Retroactive collection of 'unassessed condominium fees'

Letter to Management company

Mr. Markell:

I have carefully reviewed your letter of December 20, 2012 and the enclosed tables. I note that the budget calls for the cited 3.43% increase in condominium fees over last year. I also note that the letter states that "the increase will go into effect beginning in February and last through October." The statement is incorrect and, thus, misleading to the Owners.

Based on the Assessment Breakout Schedule, the 3.43% increase will be collected over the last 8 months of FY13 (Feb. to Sept.) but the actual increase went into effect beginning October 2012. In truth, the HOA is making retroactive collections over the final 8 months of the FY. (Does the HOA have the authority or power to charge and collect fees retroactively?)

For example, if a 3.43% increase became effective on February 1, Type a unit owners would pay $352 per month, not $355. The extra fee is to retroactively collect the increase from October 2012 to January 2013.

I realize that this may be a small dollar point in the scheme of things, but accounting accuracy is required when fiduciaries are handling other people's $1,030,292.
On behalf of my fellow owners, I would appreciate a prompt correction to the letter of December 20, 2012, as to the commencement date of the increase. Further, I would appreciate the Board looking into whether or not it may retroactively collect previously unassessed condominium fees.

Thank you.
Steven Levine

Owner: 1729B South Hayes St.

2631 S. Grant Street
Arlington, VA 22202

A more cost-effective and equitable parking plan

We can cut costs and have a parking plan that's more fair and easier to enforce.

Issue each unit one parking permit, for the RESERVED spaces only, to hang from their rear-view mirror. It would have the unit number on both sides in bold letters about an inch tall.

I was at an apartment complex in Herndon today that does this. They use a plastic permit about the size of a cell phone.

Currently each of the 220 units have an assigned space, and are allotted two stickers each to park in the 68 unassigned (RESERVED) spaces — no sticker is required for owners (and whoever they permit) to park in their assigned space.

The problem is that this plan can have 440 cars competing for 68 RESERVED spaces. It’s also costly to administer.

Issue one movable permit, bearing the owner’s unit number, to each owner. The owner, or his guests, may then use this permit to park in any RESERVED space.

This proposal would not change the use of assigned spaces, but there would then be 220 cars (instead of 440 cars) competing for the 68 RESERVED spaces.

It would reduce administration costs because each owner gets one permit with their unit number (no need for street names since unit numbers do not duplicate).

The management agent would not have to track who has what permit. Parking enforcers would need only to see if cars in RESERVED spaces have the movable permit. Unit owners would not have the hassle of sending registration information to the management agent.

If an owner loses the pass, do what Arlington County does, issue a new permit at the beginning of the next year.

Color, satellite photo of neighborhood

To view a color, satellite photo of the neighborhood, plug in the address at http://neighbors.whitepages.com/

No response to window replacement request

On March 6, 2012 we submitted the required information to Steve Peacock (CMS) seeking approval to replace windows. We stated, that time is of the essence so that we don't lose the 40% discount we've been offered. 

Since we have not received any decision within the required 90 days, "approval will not be required and this ARTICLE will be deemed to have been fully complied with." — Bylaws, Article XI

Timeline
December 24, 2011 — Letter from Sentry Management listing Steve Peacock, Community Manager
March 6, 2012 — Request (with plans and specifications) to Steve Peacock re. Replacement of windows and sliding glass door
March 6, 2012 — Corrected request  (with plans and specifications) to Steve Peacock re. Replacement of windows and sliding glass door
April 30, 2012 — Letter from Sentry Management listing Peter Ordonez, Community Manager
June 6, 2012 — 90 day period for decision by the Board of Directors expires

Is anyone enforcing the bylaws?

Apparently not. A neighbor has been complaining for weeks, but bylaw violations continue. — see Bylaws, Article X, Use Restrictions, Section 4 (h)

Wednesday, 7:15 PM

CLEAR Internet: excellent to painfully slow

Back in June 2010 we reported on CLEAR's Internet service. For the most part it was excellent, and reasonably priced. It's still reasonably priced, but it now ranges from excellent to painfully slow.

With download speeds often below one MB/sec, it's impossible to watch Netflix like CLEAR's banners proclaimed in June 2010.

Posted to YELP

UPDATE April 25, 2012 — For the past month, download speeds have been consistently excellent, i.e. between 9 and 10 MB/sec.

Architectural control

According to Benny L Kass, attorney and columnist for the Washington Post, the following will be valid defenses by a unit owner when the board tries to seek enforcement of the architectural standards:

· Arbitrary and capricious actions have been taken. The architectural standards must be applied fairly and consistently, across the board and in good faith. They cannot be selectively enforced. It is improper for a board or its architectural review committee to pick and choose the enforcement of the covenants.

· Delays, or "laches," have occurred. This means that the board has permitted a lengthy time to elapse before taking action against a unit owner. For example, one court has ruled that a board's six-month delay in filing suit against an unauthorized fence barred the board from enforcing the covenants. If a unit owner is in violation of the architectural standards, or at least the board believes there is a violation, the board must begin prompt action to assure compliance.

· A waiver has been granted to another owner. Basically, if the board fails to enforce a covenant in the case of one homeowner, it may be prohibited from enforcing the same standards against another homeowner in a similar situation.

According to the Condominium Act, § 55-79.80:2, the "unit owners' association shall have the power, to . . . assess charges against any unit owner for any violation of the condominium instruments or of the rules or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto . . . [C]harges so assessed shall not exceed $50 for a single offense, or $10 per diem for any offense of a continuing nature, and shall be treated as an assessment against such unit owner's condominium unit for the purpose of § 55-79.84. However, the total charges for any offense of a continuing nature shall not be assessed for a period exceeding 90 days."

"Before any such suspension or charges may be imposed, the unit owner shall be given an opportunity to be heard and to be represented by counsel before the executive organ or such other tribunal as the condominium instruments or rules duly adopted pursuant thereto specify."

CVS may move into the space vacated by Borders