Grapevine Archive

November 2007

11/29/2007

I believe that the Covenants DO have something to do with the LFPOA . . . you may need to re-read the Declarations of Restrictions, Conditions, Easements, Covenants, Agreements, Liens and Charges (which is posted on the official LFPOA website).  In particular, you may want to read Article XIII - which states (and I'm paraphrasing): each purchase of a lot or lots shall by acceptance of a deed . . . . binds himself, herself, heirs, personal representatives to pay all charges and assessments as shall be determined and levied upon such a lot and/or purchaser by Lake Forest Yacht & Country Club, Inc. and/or Lake Forest Property Owners Association, Inc. Also read Article XIV: Remedies for Violations. If you read LFPOA's By-Laws (which is the "working" document of any business) which includes the "Layman's Basic Interpretation", you will note that all lots are for "single" family residence. So, why do we have so many transients in this neighborhood? Look at Article VIII regarding "Parking" - it may enlighten some readers. Also, Article XII regarding "Appearance of Lots, Removal of Trees" - in particular, read XII (A). I, for one, am tired of how LF has "deteriorated" over the past 5 years. I have lived here 15 years and seen such a rapid decline in homeowner "pride" the last 5 years. Personally, I think most of that lost pride is from renters. However, there are some "recent" homeowners who haven't read, much less heard of, the Covenants. If residents are not going to abide by our "rules, regulations and covenants" then who will? It appears that some residents (homeowners and/or renters) think they live in a double-wide in the country. And, they do NOT care if a lien is placed upon their property. Remember, money talks. If the remedies at hand haven't helped the problem in the past, what makes you think we can just go along and hope these problems go away on their own - all the while as our subdivision goes down hill. Think about it.

I agree with much of what you say.  The authority of the Lake Forest Property Owners and the Lake Forest Architectural Committee is defined in the covenants of this subdivision.  In a nutshell, the authority of the Architectural Committee is to approve plans for the construction of homes in Lake Forest and to allow occasional deviation from the restrictions set forth in those covenants when exceptional conditions warrant.  There is quite a bit of verbiage in the document about these matters.  The purpose of the Architectural Policy Manual is to provide guidelines as to how far the committee may go in forgiving those restrictions.  The Architectural Committee does not have the authority to add restrictions to the covenants and the covenants are very specific about what those restrictions are.   For example, Article XIV Remedies for Violations that you mention does give a very clear description of the remedy.

The covenants do not give the committee the authority to levy penalties.  It gives them the same right as any other property owner to take the violator to court.  The Article VIII that you mention is very detailed in its description of requirements.

11/29/2007

I loved living in Lake Forest when we moved here 9 years ago. I now hate it and when people ask about buying a house in Lake Forest, I strongly advise against it. I used to brag about this neighborhood and told everyone to move here. Well, we've bought land elsewhere and I'm so looking forward to getting out. It may be a while, at least two years when our high school student graduates and the two sons are out of college, but I'm looking forward to leaving...mostly the directors.

11/29/2007

I, along with many others, read the survey in favor of a centralized swim facility. As it is, we have three outlying pools that leave much to be desired (the survey is painfully clear on that issue). The premise of a centralized facility revolves around reduced operating costs, increased revenue, and perhaps more importantly......a chance for real social interaction with increased usage of our Clubhouse. It costs less to operate one pool as opposed to three, no argument there. A centralized facility at our Clubhouse would increase F&B revenue. We currenty extract exactly Z ERO dollars from F&B a our current pool locations. With over 400+ members and visitors for each swim meet during peak dining hours, we would probably make more off of those events alone than we currently generate at the 19th hole all year long. As for social interaction, let your imagination run wild. Social interaction is the backbone of any Country Club. And as long as we call ourselves a Country Club, I will push for amenities that promote social interaction. If, one day, the people decide we are striclty a POA whose dues alone, 100%, subsidize the amenities, I'll back off of the centralized concept and be content with isolated amenities that support themselves wether or not anyone uses them. Until then, I'll push for higher quality, lower costs, increased revenue, and amenities that promote social interaction. -Clint Martin

Once, before the survey was started, when I offered my opinion as to what the members wanted, a certain young director told me that these people were professionals and knew more about it than I did.  Allow me to quote the summary report that was provided by those professionals after they completed their survey. 

"The residents want the pools to remain in their existing locations."

That is verbatim from the report.

