I have some complaints regarding rules for our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Fitness Center.
An early Board of Directors made a seemingly ill-advised rule prohibiting use of cell phones in the Fitness Center. What is the logic of that cell phone use prohibition in light of the lack of an explicit prohibition against turning the sound volume of the three TVs to almost painfully loud levels? You can view that rule number 6 and the other Board rules for use of the Fitness Center on the door of the Fitness Center and at the following link:
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/GuidlelinesFitnessMarch_07.pdf
In addition to those Board rules, management posted a sign inside the Fitness Center a few months ago requesting users to “put away all equipment after each use” and “not drop weights on the floor.” [This sign was removed in mid-July 2009--a good thing, in my opinion! Sincerely, Paul Rasmussen, unit 305] I don’t think those admonitions are [were] useful. Further, I don’t think management had authority to post that sign or to make those “rules”.
As explained in my post at the below link, our Bylaws require “prior written approval of the Board of Directors” to post or display signs in our Common Elements. Our former Association Presidents claim that the Association contract with the Managing Agent delegated that sign-approval authority to our On-Site Manager, but I’d have to see the specific language in the contract to be convinced.
http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/2008/12/unapproved-signs.html
In any event, I don’t think our Board should delegate its sign-approval authority to such a sweeping extent. Perhaps it would be appropriate for our On-Site Manager to have authority to approve informational signs, such as fire alarm times or meeting dates, or reminding residents of rules already approved by the Board. But only our Board may make and amend “rules” pertaining to the use of our Common Elements. It appears to me that posting that sign in the Fitness Center was effectively the On-Site Manager making new rules, which only our Board has authority to do. Please see my posts at the two links below for more explanation of the Board’s exclusive power to make and amend the Rules and Regulations for our Condominium.
http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/2008/01/governing-documents-our-bylaws.html
http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/2008/01/governing-documents-our-rules-and.html
If you have thoughts about this matter, please email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and post a comment in my forum at the below link. (You will have to be registered with that forum and logged-in there in order to post your comment there.)
http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Same Thermostat Settings for All Corridors?
A Market Street at Town Center Condominium unit owner suggested that different thermostat settings might be appropriate for different corridors. I don’t see why that should be so.
Why wouldn’t the minimum acceptable temperature be the same regardless of which corridor it is? If 72 degrees Fahrenheit is the lowest acceptable temperature for Terrace-level (UL) corridors, why wouldn’t 72 also be the lowest acceptable temperature for 1st-floor corridors?
And why wouldn’t the maximum acceptable temperature be the same regardless of which corridor it is? If 74 were the highest acceptable temperature for 3rd-floor corridors, why wouldn’t 74 also be the highest acceptable temperature for Terrace-level corridors? (This question is moot when the weather is too cold to run air conditioning due to risk of damaging the air conditioning equipment.)
It appears there are 18 thermostats that control our corridor temperatures--four in each of the upper four corridors and two in the Terrace-level corridor. In cold months such as December and January, why shouldn’t all 18 of those thermostats be set in the “Heat” mode at a rather low temperature such as, say, 66? If they were set that way, heating would occur only in corridor zones in which the actual temperature fell below 66. A thermostat set to 66 in the “Heat” mode won’t turn on the heat if the corridor happens to be at an actual temperature of, say, 75. If unit owner consensus is that 66 is too low for the minimum, I am fine with a higher minimum. But I haven’t seen any argument that makes me fine with different minimums for different corridors.
If there are good reasons for different minimum temperatures in different corridors, I would like to hear them. How about emailing me those reasons at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and posting those reasons in my forum at the following link?
http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Why wouldn’t the minimum acceptable temperature be the same regardless of which corridor it is? If 72 degrees Fahrenheit is the lowest acceptable temperature for Terrace-level (UL) corridors, why wouldn’t 72 also be the lowest acceptable temperature for 1st-floor corridors?
And why wouldn’t the maximum acceptable temperature be the same regardless of which corridor it is? If 74 were the highest acceptable temperature for 3rd-floor corridors, why wouldn’t 74 also be the highest acceptable temperature for Terrace-level corridors? (This question is moot when the weather is too cold to run air conditioning due to risk of damaging the air conditioning equipment.)
It appears there are 18 thermostats that control our corridor temperatures--four in each of the upper four corridors and two in the Terrace-level corridor. In cold months such as December and January, why shouldn’t all 18 of those thermostats be set in the “Heat” mode at a rather low temperature such as, say, 66? If they were set that way, heating would occur only in corridor zones in which the actual temperature fell below 66. A thermostat set to 66 in the “Heat” mode won’t turn on the heat if the corridor happens to be at an actual temperature of, say, 75. If unit owner consensus is that 66 is too low for the minimum, I am fine with a higher minimum. But I haven’t seen any argument that makes me fine with different minimums for different corridors.
If there are good reasons for different minimum temperatures in different corridors, I would like to hear them. How about emailing me those reasons at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and posting those reasons in my forum at the following link?
http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Friday, December 12, 2008
Unapproved Signs
With the possible exception of some institutional lenders, NO ONE may post signs in our common elements without prior written Board approval. The mailroom, Fitness Center, windows, glass doors and elevators are examples of areas included in this prohibition.
The specific requirement is “…no signs of any character shall be…posted or displayed…in...Common Elements without the prior written approval of the Board of Directors.” Those words are in our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Bylaws at article XI, section 1, paragraph (i) on page 53. You can view our Bylaws by clicking on this link:
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF
The Board probably shouldn’t approve taping of signs to painted walls in the common elements because of potential for some types of tape to pull the paint off the wall surface when the tape is removed.
Sometimes there will be a legitimate need to post a sign before it is feasible to obtain Board approval. For example, it needs to be “legal” for committee chairpersons to post signs regarding revised committee meeting dates and times or places. Or our On-Site Manager may need to inform residents of fire alarm testing that she learns of only a few days before it is to take place. The Board can accommodate such unforeseeable urgent needs by passing a resolution that effectively gives blanket prior written approval for certain people (probably by position rather than by name) to post signs of a certain nature regarding certain subject matter at certain places in our common elements without further approval from the Board.
What the Board shouldn’t do is allow the bylaw to be ignored. Allowing the bylaw to be ignored suggests that our bylaws and rules and regulations don’t necessarily have to be followed.
If you have thoughts on this matter, please email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and post them on my forum at http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/
The specific requirement is “…no signs of any character shall be…posted or displayed…in...Common Elements without the prior written approval of the Board of Directors.” Those words are in our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Bylaws at article XI, section 1, paragraph (i) on page 53. You can view our Bylaws by clicking on this link:
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF
The Board probably shouldn’t approve taping of signs to painted walls in the common elements because of potential for some types of tape to pull the paint off the wall surface when the tape is removed.
Sometimes there will be a legitimate need to post a sign before it is feasible to obtain Board approval. For example, it needs to be “legal” for committee chairpersons to post signs regarding revised committee meeting dates and times or places. Or our On-Site Manager may need to inform residents of fire alarm testing that she learns of only a few days before it is to take place. The Board can accommodate such unforeseeable urgent needs by passing a resolution that effectively gives blanket prior written approval for certain people (probably by position rather than by name) to post signs of a certain nature regarding certain subject matter at certain places in our common elements without further approval from the Board.
What the Board shouldn’t do is allow the bylaw to be ignored. Allowing the bylaw to be ignored suggests that our bylaws and rules and regulations don’t necessarily have to be followed.
If you have thoughts on this matter, please email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and post them on my forum at http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Thermostat Setting Principles
I recommend that our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Association set our common element thermostats in accordance with the following principles.
Don’t set in “Cool” mode if air temperature around the “outside” part of the air conditioning system could drop below 55 degrees Fahrenheit.
Thermostats should normally be either in the “Heat” mode or the “Cool” mode, not in the “Off” mode.
Specified settings should be different for different common elements (corridors vs. Community Room vs. Fitness Center, etc.).
Setting in “Cool” mode must be at least two degrees higher than the setting in the “Heat” mode. Larger differences between “Cool” and “Heat” temperature settings reduce energy costs, but may be less comfortable.
Since Unit Owners pay the Association energy costs, the temperature settings should reflect the balance between cost saving and comfort that our Unit Owners prefer. Reflecting Unit Owner preferences, our Board should specify the temperature settings for both modes (“Heat” and “Cool”) for the thermostats in the various common element areas. Our Board should be open to future fine-tuning of the specified temperature settings if necessary to better reflect Unit Owner consensus.
No one should be authorized to change common element thermostat settings except to bring the settings into compliance with Board specifications, or to change the mode and associated temperature setting as the outdoor temperature changes with the seasons.
To better understand why I propose the foregoing principles, please see the posts at these two links:
http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/2008/11/corridor-temperatures.html
http://marketstreet.proboards83.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=generalcommquestionsandcomment&thread=84&page=1
If you don’t understand or disagree with any of the principles I proposed above, I urge you to comment or ask your questions in an email to me at rasmusssen305@gmail.com or/and in a post on my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Don’t set in “Cool” mode if air temperature around the “outside” part of the air conditioning system could drop below 55 degrees Fahrenheit.
Thermostats should normally be either in the “Heat” mode or the “Cool” mode, not in the “Off” mode.
Specified settings should be different for different common elements (corridors vs. Community Room vs. Fitness Center, etc.).
Setting in “Cool” mode must be at least two degrees higher than the setting in the “Heat” mode. Larger differences between “Cool” and “Heat” temperature settings reduce energy costs, but may be less comfortable.
