Condo Association 2016 Assessments

Update added 23 November 2015:  Our Community Manager has corrected the problem.  Here is the response I received from her this morning:  "Thanks for catching that on the letter, we had actually found the mistake and thought we had corrected the copy.  CMC will get the owners of 414 and 420 the corrected amount."


Update added 20 November 2015:

I was surprised and disappointed by the obvious mistake contained in the official letter I received this afternoon setting forth the "Approved 2016 Monthly Assessment[s]."  For the two units (414 and 420) in our Condominium that have a par value of 0.38%, the letter incorrectly showed the 2016 monthly assessment to be $499.43.  (The amount shown below ($473.26) is the correct monthly amount for 2016, but NOT for 2015, as the letter mistakenly shows.)

The official letter to which I am referring is dated November 17, 2015, and was sent by Associa Community Management Corporation on behalf of our Board of Directors.

I will send an email to our Community Manager tonight informing her of the problem.



Here are the Market Street at Town  Center Condominium monthly assessments I calculate for 2016.

Par Value (%) of Unit          Monthly Assessment ($)

     0.21                                      261.54

     0.26                                      323.81

     0.32                                      398.54

     0.34                                      423.45

     0.38                                      473.26

     0.40                                      498.17

     0.47                                      585.35

     0.49                                      610.26

     0.54                                      672.53

Each assessment amount shown above doesn't include the $13-per-month assessment for each parking space assigned to your unit.

Computation of the above amounts begins with the $1,474,492.08 "Residential Assessments" shown in the "Market Street at Town Center 2016 Budget - Final."  I multiplied that number by a par value percentage from the left column above, then divided by 98.66, and then divided by 12 to get the monthly assessment.

The 98.66 is the total of the par value percentages for our 333 residential units, and is applicable because the $1,474,492.08 doesn't include "Commercial Assessments."  (Our one commercial unit (GRACE) has a par value of 1.34%, resulting in the sum of the par values for all of the 334 units in our Condominium equaling 100%.)

While we all have access to the budget that shows the $1,474,492.08 "Residential Assessments," I haven't seen the official Unit Owners Association monthly assessment amounts, so they could vary from the amounts I provided above by a penny or so in either direction, depending on what rounding convention may have been used.

If you have any questions regarding this or any of my posts, feel free to email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com.  Or/and, better yet, register for my forum at  http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/  and comment there.

Attempt to Hinder Communication Among Unit Owners?

Is our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Board of Directors attempting to hinder communication among unit owners?

Our Board of Directors recently sent all unit owners a letter that includes this unfortunate statement:  “...no request has been made and/or granted for use of the Association’s Community Room on that date and time.”

That Board of Directors letter, which was dated July 9, 2015, was responding to an anonymous letter that invited all Market Street at Town Center Condominium unit owners to a meeting in the Community Room at 7 p.m. Wednesday, 15 July, to discuss the effects of the lease-cap amendment ratified in April 2014.  (I provided comments relevant to both letters in my recent post of 10 July.)  Because I think communication is good, I approve of the sending of both letters, but, for reasons I'll discuss in the following paragraphs, I think our Board of Directors should have omitted the "unfortunate statement" I quoted above from its letter.

Residents don’t need approval to use the Community Room so long as the number of non-residents attending is no more than four times the number of units represented at the meeting by residents.  For example, if residents from five different units attend a meeting, each of those units is allowed four non-resident guests, so there could be a total of 20 non-resident guests in addition to all the residents of those five units.

In 2007, our Board of Directors published "GUIDELINES FOR USE OF THE COMMUNITY ROOM."  Note especially rules 1 and 4.  (It seems a little odd to me that tenants have the same right to use the room as resident owners, but non-resident owners must be a “guest” to use the room!)  Please also note that the Guidelines say nothing about requesting use of the Community Room; the Guidelines make clear that residents--without requesting approval--may use the Room within the designated hours anytime their use doesn't interfere with official Unit Owners' Association functions (which, in my experience, have always been scheduled at least several days before they occurred).

While the "unfortunate statement" quoted above is true, it is irrelevant, so the question arises:  Why did our Board of Directors include that "unfortunate statement" in its letter?  I can think of only two possible explanations:  (a) The Board mistakenly thought approval was required to use the Room for such a meeting, or (b) the Board was wrongfully trying to make it more difficult to hold such a meeting.  It is unfortunate if either (a) or (b) applies to any Director we unit owners have elected.

If (b) applies, that is particularly egregious, because it is the opposite of what §55-79.75:1 of the Condominium Act requires.  Our Board of Directors is supposed to establish a reasonable, effective, and free method, appropriate to the size and nature of our Market Street at Town Center Condominium, for unit owners to communicate among ourselves and with our Board of Directors regarding any matter concerning our Unit Owners' Association.  Also, our Board may not require prior approval of the dissemination or content of any material regarding any matter concerning our Unit Owners' Association.

Building Permit Required for Replacement of Gas Water Heater

Our Market Street at Town Center Condominium is more than 10 years old, resulting in some of us unit owners having to replace our gas water heater or electric air conditioner.

Perhaps surprisingly, Fairfax County requires getting a building permit to replace a gas water heater.

Also, I asked this question:  Is a building permit required for replacement of my 10-year-old electric air conditioning system (not a heat pump)?  Fairfax County said that no permit is required for electric air conditioner unit replacement, but that I should make sure it's installed per manufacture instruction and verify size of conductor and breaker.

While unit owners can obtain the building permit for the gas water heater replacement themselves, the County advised me that having the licensed contractor obtain the building permit better enables the County to ensure that the gas water heater replacement is done properly.

This link provides further information about the gas water heater replacement building permit requirement:  http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/buildingpermits/

This link enables you to check if your prospective contractor is properly licensed:  http://www.dpor.virginia.gov/LicenseLookup/