Maintaining/restoring the property.

The following is an email exchange between an owner & me.


From: Blanked out.
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:10 PM
To: dkahanu@tampabay.rr.com
Subject: Kitchen Stove Replacement

I have been closely following the ITC blog and the meeting minutes recorded on it. This is to let the Board know my strong feelings regarding the Clubhouse kitchen stove.

The range should not be replaced for approximately $10,000 to $15,000. The recommendation of Mrs. Hattie Bradlow should be seriously considered. The use of a microwave and freestanding oven should be sufficient for the club house. The use of the microwave should be reviewed with the fire department for approval. If this does not meet the board's requirements, the expenditure needs to be submitted to the owners, since this amount of money ($10,000 to $15,000) is quite large for an item only used occasionally.


My response:

Blanked Out,

Your opinion is duly noted. Here are some points to consider (I may not have exactly correct, but I believe it’s close enough):

1. The Board is required by law to maintain the property: The Board must maintain/restore all common elements. If the Board ignores this responsibility it can be sue for performance, and the Directors are NOT protected by the insurance umbrella. The Board does NOT have to ask for permission (of the Membership) to maintain/restore a common element, and, the Board must carry out this responsibility REGARDLESS of the cost to the Association/Membership.

2. The legal way a Board abrogates its responsibility to maintain/restore a common element: If the Board believes that the cost of maintenance/restoration of a common element is not justified, usually due to obsolete form/function, the Board can vote to refer the issue to a vote by the Membership. The Board would ask the membership to have the common element status, of property in question, revoked, and explain the reason why. If 75% of the membership approves revocation of the common element status, then the Board is relieved of its responsibility to maintain/restore the property in question. If the Board fails to get the required 75% approval, then the Board MUST maintain/restore the property in question, REGARDLESS of the cost.

3. The danger of using Item #2: A board that doesn’t want to live up to its responsibility to maintain/restore the common elements can use this tactic to avoid spending money on maintenance/restoration. This is a very real danger, and can easily become habitual. “This project costs too much money, the membership should decide.” As unbelievable as it sounds, this is one of the ways an association and its property goes into decline. A variation of this happen here.

Because of the latent dangers in Item #2, I am in principle against the tactic. Let me give you two examples that are currently under board review at ITC. The first is restoring the kitchen stove at a cost of $10,000-$15,000. The second is restoring the heated spa at a cost of $20,000-$25,000. (NOTE: I personally believe it’s more like $30,000-35,000.) Shouldn’t the same logic apply to both restoration projects? First, it cost too much. Not only does the restoration of the heated spa cost more than the kitchen stove, the operational cost of the spa has been estimated at $7,000-$10,000 per year. (NOTE: One owner suggested that we not repair the spa, and just buy a portable jacuzzi instead.) Second, it’s not used that much. A majority of the membership probably don’t use either common element. I can see both being eliminated and I can see the same logic being applied elsewhere. The potential for a gradual insidious decline is there and hard to see.

I’m not sure what the Board has decided, but I will assure you that one way or the other it will be review again this Tuesday at the next board meeting.

Drago