Since Unit Owners pay the Association energy costs, the temperature settings should reflect the balance between cost saving and comfort that our Unit Owners prefer. Reflecting Unit Owner preferences, our Board should specify the temperature settings for both modes (“Heat” and “Cool”) for the thermostats in the various common element areas. Our Board should be open to future fine-tuning of the specified temperature settings if necessary to better reflect Unit Owner consensus.
No one should be authorized to change common element thermostat settings except to bring the settings into compliance with Board specifications, or to change the mode and associated temperature setting as the outdoor temperature changes with the seasons.
To better understand why I propose the foregoing principles, please see the posts at these two links:
http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/2008/11/corridor-temperatures.html
http://marketstreet.proboards83.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=generalcommquestionsandcomment&thread=84&page=1
If you don’t understand or disagree with any of the principles I proposed above, I urge you to comment or ask your questions in an email to me at rasmusssen305@gmail.com or/and in a post on my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Corridor Temperatures
I propose that our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Unit Owners Association (a) heat our corridors only as necessary to keep the corridor temperature from falling below 66 degrees Fahrenheit, (b) cool our corridors only as necessary to keep the corridor temperature from rising above 79, and (c) neither heat nor cool our corridors when the corridor temperature is between 66 and 79.
This policy (c) to "neither heat nor cool our corridors when the corridor temperature is between 66 and 79" doesn't mean to keep to corridor thermostats set to the "Off" mode when the actual corridor temperature is in that 66 to 79 range. Rather, depending on the time of year, the corridor thermostats should be set in either the "Heat" mode or the "Cool" mode, but with the temperature setting on the thermostats at either 66 or 79 depending on whether the thermostats are in the "Heat" mode or the "Cool" mode, respectively. In other words, the heating should turn on if the actual corridor temperature drops below 66, and the cooling (air conditioning) should turn on if the actual corridor temperature rises above 79.
The larger the temperature range where our Association neither heats nor cools the corridors, the less our monthly Association assessments can be. Association expenditures for electricity have been rising rapidly, with the Association electricity expense for 2009 projected to be $143,000. For a unit with a typical par value of 0.32%, this amounts to about $457 annually toward the Association electric bill.
We have about a mile of corridors in our building. Corridors run the entire perimeter of our building on the first through the forth floors. The corridor on the Terrace (UL) level is only on the west and south sides of the building, about half the length of an upper-floor corridor. I am not including common elements near the main entrance lobby as part of the corridors. Appropriate temperature ranges for such common areas as the Community Room, the main entrance lobby, the Management Office, the Fitness Center and the Internet Center should perhaps be the subject of other posts, but are not addressed in this post.
Based on corridor thermostat settings I have observed, it appears to me that we sporadically cool our corridors if the corridor temperature rises above 74, and sporadically heat our corridors if the corridor temperature falls below 72. I think the temperature range where we don’t spend Association funds for heating or cooling should be larger than two degrees. Residents can maintain whatever temperature they want in their unit. Residents passing through our corridors going to or from the outdoors would normally be dressed for outdoor temperatures, and should thus be able to handle a corridor temperature closer to the outdoor temperature than is the temperature they maintain in their unit. Someone using the corridors, but not going to or from the outdoors, would normally be in the corridors only briefly, so should be able to tolerate a temperature somewhat different from the temperature in their unit. That is why I am suggesting a rather large 13-degree temperature range where we don’t spend Association funds to heat or cool our corridors.
While I feel strongly that there should be a rather large corridor temperature range where Association funds are spent for neither heating nor cooling, I believe there are good arguments on both sides regarding what should be the upper and lower temperatures of that range. I strongly encourage you to email me or/and post comments on this matter in my forum at the below links. (You will need to be registered and logged-in with that forum to post there.) I hope there will be dialog. I expect to bring this matter up during the unit owner comment period during our Board of Directors meetings, perhaps as soon as at the 18 Dec 08 Board meeting. After two or three months of unit owner dialog on this matter with other unit owners and our Board members (or maybe sooner), I believe our Board of Directors should specify the upper and lower temperatures for our corridors. My opening paragraph of this post might be suitable as a basis for a Board motion or resolution. Here are my email address and the link to my forum:
rasmussen305@gmail.com
http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
This policy (c) to "neither heat nor cool our corridors when the corridor temperature is between 66 and 79" doesn't mean to keep to corridor thermostats set to the "Off" mode when the actual corridor temperature is in that 66 to 79 range. Rather, depending on the time of year, the corridor thermostats should be set in either the "Heat" mode or the "Cool" mode, but with the temperature setting on the thermostats at either 66 or 79 depending on whether the thermostats are in the "Heat" mode or the "Cool" mode, respectively. In other words, the heating should turn on if the actual corridor temperature drops below 66, and the cooling (air conditioning) should turn on if the actual corridor temperature rises above 79.
The larger the temperature range where our Association neither heats nor cools the corridors, the less our monthly Association assessments can be. Association expenditures for electricity have been rising rapidly, with the Association electricity expense for 2009 projected to be $143,000. For a unit with a typical par value of 0.32%, this amounts to about $457 annually toward the Association electric bill.
We have about a mile of corridors in our building. Corridors run the entire perimeter of our building on the first through the forth floors. The corridor on the Terrace (UL) level is only on the west and south sides of the building, about half the length of an upper-floor corridor. I am not including common elements near the main entrance lobby as part of the corridors. Appropriate temperature ranges for such common areas as the Community Room, the main entrance lobby, the Management Office, the Fitness Center and the Internet Center should perhaps be the subject of other posts, but are not addressed in this post.
Based on corridor thermostat settings I have observed, it appears to me that we sporadically cool our corridors if the corridor temperature rises above 74, and sporadically heat our corridors if the corridor temperature falls below 72. I think the temperature range where we don’t spend Association funds for heating or cooling should be larger than two degrees. Residents can maintain whatever temperature they want in their unit. Residents passing through our corridors going to or from the outdoors would normally be dressed for outdoor temperatures, and should thus be able to handle a corridor temperature closer to the outdoor temperature than is the temperature they maintain in their unit. Someone using the corridors, but not going to or from the outdoors, would normally be in the corridors only briefly, so should be able to tolerate a temperature somewhat different from the temperature in their unit. That is why I am suggesting a rather large 13-degree temperature range where we don’t spend Association funds to heat or cool our corridors.
While I feel strongly that there should be a rather large corridor temperature range where Association funds are spent for neither heating nor cooling, I believe there are good arguments on both sides regarding what should be the upper and lower temperatures of that range. I strongly encourage you to email me or/and post comments on this matter in my forum at the below links. (You will need to be registered and logged-in with that forum to post there.) I hope there will be dialog. I expect to bring this matter up during the unit owner comment period during our Board of Directors meetings, perhaps as soon as at the 18 Dec 08 Board meeting. After two or three months of unit owner dialog on this matter with other unit owners and our Board members (or maybe sooner), I believe our Board of Directors should specify the upper and lower temperatures for our corridors. My opening paragraph of this post might be suitable as a basis for a Board motion or resolution. Here are my email address and the link to my forum:
rasmussen305@gmail.com
http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Board Dialogue with Unit Owners
In the past, there has been an item on Board meeting agendas that I believe hasn’t been worded in consonance with the requirements of our bylaws and the Condominium Act. That agenda item is the one that, in the past, has read “OPEN FORUM: Dialogue with Residents.” One way to correct the agenda item would be to replace the word "Residents" with the words "Unit Owners". The resulting correct agenda item would then be “OPEN FORUM: Dialogue with Unit Owners.”
While I believe it is indisputable that the wording of the agenda item must encourage the unit owners who don't live in our building to nevertheless participate in dialogue with our Board of Directors, the question of whether tenants should also be encouraged to participate in that dialogue is a legitimate issue for debate. I encourage all Market Street at Town Center Condominium unit owners (resident AND non-resident) to email me or/and post opinions on this question on my forum at the below links. (You will need to be registered and logged-in with that forum to post there.)
rasmussen305@gmail.com
http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/
I hope our new Board of Directors will word the agenda item in question appropriately.
Here are the details regarding what our bylaws and the Condominium Act require on this matter. You can view our Market Street at Town Center Condominium bylaws at the following link: http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF Section 8 of Article III (on page 20) contains this sentence: “All meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held in accordance with Section 55-79.75 of the Virginia Condominium Act.” If you then look at paragraph D of that Section you will see that our Board of Directors is required to “provide a designated period of time during a meeting to allow unit owners an opportunity to comment on any matter relating to the unit owners' association.”
Please note that the statute says “unit owners”, NOT “residents”. Also note that our Board of Directors is elected by and is supposed to primarily serve the interests of unit owners, not residents. That unfortunate past wording of the agenda item suggests that resident tenants are more welcome to dialogue with the Board then are non-resident owners.
At the annual meeting 12 Nov 08, our outgoing Association President stated that 160 of our 333 residential units have non-resident owners. The past wording of that agenda item appears NOT to comply with our bylaws and the Condominium Act for those many non-resident owners.
Once our Board makes clear that non-resident owners are just as welcome as resident owners to participate in the Open Forums, it could also continue to welcome tenants to participate in the Open Forums. But my personal view is that the wording I suggested at the beginning is most appropriate: “OPEN FORUM: Dialogue with Unit Owners”. I believe the proper channels for tenants to use are their landlord or our On-Site Manager.
While I believe it is indisputable that the wording of the agenda item must encourage the unit owners who don't live in our building to nevertheless participate in dialogue with our Board of Directors, the question of whether tenants should also be encouraged to participate in that dialogue is a legitimate issue for debate. I encourage all Market Street at Town Center Condominium unit owners (resident AND non-resident) to email me or/and post opinions on this question on my forum at the below links. (You will need to be registered and logged-in with that forum to post there.)
rasmussen305@gmail.com
http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/
I hope our new Board of Directors will word the agenda item in question appropriately.
