We are paying quite a few different covenant enforcement management co. It would only make sense to have the same management co. hired to take care of all of Woodmen Hills. When we hired the existing management to work for Fil 11, they were charging less than half of what the Developer’s management Co. was charging. Perhaps the meter readers was not a valid example. But I know for fact, that even under all the different “Boards” we have in place, it would be cost effective to have one Management Co.

I have no knowledge of the Metro Board trying to take over Fil 11 CCR. It was conveyed legally, per the governing documents and the State and County regulations. But I can assure you, it was all done legally, non-profit formed, bi-laws, etc.

If we had a great deal of empty lots still waiting to be developed. I’d feel differently on making changes to our covenants. But I’m sure you can agree, you have seen a vast improvement in the last 2 yrs in the conditions of landscaping. Any existing violations in Filing 11 that are pertaining to landscaping issues have liens against them. Once they have been re-sold, either by short sale, etc. The new buyer will escrow for landscaping needs. Those funds will be released once Filing 11 concurs the landscaping has been completed and is satisfactory. So basically, little is left to be done in Filing 11. Just basic friendly reminders to be respectful to your community and neighbor.

So that is my primary reason why I feel we don’t need to change them at this time.

Dave,
When I met with the Attorney(before we took ownership) He had written each filing’s covenants. All were written to accommodate incoming Developers. They had input so hence they, small differences in each filing. He explained to me that thus far, the covenants although not traditional, did uphold in court decisions. That was what was important to me. The fact we were able to be effective and the courts deemed us legal. So basically it came down to , who’s attorney do you want to believe, one who had 10 year knowledge of all the filings (the Attorney I wanted to work with) or hire a whole new set of Attorneys from the bad advice of the new Management Co. This is why I left the Board! The cost to try and hold an election will ultimately be funded by you and me. Were our covenants working, yes, were we enforcing yes. However, they were not being run by the Committee, the Management Co would make suggestions and the board would do what they were told, was the “right way”. I totally disagree with this concept. You must be informed, you must provide the guidelines to the Management Co, then they act upon the Boards ruling. Make sense?
Anyway, it was my understanding, Filing 11 was the only filing that had a stash of cash when handed over to the homeowners. I tried very hard to keep that cash surplus. I’m afraid to ask how much is left.

You appear to have a lot of background information on filing 11…can you elaborate on why you feel the covenants don’t need to be changed, and the background between the district and filing 11?

I’ll reiterate — Ron can run if he chooses to, it’s up to him to convince the voters that he is electable. Ask Ralph Nader.

I am basing this solely on the legal bills and discussions with folks that were on the filing 11 board at the time…if/when I get copies of those letters I will of course post them.

I think we agree on one thing: The current covenant management board is tainted, and apparently there is antipathy toward the filing 11 system as well. We should start from scratch, get all the residents involved (or at least PROACTIVELY notified), and figure out where we want to go.

Anyway, do you research, I don’t think you guys, quite get the backround and current accountability of Fil 11 Covenant review board.

Still asking, who is willing? who is electable?

In-house management? Makes sense and I would support that. However, I think there still needs to be some control / oversight in place to ensure a level of fairness, compassion, and consideration of extenuating circumstances. Who would do that? The Metro board? They would likely have to add another meeting or the current meetings would run really long.

One danger I see is that if we had a hard nose district manager and covenant manager (for lack of a better title), both employees, who did everything by the book, we’d have an uprising. Also the incentive to fine for monetary gain needs to be removed (isn’t that part of the problem in 11?). I think this can be figured out if we get some good factual dialogue going.

From what I’ve been able to gather, the district tried to strong-arm Filing 11 the same way they did Melody/DR — with lawyers sending ominously-worded letters. See the legal bills from 2008 for details on this.

While I’m not sure where Ron was going with his recommendation for a “board not connected”, it does beg another question: What do we pay the management company for? the covenant board paid $45,000 for “management fees” in 2009…can we manage covenants WITHOUT a management company, do it all in-house? Or is that a simplistic question?