to our governing documents. If the amendment passes before January 30, then homeowners immediately have that option. That is what our governing documents state.

Finally the extra costs that may be associated with these changes, can be offset by other savings that could be implemented by the board, or by stricter review of financial records kept by PMG. For example, a recent review of the HOA financial's records that I did found a $198 error that occurred in May that had gone unchecked by the board for six months, not to mention the overages from the limits placed on PMG for their services based on the management contract. Both of these savings would offset the costs if this had been done this year.

In conclusion, while I understand that the board is not supportive of these amendments, the reasons that they state do not take into the account the real benefit that these amendments could bring to many of our homeowners (or future homeowners). These amendments do one simple thing, with two simple modifications: they put control of homeowner finances back into homeowners hands.

Once again, I'm respectfully going to decline the board's request and ask that these amendments be considered within the timeframe required by our governing documents.

Regards
James Nunn