Here are the details regarding what our bylaws and the Condominium Act require on this matter. You can view our Market Street at Town Center Condominium bylaws at the following link: http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF Section 8 of Article III (on page 20) contains this sentence: “All meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held in accordance with Section 55-79.75 of the Virginia Condominium Act.” If you then look at paragraph D of that Section you will see that our Board of Directors is required to “provide a designated period of time during a meeting to allow unit owners an opportunity to comment on any matter relating to the unit owners' association.”
Please note that the statute says “unit owners”, NOT “residents”. Also note that our Board of Directors is elected by and is supposed to primarily serve the interests of unit owners, not residents. That unfortunate past wording of the agenda item suggests that resident tenants are more welcome to dialogue with the Board then are non-resident owners.
At the annual meeting 12 Nov 08, our outgoing Association President stated that 160 of our 333 residential units have non-resident owners. The past wording of that agenda item appears NOT to comply with our bylaws and the Condominium Act for those many non-resident owners.
Once our Board makes clear that non-resident owners are just as welcome as resident owners to participate in the Open Forums, it could also continue to welcome tenants to participate in the Open Forums. But my personal view is that the wording I suggested at the beginning is most appropriate: “OPEN FORUM: Dialogue with Unit Owners”. I believe the proper channels for tenants to use are their landlord or our On-Site Manager.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Unfinished Business and Committees
There should never be a Board of Directors meeting agenda item entitled “Old Business.” Also, since the 20 Nov 08 meeting will be the first regular meeting of our new Board, there shouldn't be any Unfinished Business brought into this meeting (unless something was left unfinished at the organizational meeting of the new Board). However, members of the new Board may introduce matters left over from the previous Board as New Business. Committees don't carry over either. If committees are desired, they must be appointed by the new President and confirmed by the new Board of Directors.
Here is the detailed explanation of why the above statements are true. Our Market Street at Town Center Condominium bylaws can be viewed at this link: http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF Section 13 of Article 3 (on page 21 of those bylaws) contains this sentence: “Robert's Rules of Order (latest edition) shall govern the conduct of the meetings of the Board of Directors when not in conflict with the Declaration, these Bylaws or the Condominium Act.” The following link identifies the right book: http://www.robertsrules.com/book.html The footnote on page 346 of that book reads as follows: “The expression ‘old business’ should be avoided, since it may incorrectly suggest the further consideration of matters that have finally been disposed of.” On page 471 of that book is the following information: “…all unfinished business existing when the outgoing portion of the board vacates membership falls to the ground…and if the board is one that…appoints standing committees, it chooses new...committees as soon as the new board members have taken up their duties….” The sentence at line 17 on page 229 of that book explains that the unfinished business of the old board can be introduced by the new board (as new business) “the same as if it had never before been brought up.” Section 4 of Article 4 of our bylaws (at page 22 at the bylaws link given above) explains that our Association President has “the power to appoint committees from among the Unit Owners, subject to the confirmation of the Board of Directors….”
Here is the detailed explanation of why the above statements are true. Our Market Street at Town Center Condominium bylaws can be viewed at this link: http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF Section 13 of Article 3 (on page 21 of those bylaws) contains this sentence: “Robert's Rules of Order (latest edition) shall govern the conduct of the meetings of the Board of Directors when not in conflict with the Declaration, these Bylaws or the Condominium Act.” The following link identifies the right book: http://www.robertsrules.com/book.html The footnote on page 346 of that book reads as follows: “The expression ‘old business’ should be avoided, since it may incorrectly suggest the further consideration of matters that have finally been disposed of.” On page 471 of that book is the following information: “…all unfinished business existing when the outgoing portion of the board vacates membership falls to the ground…and if the board is one that…appoints standing committees, it chooses new...committees as soon as the new board members have taken up their duties….” The sentence at line 17 on page 229 of that book explains that the unfinished business of the old board can be introduced by the new board (as new business) “the same as if it had never before been brought up.” Section 4 of Article 4 of our bylaws (at page 22 at the bylaws link given above) explains that our Association President has “the power to appoint committees from among the Unit Owners, subject to the confirmation of the Board of Directors….”
Unit Owners Elect Two Directors
At the 12 Nov 08 annual meeting, unit owners of our Market Street at Town Center Condominium elected Dena Brannen and Christopher Burke to three-year terms on our Board of Directors. There were four excellent candidates to choose from, and I believe the unit owners chose wisely. This Board--Dena, Christopher, Jeffrey Taggart, Varsha Chandra, and the new GRACE representative--doesn’t include any of the persons who were on the Board before the 2007 annual meeting. I am hopeful and optimistic that this new Board will lead us in the direction we unit owners in general want to go with our Condominium.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Director Platform
I am running for one of the two or three open Director positions on our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Board of Directors. The election will be conducted at the Unit Owners annual meeting scheduled for 7pm Wednesday, November 12, 2008. If you agree with most of what I stand for, I ask for your vote, either in person at the meeting, or by proxy submitted before the meeting. This post and my other posts on this blog, Bob’s leasing blog, and Barry’s and my forums make clear what I stand for. If elected, I will:
1. Seek PROMPT maintenance and repair of our Common Elements.
2. Post information on this blog regarding possible upcoming Board actions, and encourage our Board to use its official channels to provide such information to Unit Owners.
3. Encourage Unit Owner dialog with other Unit Owners and our Directors, and seek to have our Board consider Unit Owner opinions. (One vehicle for such dialog is my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/.)
4. Try to prevent our Board from imposing rules, regulations, restrictions, guidelines, and administrative burdens UNLESS there are (a) logical reasons AND (b) Unit Owner consensus.
5. Seek Board compliance with applicable laws and our condominium instruments.
If you wish to comment regarding this post or any unit owner association matter, I urge you to email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and post on my forum at the link cited in item number 3 above.
1. Seek PROMPT maintenance and repair of our Common Elements.
2. Post information on this blog regarding possible upcoming Board actions, and encourage our Board to use its official channels to provide such information to Unit Owners.
3. Encourage Unit Owner dialog with other Unit Owners and our Directors, and seek to have our Board consider Unit Owner opinions. (One vehicle for such dialog is my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/.)
4. Try to prevent our Board from imposing rules, regulations, restrictions, guidelines, and administrative burdens UNLESS there are (a) logical reasons AND (b) Unit Owner consensus.
5. Seek Board compliance with applicable laws and our condominium instruments.
If you wish to comment regarding this post or any unit owner association matter, I urge you to email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and post on my forum at the link cited in item number 3 above.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Suggested Board Actions
Subject to preferences of our Unit Owners in general, I believe the following actions should be among those our Board of Directors considers over the next 12 months. I have explained some of them in previous posts on this blog, and will explain others in future posts.
Encourage ALL Unit Owners (resident AND non-resident) to attend Board meetings and monthly socials.
Circulate at least one Director meeting information packet (including ALL the documents the Directors have in front of them during the meeting, except reference documents and executive session documents) among the Unit Owners in attendance at Board meetings.
Set up procedures for Unit Owners to provide their comments at Board meetings in such a way that the usefulness of those comments in Board deliberations is maximized.
Define a “visitor” to our building as someone who (a) isn’t using a FOB for admittance AND (b) isn’t purposefully let in by a resident (by buzzing-in or physically opening the door).
Include icons (links) for the Condominium Act, our official Condominium website, and the Fairfax County real estate tax records website on the Windows XP desktop on the computers in the Internet Center.
Add our Declaration to our official Condominium website, and revise the categorization of document links on that website accordingly.
Discontinue collection of information regarding vehicles Unit Owners authorize to park in their assigned garage parking spaces.
Clarify and enforce the bylaw that generally allows no signs posted in or on our common elements without prior written approval of the Board.
Based on input from Unit Owners, establish if music is to be played in the lobby and other common areas, and, if so, what type(s), when, and how loudly.
For further information regarding links to websites related to the actions proposed above, please see my post of 28 April 2008 on this blog, at the following link.
http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/2008/04/useful-links-for-unit-owners.html
I would like to see Market Street at Town Center Condominium Unit Owner comments regarding Board actions such as those suggested in this post. I suggest you make such comments in an email to me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and in a post on my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Encourage ALL Unit Owners (resident AND non-resident) to attend Board meetings and monthly socials.
Circulate at least one Director meeting information packet (including ALL the documents the Directors have in front of them during the meeting, except reference documents and executive session documents) among the Unit Owners in attendance at Board meetings.
Set up procedures for Unit Owners to provide their comments at Board meetings in such a way that the usefulness of those comments in Board deliberations is maximized.
Define a “visitor” to our building as someone who (a) isn’t using a FOB for admittance AND (b) isn’t purposefully let in by a resident (by buzzing-in or physically opening the door).
Include icons (links) for the Condominium Act, our official Condominium website, and the Fairfax County real estate tax records website on the Windows XP desktop on the computers in the Internet Center.
Add our Declaration to our official Condominium website, and revise the categorization of document links on that website accordingly.
Discontinue collection of information regarding vehicles Unit Owners authorize to park in their assigned garage parking spaces.
Clarify and enforce the bylaw that generally allows no signs posted in or on our common elements without prior written approval of the Board.
Based on input from Unit Owners, establish if music is to be played in the lobby and other common areas, and, if so, what type(s), when, and how loudly.
For further information regarding links to websites related to the actions proposed above, please see my post of 28 April 2008 on this blog, at the following link.
http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/2008/04/useful-links-for-unit-owners.html
I would like to see Market Street at Town Center Condominium Unit Owner comments regarding Board actions such as those suggested in this post. I suggest you make such comments in an email to me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and in a post on my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Director Elections 12 November 2008
Our five-person Board of Directors controls our Market Street at Town Center Condominium. Among other things, our Board decides who will serve as our Association’s officers--President, Vice President, Treasurer, and Secretary.
