MUST READ: January 18, 2011 Board Meeting Notes

Dear Homeowners,

This evening was the first Board Meeting of the Homeowners Association of 2011, and the turnout was not all that great though not unexpected. Years ago when I first attended these meetings only a dozen or so homeowners attended, and the same was observed this evening. Notwithstanding, I understand why there was such little turn out; after all who wants to go to these meetings with the intent on asking important questions only to get lip service (i.e. no straightforward answers) from the Board of Directors present?

While I was intent on attending and speaking up about the issues I’ve raised, I changed my mind after listening to over half of the homeowners present bring up the reserve account and the street trees on Foothills Drive, and the responses that that board members gave. Thus I felt it was far more prudent to listen and learn how other homeowners felt than speak.

Listening to the concerns of the other homeowners, a few raised some excellent points and two questioned the arborists consulted by the board having their own experience with trees (one of whom is an arborist and member of an arborist society for more than 25 years).

The lead board member who initially responded to the inquiry into the reserve account and the dying/dead street trees along Foothills Drive disclosed some telling facts.

First and foremost is that the landscaping company they’ve been paying over the past several years “were not qualified” to maintain the trees.

Second and most important is the fact that the board “skimped” on the maintenance and overall care of the landscaping, to include the tress, which resulted in our current predicament with the $13,650 reserve account.

Naturally another board member responded in “damage control mode” disagreeing with the former board member’s description of “deferred maintenance” in order to save the association money. In doing so he rationalized the lack of proper care and maintenance of the street trees on the notion that the trees were planted at different times and not all cared for at the same time (ignoring the fact that it was already disclosed that they were not really even cared for at all!).

Additionally he described drainage problems in the parking strips as the cause of the street trees dying; thus we may very well see an additional expense come up in our future budget for drainage along Foothills drive.

However the arborists consulted, according to the letter we received announcing the problem and reiterated by the board members this evening, never established a clear reason as to the cause of the death of these trees. 

However, if we wanted to know a “probable” answer as to the cause of death, we could pay over $2,200 to have a study conducted at a university. The board decided not to do that in the interests of “fulfilling the CC&Rs in a cost effective manner,” as such they assessed what they thought would cover the expenses of not only removing the trees, but also in buying large trees to match the size of the other still living trees; in addition to the arborists expense to trim the trees all at once instead of in sections, along with the cost of a 1-2 year warranty per tree. 

Then to top all those expenses off, there is the thousand plus dollars that it would cost us in payment to the management company to send us the notification, billing, receipt of checks, processing and depositing the checks, and then paying for the expenses of replacing the trees; which they determined to be $1,000 to $1,500 per tree.

When this cost figure was question by a homeowner who expressed their knowledge and experience with trees, especially the trimming issue (which this homeowner believed was not a necessary element to the survivability of the trees), it was asked if the trees planted were the correct trees for the region to begin with.

The board’s response was that they were but the underlining “problem” had to do with the “crazy” way the branches and roots grew causing instability in the strength of the tree and ability to absorb the water. Then it was commented (rather directly implied) that the developer was the proximate cause of the issue at hand due to their improper “drop and plop” planting. Notwithstanding, the arborist already concluded that the death of the trees is “a mystery” without conducting a study to find a “probable” cause of their demise.

In short, there is no physical known cause for the trees dying other than the Board of Director's unsubstantiated assertions of the likelihood that they were incorrectly planted and have “crazy” branching and “circling roots” choking the tree to death from its water supply.

After all this rationalization by the board, another homeowner, the 25 year experienced arborist aforementioned spoke up and stated plainly that he disagrees with the board and the arborists assessment of the street tree issue. In response all the board could do was invite him to walk the neighborhood and give them his assessment of the tree issue, and consult with the same arborists they consulted.

Another important question brought up by another homeowner was whether or not we (the homeowners) can expect to see this $13,650 reserve account assessed next year. The board’s response, it’s not their “intent” to do so. Adding further, it was said that the $13,650 reserve is higher than anyone likes, but “specific” expenses were intended to be purchased and paid for this year. However they did not disclose what those “specific” expenses were.

Why? They don't feel that they have to since the Oregon legislature "grandfathered" in assocations created prior to 1999 as not being required to conduct a reserve study and/or provide a maintenance plan without either an adopted resolution by the board to follow established law for those assocations created after 1999 - or by petition of the majority of the homeowners to do so.

Hence the intent and purpose of the petition that you received in order to force the board to abide by statute and provide in writing an annual reserve study and maintenance plan.

That way we homeowners will know exactly what the "specific" expenses are, why they are being assessed, and how they intend to be paid.

In sum, the board alleges that the developer is the primary cause of the failure of the trees due to the manner in which they were planted; and the fact that the trees simply could not absorb that which gives it life – water – due to “crazy” branching. Not to mention the fact that the board (the main speaker at the meeting) admitting to “skimping” on the landscape maintenance budget (thereby implying no attention was given to the tree situation) over the past several years in order to save the association money. 

But now the entire association of homeowners is left footing the bill for their collective mistakes and the assertion that the trees tend to grow branches in a “crazy” manner. If the latter is in fact the case, simply replacing them with the same species of tree won’t solve the issue, as we would more likely than not face the same situation in another three, five, or ten years. If we don't get a majority of the homeowners to sign and turn in the petition now, whose to say that the next reserve assessed won't be $20,000 in order to replace the trees for a third time!

P.S. Another homeowner did ask questions regarding the literal interpretation of the CC&Rs regarding who is responsible for the street trees along Foothills along with the care and maintenance of the sidewalks. I will defer further commentary on this point until I have had adequate time to review the CC&Rs, Bylaws and relevant statutes.