The terms of two of our current Directors--Jeff and Varsha--run until our annual Unit Owners Association meeting in late 2010, two years from now. But the terms of current Directors Mike and Betty end as of our upcoming annual meeting 12 November 2008, less than two months from now. There will be elections at that meeting to fill those two Director positions for three-year terms. Our official Association Website at the following link mentions those two open Director positions.
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/
The term of the remaining Director position--the one now occupied by Chris--runs until our annual meeting in late 2009, one year from now. Our Board elected Chris to that Director position when GRACE decided not to exercise its right to have a Director on our Board. Because our Board (rather than we unit owners as whole) elected Chris, the following sentence from the Virginia Condominium Act appears to apply: “Each person so elected shall serve until the next annual meeting of the unit owners' association at which time a successor shall be elected by a vote of the unit owners.” (See paragraph B at this link: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-79.73 ) So, it appears to me that we unit owners should elect a successor to fill that Director position for the year of the term remaining. Depending on what GRACE decides to do, we residential unit owners might elect three of our five Directors at this upcoming annual meeting, less than two months from now.
GRACE might choose to exercise its right to appoint a member of its Board of Directors to serve concurrently as a member of our Board of Directors. If GRACE does that, I recommend that the GRACE Director be deemed to be elected to one of the positions with a three-year term. Then the Director candidate with the most votes would go into the other three-year-term position, and the candidate with the second-most votes would go into the position with just one year remaining in the term. The advantage of this approach is that we unit owners will then get to elect at least one Director at each annual meeting, as it appears our bylaws intended.
If GRACE decides not to appoint one of its Directors to concurrently be one of our Directors, than the candidate who receives the third-most votes from us unit owners should go into the position with one year of the term remaining.
Please see my two posts on this blog from December 2007 and also my post of 30 November 2007 on this blog for more information regarding the issues raised in this post. If you wish to comment on this or any Market Street at Town Center Condominium Unit Owners Association issue, please post your comment on my forum at the following link:
http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
The terms of two of our current Directors--Jeff and Varsha--run until our annual Unit Owners Association meeting in late 2010, two years from now. But the terms of current Directors Mike and Betty end as of our upcoming annual meeting 12 November 2008, less than two months from now. There will be elections at that meeting to fill those two Director positions for three-year terms. Our official Association Website at the following link mentions those two open Director positions.
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/
The term of the remaining Director position--the one now occupied by Chris--runs until our annual meeting in late 2009, one year from now. Our Board elected Chris to that Director position when GRACE decided not to exercise its right to have a Director on our Board. Because our Board (rather than we unit owners as whole) elected Chris, the following sentence from the Virginia Condominium Act appears to apply: “Each person so elected shall serve until the next annual meeting of the unit owners' association at which time a successor shall be elected by a vote of the unit owners.” (See paragraph B at this link: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-79.73 ) So, it appears to me that we unit owners should elect a successor to fill that Director position for the year of the term remaining. Depending on what GRACE decides to do, we residential unit owners might elect three of our five Directors at this upcoming annual meeting, less than two months from now.
GRACE might choose to exercise its right to appoint a member of its Board of Directors to serve concurrently as a member of our Board of Directors. If GRACE does that, I recommend that the GRACE Director be deemed to be elected to one of the positions with a three-year term. Then the Director candidate with the most votes would go into the other three-year-term position, and the candidate with the second-most votes would go into the position with just one year remaining in the term. The advantage of this approach is that we unit owners will then get to elect at least one Director at each annual meeting, as it appears our bylaws intended.
If GRACE decides not to appoint one of its Directors to concurrently be one of our Directors, than the candidate who receives the third-most votes from us unit owners should go into the position with one year of the term remaining.
Please see my two posts on this blog from December 2007 and also my post of 30 November 2007 on this blog for more information regarding the issues raised in this post. If you wish to comment on this or any Market Street at Town Center Condominium Unit Owners Association issue, please post your comment on my forum at the following link:
http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Internet Center Management Nonsense
The computers in our Internet Center keep records of every site visited, but management removed the favorites list capability on those computers! What could be the logic for removing favorites list capability if Internet Explorer (IE) continues to keep the history of every site visited?
Until a few months ago, users of those four computers could add frequently-visited websites to a favorites list on each of those computers. The favorites list made it easy to return to a favorite web site during a subsequent session on the computer. Of the many sites visited in a session, the user would typically add none or very few sites to the favorites list. And the user got to decide whether a site should be added to the favorites list and thus be viewable by other users of those computers.
But IE on those computers is currently keeping a history of every site visited! The computers keep this record of all sites visited automatically, sometimes without the computer users realizing every site they visit can be known by subsequent users of that computer! The user can “Delete Browsing History” by clicking on “Tools” in the IE header bar, and I recommend all users of those computers do so. But what if the user doesn’t realize the history is being kept, doesn’t know how to delete it, or forgets to delete it?
The contrast between the favorites list capability management precipitously and wrongfully eliminated, and the current keeping of site-visitation histories on those computers is stark. The favorites lists were helpful to some users of those computers that frequently visited certain sites. No user was forced to add any sites to the favorites list, or to even look at or be aware of the favorites list. But it was available to users if they chose to use it. In contrast, the user can’t prevent IE from keeping the complete history of every site visited, except by deleting it as mentioned above. In short, the favorites list capability was a service to users of the Internet Center, while the current keeping of site-visitation histories allows subsequent users to learn all the sites previous users visited.
Once again our management seems to have its priorities mixed up. It seems obvious to me that the keeping of site-visitation histories would have to be eliminated before any case reasonably could be made to not have the favorites list capability available. And, what is also bad, the favorites list capability was eliminated without any Board of Directors deliberation open to us unit owners.
To comment about this or other unit owner association issues, please email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and post on my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/
Until a few months ago, users of those four computers could add frequently-visited websites to a favorites list on each of those computers. The favorites list made it easy to return to a favorite web site during a subsequent session on the computer. Of the many sites visited in a session, the user would typically add none or very few sites to the favorites list. And the user got to decide whether a site should be added to the favorites list and thus be viewable by other users of those computers.
But IE on those computers is currently keeping a history of every site visited! The computers keep this record of all sites visited automatically, sometimes without the computer users realizing every site they visit can be known by subsequent users of that computer! The user can “Delete Browsing History” by clicking on “Tools” in the IE header bar, and I recommend all users of those computers do so. But what if the user doesn’t realize the history is being kept, doesn’t know how to delete it, or forgets to delete it?
The contrast between the favorites list capability management precipitously and wrongfully eliminated, and the current keeping of site-visitation histories on those computers is stark. The favorites lists were helpful to some users of those computers that frequently visited certain sites. No user was forced to add any sites to the favorites list, or to even look at or be aware of the favorites list. But it was available to users if they chose to use it. In contrast, the user can’t prevent IE from keeping the complete history of every site visited, except by deleting it as mentioned above. In short, the favorites list capability was a service to users of the Internet Center, while the current keeping of site-visitation histories allows subsequent users to learn all the sites previous users visited.
Once again our management seems to have its priorities mixed up. It seems obvious to me that the keeping of site-visitation histories would have to be eliminated before any case reasonably could be made to not have the favorites list capability available. And, what is also bad, the favorites list capability was eliminated without any Board of Directors deliberation open to us unit owners.
To comment about this or other unit owner association issues, please email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and post on my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Openness of Board of Directors Deliberations
I have long been concerned that our Board of Directors has conducted some of its deliberations in ways that unlawfully keep us unit owners in the dark regarding actions our Board is contemplating until those actions are fait accompli. Examples of Board procedures that have concerned me include (a) discussing topics that should be considered in open session in executive session instead, (b) mumbling amongst themselves in volumes not much above a whisper so that unit owners attending the Board meeting can’t hear all that the Directors are saying, and (c) conducting so much of its business informally outside of regular open meetings that action the Board later takes in a regular meeting is little more than a formality.
Today I happened upon a post by a Virginia-condominium-association-law attorney that aptly addresses this issue. I urge you to click on the following link and read that post.
http://www.vahoalaw.com/association-meetings-and-proxies-board-member-emailing.html
If you have an opinion on this or any matter related to our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Unit Owners Association, I encourage you to email me rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and to post your comment on my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/
Today I happened upon a post by a Virginia-condominium-association-law attorney that aptly addresses this issue. I urge you to click on the following link and read that post.
http://www.vahoalaw.com/association-meetings-and-proxies-board-member-emailing.html
If you have an opinion on this or any matter related to our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Unit Owners Association, I encourage you to email me rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and to post your comment on my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Collection of Vehicle Information by Management
In posts on this blog in February 2008, I explained why I believe that management of our Association should NOT collect information regarding vehicles unit owners park--or authorize to be parked--in garage parking spaces assigned to a unit they own.
Some proponents of collecting vehicle information suggest that vehicle information would help our Association in a situation where a vehicle in our garage has been involved in an offense, but there is no information regarding in which parking space the vehicle had been parked. With the license number and vehicle description, management could use the vehicle information on file with our Association to identify the unit owner associated with the offending vehicle. My answer to this argument is twofold. First, how often would this situation arise? I am unaware of it happening in the three and a half years I have lived here. Second, with the license number and vehicle description, the police can identify the owner of the vehicle and find out from the owner of the vehicle how it happened that that vehicle was in our garage to be involved in the incident. I don’t see how Association vehicle information would help the investigation process much.
Most unit owner resistance to registering vehicles with management seems to arise from the prospect of having to register vehicles that are parked in our assigned parking space(s) for a short time, such as a loaner car being used while a vehicle is being repaired, or the vehicle of guest here for a few days or a few hours. But I question whether there is adequate justification for management to collect information even for the vehicles that are usually parked in unit owners’ assigned parking spaces.
Beginning in 2006, our management has collected vehicle and other information from roughly three fourths of us unit owners using the “MARKET STREET AT TOWN CENTER CONDOMINIUM OWNER/RESIDENT INFORMATION FORM”. You can see that form by clicking on the following link.
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/OwnerResident_Info.pdf
One could raise various questions regarding that form and its use to collect information from unit owners, but I’ll leave most of those questions to be considered in other posts, perhaps by some of you who are reading this post. I just want to focus briefly on the second(??) section IV--the section captioned “VEHICLE INFORMATION”.
In my view, the Board of Directors should direct that management change the caption of that section to “GARAGE PARKING SPACE AND PASS NUMBERS”. I believe the requested vehicle information--“Make, Model, Year, Color, License Number, State”--should NOT be collected. Again, please see my February 2008 posts on this blog for my reasons why.
Whether you think that vehicle information should or shouldn’t be collected from unit owners by our management, I urge you to email your comment to me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and to post your comment on my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/
Some proponents of collecting vehicle information suggest that vehicle information would help our Association in a situation where a vehicle in our garage has been involved in an offense, but there is no information regarding in which parking space the vehicle had been parked. With the license number and vehicle description, management could use the vehicle information on file with our Association to identify the unit owner associated with the offending vehicle. My answer to this argument is twofold. First, how often would this situation arise? I am unaware of it happening in the three and a half years I have lived here. Second, with the license number and vehicle description, the police can identify the owner of the vehicle and find out from the owner of the vehicle how it happened that that vehicle was in our garage to be involved in the incident. I don’t see how Association vehicle information would help the investigation process much.
Most unit owner resistance to registering vehicles with management seems to arise from the prospect of having to register vehicles that are parked in our assigned parking space(s) for a short time, such as a loaner car being used while a vehicle is being repaired, or the vehicle of guest here for a few days or a few hours. But I question whether there is adequate justification for management to collect information even for the vehicles that are usually parked in unit owners’ assigned parking spaces.
Beginning in 2006, our management has collected vehicle and other information from roughly three fourths of us unit owners using the “MARKET STREET AT TOWN CENTER CONDOMINIUM OWNER/RESIDENT INFORMATION FORM”. You can see that form by clicking on the following link.
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/OwnerResident_Info.pdf
One could raise various questions regarding that form and its use to collect information from unit owners, but I’ll leave most of those questions to be considered in other posts, perhaps by some of you who are reading this post. I just want to focus briefly on the second(??) section IV--the section captioned “VEHICLE INFORMATION”.
In my view, the Board of Directors should direct that management change the caption of that section to “GARAGE PARKING SPACE AND PASS NUMBERS”. I believe the requested vehicle information--“Make, Model, Year, Color, License Number, State”--should NOT be collected. Again, please see my February 2008 posts on this blog for my reasons why.
Whether you think that vehicle information should or shouldn’t be collected from unit owners by our management, I urge you to email your comment to me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and to post your comment on my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Self-Management
At the 26 June 2008 Board of Directors meeting, a unit owner suggested that, in light of our Association’s unfortunate experiences with Managing Agents, we NOT hire another Managing Agent. Instead, our Association would presumably directly hire employees necessary for our Association itself to perform the duties that Managing Agents have been performing for our Association.
Article III, Section 3 of our bylaws addresses employment of a Managing Agent for our Condominium. You can view this Section by clicking on the following link and then going to the bottom of page 17, where Section 3 begins. (Section 3 ends on page 19.)
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF
The portions of Section 3 relevant to the suggestion that our Association self-manage are quoted here: “The Board of Directors shall employ for the Condominium a ‘Managing Agent’ at a compensation established by the Board of Directors….The Managing Agent shall be a bona fide business enterprise…which manages common interest residential communities. Such firm shall have a minimum of two (2) years experience in real estate community management….The Unit Owners Association and the Board of Directors shall not undertake ‘self-management’ or fail to employ a Managing Agent without the consent of a Majority Vote of the Unit Owners and the written consent of Mortgagees together holding sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66-2/3%) of the Mortgages on the Condominium Units.”
Please note that consent of only 50.01% of us unit owners is needed (as opposed to the 66.67% needed to amend the bylaws). Perhaps the harder task would be to get the written consent of 2/3 of the mortgage holders (lenders).
I lean in the direction of preferring self-management, but I’m not sure if it would be worth the large effort that would be required to get the necessary unit owner and mortgage holder consents. Even with a large effort, it isn’t certain that we would succeed in getting the necessary percentages of consents.
If you have an opinion regarding which way our Association should go on this issue, I urge you to post your comment on my forum at this link:
http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Article III, Section 3 of our bylaws addresses employment of a Managing Agent for our Condominium. You can view this Section by clicking on the following link and then going to the bottom of page 17, where Section 3 begins. (Section 3 ends on page 19.)
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF
The portions of Section 3 relevant to the suggestion that our Association self-manage are quoted here: “The Board of Directors shall employ for the Condominium a ‘Managing Agent’ at a compensation established by the Board of Directors….The Managing Agent shall be a bona fide business enterprise…which manages common interest residential communities. Such firm shall have a minimum of two (2) years experience in real estate community management….The Unit Owners Association and the Board of Directors shall not undertake ‘self-management’ or fail to employ a Managing Agent without the consent of a Majority Vote of the Unit Owners and the written consent of Mortgagees together holding sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66-2/3%) of the Mortgages on the Condominium Units.”
Please note that consent of only 50.01% of us unit owners is needed (as opposed to the 66.67% needed to amend the bylaws). Perhaps the harder task would be to get the written consent of 2/3 of the mortgage holders (lenders).
I lean in the direction of preferring self-management, but I’m not sure if it would be worth the large effort that would be required to get the necessary unit owner and mortgage holder consents. Even with a large effort, it isn’t certain that we would succeed in getting the necessary percentages of consents.
If you have an opinion regarding which way our Association should go on this issue, I urge you to post your comment on my forum at this link:
http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Monday, June 2, 2008
Market Street Parking Disconnects
As a resident of Reston Town Center, I am concerned about confusing and illogical parking spaces on the south side of Market Street.
[Circa June 2010, the yellow-curb problem discussed in this paragraph was corrected. The inappropriate yellow curb was painted-over with concrete-colored light-gray paint. I am glad to see this improvement.] The curb in the Hyatt hotel block, and continuing through the movie theater block, is [was] painted yellow for parking spaces where the signs permit one-hour parking. The next block west (across from Morton’s and Starbucks) also has a one-hour parking limitation, but no yellow curbs for those parking spaces. I don’t understand why the Hyatt block and the movie theater block have the yellow curbs. Those yellow curbs seem inconsistent with the unpainted curbs in the next block, and with the usual “no parking” meaning of yellow curbs.
Two blocks farther west, the parking spaces in front of Market Street at Town Center Condominium (12001 Market Street) are improperly located relative to the fire hydrant located about 100 feet west of St. Francis Street. The locations of the concrete strips marking the front and back of each brick parking space are inconsistent with the location of that fire hydrant and the 30-foot yellow-curb “no parking” zone associated with that fire hydrant. For the two nominal 22-foot parking spaces closest to that hydrant, one has only about 10 feet of curb not painted yellow, and the other has only about 4 feet of curb not painted yellow!
Such incongruities suggest Reston isn’t the planned community it has been reputed to be. I wonder if something can and should be done to correct these disconnects.
[Circa June 2010, the yellow-curb problem discussed in this paragraph was corrected. The inappropriate yellow curb was painted-over with concrete-colored light-gray paint. I am glad to see this improvement.] The curb in the Hyatt hotel block, and continuing through the movie theater block, is [was] painted yellow for parking spaces where the signs permit one-hour parking. The next block west (across from Morton’s and Starbucks) also has a one-hour parking limitation, but no yellow curbs for those parking spaces. I don’t understand why the Hyatt block and the movie theater block have the yellow curbs. Those yellow curbs seem inconsistent with the unpainted curbs in the next block, and with the usual “no parking” meaning of yellow curbs.
Two blocks farther west, the parking spaces in front of Market Street at Town Center Condominium (12001 Market Street) are improperly located relative to the fire hydrant located about 100 feet west of St. Francis Street. The locations of the concrete strips marking the front and back of each brick parking space are inconsistent with the location of that fire hydrant and the 30-foot yellow-curb “no parking” zone associated with that fire hydrant. For the two nominal 22-foot parking spaces closest to that hydrant, one has only about 10 feet of curb not painted yellow, and the other has only about 4 feet of curb not painted yellow!
Such incongruities suggest Reston isn’t the planned community it has been reputed to be. I wonder if something can and should be done to correct these disconnects.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Useful Links for Unit Owners
Here are links to some web sites that Market Street at Town Center Condominium unit owners might find useful. I suggest you click on each of these links to get a better feel for what is available at each of the sites.
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/
Official site for our Condominium Unit Owners Association (UOA). (Contains our bylaws and policy documents, Board of Directors meeting minutes, Association newsletters, etc.)
https://msa-towncenter.blogspot.com/
Bob’s leasing-bylaw-amendment blog. Check occasionally for new posts.
https://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/
Paul’s Unit Owners Association (UOA) issues (other than the leasing issue) blog. (The site you are at now.)
https://mstcuoa.proboards.com/
Paul’s message board forum. (You may find this forum helpful in navigating within the two blogs identified immediately above, because the forum is subdivided by topics. In the forum, you can see one- or two-sentence summaries of the content of each blog post, along with the link to the blog post, so you can easily go to the blog post if it sounds interesting to you.) (Although only unit owners who have registered for this forum can post on it, anyone can read the posts. It would be good for back-and-forth dialog if other unit owners would post.)
Virginia Condominium Act
Law applicable to our Condominium. See especially the 1949 and 1950 sections.
https://icare.fairfaxcounty.gov/ffxcare/main/Home.aspx
Fairfax County real estate tax records. (Provides information about each unit in our Condominium, including name(s) of owner(s), the size and model name, the assessed value, and the sales prices. To view information about units recently sold in our Condominium, click on “address” and then enter “12001” in the “Number” box and “market” in the “Street” box. To the right of “Options” sort by “Last Sale” in “Descending” order.)
When a building permit is required
Fairfax County building permits. This link is useful if you are preparing to replace your gas water heater or your gas stove, because Fairfax County requires getting a building permit to replace gas appliances.
http://www.dpor.virginia.gov/LicenseLookup/
This link lets you check if a prospective contractor (perhaps for replacement of your water heater or air conditioner) is properly licensed.
On my own personal computer, I have the icons for all these links grouped together on my desktop, and, as a backup, I have these links in my favorites list as well. What worked well for me was to first add each site to my favorites list, then drag each site’s icon from my favorites list to my desktop, and, finally, add the sites to my favorites list again.
I believe the sites identified above are useful for informing our unit owners about UOA matters, and for facilitating communication among us unit owners regarding UOA matters.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this or any post on this blog, please post those questions or comments on my forum listed above or/and email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/
Official site for our Condominium Unit Owners Association (UOA). (Contains our bylaws and policy documents, Board of Directors meeting minutes, Association newsletters, etc.)
https://msa-towncenter.blogspot.com/
Bob’s leasing-bylaw-amendment blog. Check occasionally for new posts.
https://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/
Paul’s Unit Owners Association (UOA) issues (other than the leasing issue) blog. (The site you are at now.)
https://mstcuoa.proboards.com/
Paul’s message board forum. (You may find this forum helpful in navigating within the two blogs identified immediately above, because the forum is subdivided by topics. In the forum, you can see one- or two-sentence summaries of the content of each blog post, along with the link to the blog post, so you can easily go to the blog post if it sounds interesting to you.) (Although only unit owners who have registered for this forum can post on it, anyone can read the posts. It would be good for back-and-forth dialog if other unit owners would post.)
Virginia Condominium Act
Law applicable to our Condominium. See especially the 1949 and 1950 sections.
https://icare.fairfaxcounty.gov/ffxcare/main/Home.aspx
Fairfax County real estate tax records. (Provides information about each unit in our Condominium, including name(s) of owner(s), the size and model name, the assessed value, and the sales prices. To view information about units recently sold in our Condominium, click on “address” and then enter “12001” in the “Number” box and “market” in the “Street” box. To the right of “Options” sort by “Last Sale” in “Descending” order.)
When a building permit is required
Fairfax County building permits. This link is useful if you are preparing to replace your gas water heater or your gas stove, because Fairfax County requires getting a building permit to replace gas appliances.
http://www.dpor.virginia.gov/LicenseLookup/
This link lets you check if a prospective contractor (perhaps for replacement of your water heater or air conditioner) is properly licensed.
On my own personal computer, I have the icons for all these links grouped together on my desktop, and, as a backup, I have these links in my favorites list as well. What worked well for me was to first add each site to my favorites list, then drag each site’s icon from my favorites list to my desktop, and, finally, add the sites to my favorites list again.
I believe the sites identified above are useful for informing our unit owners about UOA matters, and for facilitating communication among us unit owners regarding UOA matters.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this or any post on this blog, please post those questions or comments on my forum listed above or/and email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com
Monday, April 21, 2008
“Parking and storage” and “executive session”
[At the actual Board meeting discussed below, our President recommended, and the Board approved, that the "Parking and storage" topic be discussed in open session rather than in "executive session". I heartily approve of this decision. I am still going to leave this post up, because I believe it addresses an important issue regarding how our Board should conduct its deliberations.]
The agenda for the Board of Directors meeting this Thursday, 24 April 08, includes a topic entitled “Parking and storage” and, unfortunately in my view, shows that the Board is to discuss this topic in “executive session” (meaning that unit owners not on the Board aren’t allowed to be present during that discussion). I think that exclusion of us unit owners isn’t in our best interests. You might find the below emails between our Association president and me to be of interest. Some of this reminds me of related matters I discussed in recent posts on this blog.
Mike:
I appreciate your response.
That paragraph C of http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-79.75 allows a topic to be considered in executive session only if the topic can reasonably be construed to fall within one of the specific exemptions stated in the first sentence of paragraph C. From what Sue told me Friday and what you say in your below email, I don't see how this "parking and storage" topic could be reasonably so construed.
But even if you can get a legal opinion that supports your initial decision to put the topic in executive session, I still question how putting the topic in executive session is of net benefit to the unit owners. Why shouldn't our unit owners be allowed to know all the factors the Board considered in coming up with pricing, method of sale, accounting decisions, etc.? So, unless you have a topic that clearly MUST be considered only in executive session to comply with the law, I believe the Board best serves the unit owners by considering topics such as this in open session, NOT in executive session. To do otherwise, will, in my opinion, open up the Board to having its motives called into question.
Regards,
Paul
Paul:
I received your voice mail. I had agenda item Parking and Storage placed in Executive Session as I propose to discuss their value to the Association; a price, based on fair market value, that we would offer them to the owners for purchase; a fair method of sale so that each owner has equal opportunity for purchase; and, how to categorize the monies received. I interpret Section 55-79.75.C to include this. However, I’ve asked for an interpretation from Legal Counsel and will make a motion to amend the agenda to place Parking and Storage in General Session should Counsel’s interpretation indicate that this is not an Executive Session topic.
As I’ve stated to you before, my intention is to conduct business legal within the confines of the Condominium Act and our Bylaws.
Mike
The agenda for the Board of Directors meeting this Thursday, 24 April 08, includes a topic entitled “Parking and storage” and, unfortunately in my view, shows that the Board is to discuss this topic in “executive session” (meaning that unit owners not on the Board aren’t allowed to be present during that discussion). I think that exclusion of us unit owners isn’t in our best interests. You might find the below emails between our Association president and me to be of interest. Some of this reminds me of related matters I discussed in recent posts on this blog.
Mike:
I appreciate your response.
That paragraph C of http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-79.75 allows a topic to be considered in executive session only if the topic can reasonably be construed to fall within one of the specific exemptions stated in the first sentence of paragraph C. From what Sue told me Friday and what you say in your below email, I don't see how this "parking and storage" topic could be reasonably so construed.
But even if you can get a legal opinion that supports your initial decision to put the topic in executive session, I still question how putting the topic in executive session is of net benefit to the unit owners. Why shouldn't our unit owners be allowed to know all the factors the Board considered in coming up with pricing, method of sale, accounting decisions, etc.? So, unless you have a topic that clearly MUST be considered only in executive session to comply with the law, I believe the Board best serves the unit owners by considering topics such as this in open session, NOT in executive session. To do otherwise, will, in my opinion, open up the Board to having its motives called into question.
Regards,
Paul
Paul:
I received your voice mail. I had agenda item Parking and Storage placed in Executive Session as I propose to discuss their value to the Association; a price, based on fair market value, that we would offer them to the owners for purchase; a fair method of sale so that each owner has equal opportunity for purchase; and, how to categorize the monies received. I interpret Section 55-79.75.C to include this. However, I’ve asked for an interpretation from Legal Counsel and will make a motion to amend the agenda to place Parking and Storage in General Session should Counsel’s interpretation indicate that this is not an Executive Session topic.
As I’ve stated to you before, my intention is to conduct business legal within the confines of the Condominium Act and our Bylaws.
Mike
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Board of Directors Decisions
At its 27 March 2008 meeting, our Board of Directors made some decisions that relate to matters discussed in recent posts on this blog. I like these Board decisions.
Regarding parking in our garage, the Board decided NOT to require registration of vehicles with management, NOT to provide hanging parking tags, and NOT to move ahead with the draft parking resolution.
The Board delayed the elections for two or three of the five Director positions until 12 November 2008. This delay in the Director elections results from the Board’s decision to hold the annual Unit Owners Association meeting then instead of in June 2008, in the hope that getting the required 25% of the unit owners to attend the meeting (in person or by proxy) will be easier in the fall than in summer.
The Board will now meet each month (vice nominally every other month). Also, the meetings will start at 7:30 pm (vice 7 pm), in the hope that more of the Directors can be present during the 30 minutes at the beginning of each Board meeting during which unit owners have an opportunity to comment on any matter relating to our Unit Owners Association.
The Board decided NOT to move ahead with the draft collections resolution, but to instead review the existing collections resolution that the Board adopted 21 March 2006, and revise it if appropriate. You can view this existing collections resolution at this link:
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/CollectionAssessmentPolicy.pdf
Regarding parking in our garage, the Board decided NOT to require registration of vehicles with management, NOT to provide hanging parking tags, and NOT to move ahead with the draft parking resolution.
The Board delayed the elections for two or three of the five Director positions until 12 November 2008. This delay in the Director elections results from the Board’s decision to hold the annual Unit Owners Association meeting then instead of in June 2008, in the hope that getting the required 25% of the unit owners to attend the meeting (in person or by proxy) will be easier in the fall than in summer.
The Board will now meet each month (vice nominally every other month). Also, the meetings will start at 7:30 pm (vice 7 pm), in the hope that more of the Directors can be present during the 30 minutes at the beginning of each Board meeting during which unit owners have an opportunity to comment on any matter relating to our Unit Owners Association.
The Board decided NOT to move ahead with the draft collections resolution, but to instead review the existing collections resolution that the Board adopted 21 March 2006, and revise it if appropriate. You can view this existing collections resolution at this link:
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/CollectionAssessmentPolicy.pdf
Friday, March 21, 2008
Garage Parking Draft Resolution
I have good news and bad news related to the most recent three posts that precede this post.
The good news is that our Unit Owners Association President intervened to reverse the Association Manager position I characterized as “reprehensible” in the most recent post preceding this one. In other words, our On-Site Manager has now provided me a copy of the draft resolutions I referred to in that post. Other good news is that the draft resolutions are just drafts--drafts that, fortunately, the Board of Directors hasn’t adopted, and that can be readily changed before adoption.
The bad news is the draft parking resolution contains provisions with which I am sure most of us unit owners don’t agree. One provision with which I strongly disagree is the (proposed) right of the Board of Directors to have any vehicle failing to display a properly registered hanging tag towed from the garage and stored at the expense of the owner. Does that mean your vehicle could be towed from your assigned parking space simply because you forgot to hang your parking tag on your rear view mirror?
As I suggested in the third post preceding this one, I don’t think I need any “assistance” from management (or--worst nightmare--towing companies) in checking for “unauthorized” vehicles in my parking space. For me and other unit owners who feel similarly, I don’t see what purpose hanging parking tags (or registering vehicles with management) would serve. I don’t need to see a parking tag hanging from the rear view mirror of a vehicle parked in my space to know whether I authorized it to be parked there. On the other hand, I am okay with use of hanging parking tags and management assistance for unit owners who want help in keeping unauthorized vehicles out of their parking spaces. (But I doubt there are many unit owners in this category.)
I am hopeful that the Board will solicit extensive unit owner input before adopting any parking resolution.
If you wish to post a comment regarding this issue, I suggest you do so in the “Garage Parking” thread in the “registration required” area of http://marketstreet.proboards83.com/ or, register and start a thread on my new forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
The good news is that our Unit Owners Association President intervened to reverse the Association Manager position I characterized as “reprehensible” in the most recent post preceding this one. In other words, our On-Site Manager has now provided me a copy of the draft resolutions I referred to in that post. Other good news is that the draft resolutions are just drafts--drafts that, fortunately, the Board of Directors hasn’t adopted, and that can be readily changed before adoption.
The bad news is the draft parking resolution contains provisions with which I am sure most of us unit owners don’t agree. One provision with which I strongly disagree is the (proposed) right of the Board of Directors to have any vehicle failing to display a properly registered hanging tag towed from the garage and stored at the expense of the owner. Does that mean your vehicle could be towed from your assigned parking space simply because you forgot to hang your parking tag on your rear view mirror?
As I suggested in the third post preceding this one, I don’t think I need any “assistance” from management (or--worst nightmare--towing companies) in checking for “unauthorized” vehicles in my parking space. For me and other unit owners who feel similarly, I don’t see what purpose hanging parking tags (or registering vehicles with management) would serve. I don’t need to see a parking tag hanging from the rear view mirror of a vehicle parked in my space to know whether I authorized it to be parked there. On the other hand, I am okay with use of hanging parking tags and management assistance for unit owners who want help in keeping unauthorized vehicles out of their parking spaces. (But I doubt there are many unit owners in this category.)
I am hopeful that the Board will solicit extensive unit owner input before adopting any parking resolution.
If you wish to post a comment regarding this issue, I suggest you do so in the “Garage Parking” thread in the “registration required” area of http://marketstreet.proboards83.com/ or, register and start a thread on my new forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Board of Directors Shunning Unit Owner Input?
At the Board of Directors meeting 28 February 2008, one of the items of “New Business” on the agenda was “Recommendation of Resolutions/Policies”. When the Board considered this topic, it became clear from the discussion that the Association Manager had provided the Directors with rough drafts of possible resolutions the Board could use as starting points for resolutions the Board could eventually adopt as part of our “Rules and Regulations”. The Directors asked questions and made comments to the Association Manager regarding those draft resolutions. One of the resolutions seemingly dealt with parking in our garage, and the other seemingly dealt with collections policy, and supposedly would supersede an existing Board resolution on that issue. Neither draft resolution had been included in the Board meeting information packet available in the On-Site Manager’s office for unit owners to review.
The next day I asked our On-Site Manager to at least let me look at the draft resolutions the Association Manager had provided to the Directors for that discussion, or, preferably, to provide me a copy of each of those draft resolutions. She forwarded my request to the Association Manager.
I was astounded at the response of the Association Manager. He stated: “Once the board approves the resolution, every homeowner will receive it and it will not go into effect for thirty days. Until the resolution is approved it is for the eyes of the Board, management, and the covenants committee only. Sam”
I view that response as reprehensible in two respects. First, it appears to be a violation of law. The Virginia Condominium Act includes the following sentence within paragraph B of § 55-79.75: “…at least one copy of all agenda packets and materials furnished to members of the executive organ …for a meeting shall be made available for inspection by the membership of the unit owners' association at the same time such documents are furnished to the members of the executive organ.” Those draft resolutions haven’t been made available for us unit owners to inspect.
The second reason I consider the Association Manager’s response reprehensible is that it is contrary to the best interests of us unit owners even if the law weren’t being violated. We unit owners don’t want requirements and restrictions that could possibly adversely affect our quality of life figuratively hatched by the Board of Directors in the dark of night, and then foisted upon us as a surprise after the Board has already made its decision.
While I acknowledge that we unit owners elect Directors to make decisions on our behalf, where is it written that our Board of Directors should try to avoid hearing our opinions, and try to avoid responding to our opinions if we do manage to make our opinions heard?
I believe the best solution to this situation is to elect some new Directors at the annual unit owners meeting 12 November 2008. The Director positions currently filled by Betty and Mike both are up for election for three-year terms then, and possibly the Director position currently filled by Chris will be up for election then too. So, two or three of the five Director positions will be up for election then, giving us unit owners a big say in the future composition of our Board of Directors.
The next day I asked our On-Site Manager to at least let me look at the draft resolutions the Association Manager had provided to the Directors for that discussion, or, preferably, to provide me a copy of each of those draft resolutions. She forwarded my request to the Association Manager.
I was astounded at the response of the Association Manager. He stated: “Once the board approves the resolution, every homeowner will receive it and it will not go into effect for thirty days. Until the resolution is approved it is for the eyes of the Board, management, and the covenants committee only. Sam”
I view that response as reprehensible in two respects. First, it appears to be a violation of law. The Virginia Condominium Act includes the following sentence within paragraph B of § 55-79.75: “…at least one copy of all agenda packets and materials furnished to members of the executive organ …for a meeting shall be made available for inspection by the membership of the unit owners' association at the same time such documents are furnished to the members of the executive organ.” Those draft resolutions haven’t been made available for us unit owners to inspect.
The second reason I consider the Association Manager’s response reprehensible is that it is contrary to the best interests of us unit owners even if the law weren’t being violated. We unit owners don’t want requirements and restrictions that could possibly adversely affect our quality of life figuratively hatched by the Board of Directors in the dark of night, and then foisted upon us as a surprise after the Board has already made its decision.
While I acknowledge that we unit owners elect Directors to make decisions on our behalf, where is it written that our Board of Directors should try to avoid hearing our opinions, and try to avoid responding to our opinions if we do manage to make our opinions heard?
I believe the best solution to this situation is to elect some new Directors at the annual unit owners meeting 12 November 2008. The Director positions currently filled by Betty and Mike both are up for election for three-year terms then, and possibly the Director position currently filled by Chris will be up for election then too. So, two or three of the five Director positions will be up for election then, giving us unit owners a big say in the future composition of our Board of Directors.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Vehicle Information Required?
Does our Unit Owners Association require that residents provide our Condominium management with information about the vehicles residents authorize to be parked in the garage parking space(s) assigned to the unit the resident lives in? While I am unsure, I don’t think there is such a requirement that is valid and enforceable. There definitely is no such vehicle registration requirement in our condominium instruments. (Our condominium instruments are our Declaration, Bylaws, and plats and plans, all of which are recorded in the Fairfax County Land Records, and which require approval of 2/3 of the unit owners to make any change other than correcting obvious errors.)
But the question of whether any of our Boards of Directors has ever adopted such a vehicle registration requirement that can reasonably be construed as part of our “Rules and Regulations” and thus be valid and enforceable is difficult to answer. I don’t think a Board of Directors has ever duly adopted such a requirement, unless the posted notice itself would be considered part of our Rules and Regulations. (See some of my previous posts on this blog for more information about “Rules and Regulations”.)
I think the Board of Directors should make clear to all of us unit owners whether a Board has or has not duly adopted a requirement to register vehicles with Condominium management. I believe that the Board of Directors should NOT adopt such a vehicle registration requirement. If the Board can demonstrate that a Board of Directors has already adopted such a registration requirement, then I think the Board ought to repeal that vehicle registration requirement. I can give many reasons why I take this position, but I’ll leave that for a future post if that becomes necessary.
But the question of whether any of our Boards of Directors has ever adopted such a vehicle registration requirement that can reasonably be construed as part of our “Rules and Regulations” and thus be valid and enforceable is difficult to answer. I don’t think a Board of Directors has ever duly adopted such a requirement, unless the posted notice itself would be considered part of our Rules and Regulations. (See some of my previous posts on this blog for more information about “Rules and Regulations”.)
I think the Board of Directors should make clear to all of us unit owners whether a Board has or has not duly adopted a requirement to register vehicles with Condominium management. I believe that the Board of Directors should NOT adopt such a vehicle registration requirement. If the Board can demonstrate that a Board of Directors has already adopted such a registration requirement, then I think the Board ought to repeal that vehicle registration requirement. I can give many reasons why I take this position, but I’ll leave that for a future post if that becomes necessary.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Garage Parking
I am concerned about the request in the notice posted in elevator lobbies that we register each vehicle we expect to park in each of our parking spaces with building management.
My view is that building management (and towing companies) should assume that any vehicle parked in my parking space has been authorized by me to be parked there, and that building management should contact me if they believe that vehicle--or someone who entered our building in that vehicle--is somehow not in compliance with our condominium instruments and our "Rules and Regulations". As the owner of the unit to which the space is assigned, I accept responsibility for such compliance.
If I should have a problem with an unauthorized vehicle parked in my space, building management should be available to guide me in getting the unauthorized vehicle removed from my space. But otherwise, please assume I authorized any vehicle parked in my space to be there. I don't see why there should be any requirement that unit owners in this situation must register vehicles with building management.
On the other hand, if there are unit owners who want management assistance in checking for unauthorized vehicles parking in spaces assigned to their unit, that is fine with me. Just please don't give the rest of us "assistance" we don't want and don't want to pay for in our condominium assessments.
My view is that building management (and towing companies) should assume that any vehicle parked in my parking space has been authorized by me to be parked there, and that building management should contact me if they believe that vehicle--or someone who entered our building in that vehicle--is somehow not in compliance with our condominium instruments and our "Rules and Regulations". As the owner of the unit to which the space is assigned, I accept responsibility for such compliance.
If I should have a problem with an unauthorized vehicle parked in my space, building management should be available to guide me in getting the unauthorized vehicle removed from my space. But otherwise, please assume I authorized any vehicle parked in my space to be there. I don't see why there should be any requirement that unit owners in this situation must register vehicles with building management.
On the other hand, if there are unit owners who want management assistance in checking for unauthorized vehicles parking in spaces assigned to their unit, that is fine with me. Just please don't give the rest of us "assistance" we don't want and don't want to pay for in our condominium assessments.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Governing Documents: Our “Rules and Regulations”
"Rules and Regulations" means those rules adopted from time to time by the Board of Directors pertaining to the operation or use of the Units or Common Elements. (See definition (y) near the end of Article I of our Bylaws, which you can view at this link: http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF Also, please see Section 3 of Article XI (on page 57) for a great summary of useful information about our Rules and Regulations.)
Such Rules and Regulations--properly established by our Board of Directors acting as a body--are enforceable in the same way Bylaws and the Declaration are enforceable. The policy document at the following link describes the enforcement procedures: http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/policy/Policy_01-06.pdf
Rules, guidelines, plans, requests, handbooks, etc. NOT adopted by our Board of Directors aren't "Rules and Regulations" as defined in our bylaws and therefore aren’t enforceable by our Board or management.
I believe that unit owners and tenants should clearly understand what is--and what isn’t--a legally enforceable “Rule” or “Regulation” as defined in the first sentence of this posting. If a so-called “policy” or “guideline” or “handbook” or “plan” is duly adopted by our Board of Directors, it probably doesn’t matter that it isn’t specifically called “Rules and Regulations”--I am unsure. But I am quite sure that purported rules, guidelines, handbooks, plans, etc. NOT adopted by our Board of Directors are unenforceable. Unenforceable restrictions or requirements shouldn’t be foisted upon residents and unit owners as duly enacted “Rules and Regulations”.
But since I would like to see the number of enforceable “Rules and Regulations” kept to a minimum, I am okay with suggesting behavior that will make life more pleasant for all of us if these two conditions apply: (a) It is not implied that the suggested behaviors are official “Rules and Regulations” that the Association can enforce with penalties, and (b) Approval of the Board of Directors is obtained before the suggested behaviors are posted in common elements or promulgated to unit owners and residents.
Such Rules and Regulations--properly established by our Board of Directors acting as a body--are enforceable in the same way Bylaws and the Declaration are enforceable. The policy document at the following link describes the enforcement procedures: http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/policy/Policy_01-06.pdf
Rules, guidelines, plans, requests, handbooks, etc. NOT adopted by our Board of Directors aren't "Rules and Regulations" as defined in our bylaws and therefore aren’t enforceable by our Board or management.
I believe that unit owners and tenants should clearly understand what is--and what isn’t--a legally enforceable “Rule” or “Regulation” as defined in the first sentence of this posting. If a so-called “policy” or “guideline” or “handbook” or “plan” is duly adopted by our Board of Directors, it probably doesn’t matter that it isn’t specifically called “Rules and Regulations”--I am unsure. But I am quite sure that purported rules, guidelines, handbooks, plans, etc. NOT adopted by our Board of Directors are unenforceable. Unenforceable restrictions or requirements shouldn’t be foisted upon residents and unit owners as duly enacted “Rules and Regulations”.
But since I would like to see the number of enforceable “Rules and Regulations” kept to a minimum, I am okay with suggesting behavior that will make life more pleasant for all of us if these two conditions apply: (a) It is not implied that the suggested behaviors are official “Rules and Regulations” that the Association can enforce with penalties, and (b) Approval of the Board of Directors is obtained before the suggested behaviors are posted in common elements or promulgated to unit owners and residents.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Governing Documents: Our BYLAWS
According to Article XVIII of our Declaration, the purpose of our Bylaws is “to provide for the self-government of the Condominium by an association of all of the Unit Owners (the “Unit Owners Association”).”
Our Bylaws provide that our Board of Directors is to control the vast majority of the things done by our Association. The primary control we as Unit Owners have is to decide by our votes who our Directors shall be.
An important responsibility our Bylaws give to the Board of Directors is to make and amend the Rules and Regulations that govern the behavior of the residents of our Condominium. Our Bylaws are clear that only our Board of Directors--acting as body--can make and amend Rules and Regulations—not the Managing Agent, not the On-Site Manager, not the President, not an individual Director. Paragraph (b) of Section 3 of Article III on page 18 of our Bylaws forbids our Board of Directors from delegating to the Managing Agent the power to "[m]ake and amend the Rules and Regulations." You can view our Bylaws by clicking on this link:
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF
You might find the table of contents that you see upon clicking the link useful to find the particular bylaw relevant to whatever question you might have.
Our Bylaws can be amended only if two thirds of the Unit Owners approve the change.
Our Bylaws provide that our Board of Directors is to control the vast majority of the things done by our Association. The primary control we as Unit Owners have is to decide by our votes who our Directors shall be.
An important responsibility our Bylaws give to the Board of Directors is to make and amend the Rules and Regulations that govern the behavior of the residents of our Condominium. Our Bylaws are clear that only our Board of Directors--acting as body--can make and amend Rules and Regulations—not the Managing Agent, not the On-Site Manager, not the President, not an individual Director. Paragraph (b) of Section 3 of Article III on page 18 of our Bylaws forbids our Board of Directors from delegating to the Managing Agent the power to "[m]ake and amend the Rules and Regulations." You can view our Bylaws by clicking on this link:
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF
You might find the table of contents that you see upon clicking the link useful to find the particular bylaw relevant to whatever question you might have.
Our Bylaws can be amended only if two thirds of the Unit Owners approve the change.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Governing Documents: Our DECLARATION
Of our governing documents, our Declaration is the most powerful—meaning that, in case of conflict, the Declaration takes precedence over—trumps—Bylaws and Rules and Regulations.
The exact title of our Declaration is “Declaration of Market Street at Town Center Condominium.” When our Declaration was recorded October 19, 2004, it created our Condominium as a legal entity, and provided legal descriptions of the components of the Condominium, including our units and the common elements. You can view our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Declaration (without Exhibit B) beginning at page 36 of this link: http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/CMC.pdf
Included in the Declaration are tables of the par values for the different unit types. (See article VI and Exhibit B.) These par values are important (a) because they determine how much our condominium fees are as compared to units with different par values, and (b) because our unit’s par value also determines how much our vote counts in Association elections for members of the Board of Directors, approval of a rental bylaw amendment, etc.
To amend the Declaration (or the Bylaws) requires “agreement of unit owners of units to which two-thirds of the votes in the unit owners' association appertain….” (See paragraph B of http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-79.71
At settlement, I received a copy of the Declaration that was recorded in the Fairfax County Land Records beginning in Deed Book 16608 at Page 1990, but there have been amendments to Exhibit B since then, especially as additional phases were added to our Condominium, and I obtained those amendments from the Fairfax County courthouse some years later.
The exact title of our Declaration is “Declaration of Market Street at Town Center Condominium.” When our Declaration was recorded October 19, 2004, it created our Condominium as a legal entity, and provided legal descriptions of the components of the Condominium, including our units and the common elements. You can view our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Declaration (without Exhibit B) beginning at page 36 of this link: http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/CMC.pdf
Included in the Declaration are tables of the par values for the different unit types. (See article VI and Exhibit B.) These par values are important (a) because they determine how much our condominium fees are as compared to units with different par values, and (b) because our unit’s par value also determines how much our vote counts in Association elections for members of the Board of Directors, approval of a rental bylaw amendment, etc.
To amend the Declaration (or the Bylaws) requires “agreement of unit owners of units to which two-thirds of the votes in the unit owners' association appertain….” (See paragraph B of http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+55-79.71
At settlement, I received a copy of the Declaration that was recorded in the Fairfax County Land Records beginning in Deed Book 16608 at Page 1990, but there have been amendments to Exhibit B since then, especially as additional phases were added to our Condominium, and I obtained those amendments from the Fairfax County courthouse some years later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