11/28/2007

That new deal with those architectural fees does not seem right.  Where does it say in the covenants that they can charge any fees?  The covenants don't even have anything to do with the association, so where does the association get off saying they are going to charge fees for covenant violations.  What if the member doesn't agree that he is violating the covenants, who can he complain to?  And, I hear they are going to start citing people for having too many cars.  A couple of old guys who don't have any teenage kids around with cars, now want to set a limit.  There's no place to park on the streets in Lake Forest.  The lots are small.  Most of the people in Lake Forest have children and many of them are teenagers with cars.  What are they supposed to do?  This is little more than a small time Gestapo if you ask me.

You know, that is an interesting point.  You are correct.  The association has no authority over the covenants.  It can play the part of the aggrieved neighbor and ask the courts to enforce the covenants, but they do not have the power to do anything other than that.  They cannot charge fines.  Your Weblord had not even considered that.  The first person to be sent a bill for a fine should ask a judge for a ruling.  This one will probably be tossed out in court.  It's interesting that the association's attorney said they could do it.  Let's say that I live across the street from you and I see a covenant violation in your yard.  I guess I could send you a demand to correct the violation and send you a bill if you don't do it.  Do you think a judge would make you pay?  As for the Gestapo remark, that is often the case with poa's.  A few residents go power crazy and start beating up on their neighbors.

11/28/2007

I just heard that the residents who are taking it on themselves to prowl the neighborhood and report covenant violations are part of something called the Covenant Compliance Committee, which is supposedly part of the Improvement Committee.  How about that?  I assumed all of this was being done by the Architectural Committee, which is a real Lake Forest committee.  I guess Henry decided that since he is no longer on the Board of Directors that he will just use his own committees to run the place.  He tried to pull the same kind of thing the first year he was on the board, when the rest of the directors wouldn't do things his way.   Things got so bad that the president, your old Weblord, removed him as chairman of the Improvement Committee.  Of course, as many of you know, he got even later.  ;-)

Only the Board of Directors has any authority within the LFPOA, because they are elected by the members.  Other than the Architectural Committee, no committee of the board has any authority to enforce anything.  They are all advisory bodies that report to the Board of Directors.  I'm sure there are many good people participating in this because they want to help Lake Forest.  They just need to be cautious.  They are not protected by the same insurance that protects directors from lawsuits.  If someone goes a little overboard, it might end up costing someone some money.

11/27/2007

I am a member who refused to use my pools because of the fee imposed by my Board of Directors. I was a member of a pool assocn. in Alameda CA. Members served as certified life Guards. Certifications were conducted twice a year. Only those certified had keys and had to be present to open the pool. Adult supervision! This would reduce the costs of our pools dramaticly.

11/27/2007 November Stated Meeting

The Lake Forest Board of Director's stated meeting was held last night at the 19th Hole.  Unfortunately, your Weblord was a little late so he missed a few minutes and had to leave early, so he missed a few more.  Hopefully, someone will drop us a line to fill in the gaps.  The Architectural Committee report was being presented by Jim Moss.  Jim was presenting a change to the Architectural Policy Manual.  Did you know that your old Weblord created the original Architectural Policy Manual from various memos, letters and notes that we held in a file?  Anyway, the change is this.  They will begin charging penalties for uncorrected violations.  I believe the first penalty will begin if the violation is not corrected within the first month of notice.  That first fee will be $100.  If the violation is not corrected within two months, the fee goes to $300.  After three months it becomes $500 and will continue to be charged at a rate of $500/month from then on.  This new policy is expected to be effective on March 1, 2008 after the document changes are made and notice of the new policy is given to the membership by newsletter, additions to bills, and the website.  During discussion Clint Martin criticized the high penalties, but agreed with the concept in principle and Willie Robison had some questions about grandfathering old violations.  Jim said that the new policy will only apply to violations that occur AFTER it is implemented.   So, don't worry about those old fences and enclosed garages, if you've had them a few years.  But, beware of that trailer.  If you move it and bring it back, you've got a new violation.  The board voted to approve the changes.  I guess we can count on association legal fees to go way up soon.

There was a Building and Grounds report and that committee recommended replacing the flat roof over the 19th Hole, Golf Pro shop, locker rooms and breezeway.  They will repair the flat roof over the offices.  They also recommended gathering quotes for rebuilding Dock D at the Yacht Club.  All of this, I believe, was to be approved at the end of the meeting.

The Lake Committee chairman, John Peterson, said progress is being made on the lake with participation from several groups, but it would be a long process.  It was pretty much the same that we've been told in the past.  From what we have been able to gather from all sources, there is reason to be optimistic for improvements some time down the road.

The Greens Committee, Jim Moss, said the golf course is getting better.  He also made a motion to purchase a leaf vacuum for the golf course for $30,000.  A motion was made to table that one until the management could put together capital expenditure and operating expenditure budgets for the board to consider at the next working meeting.  The motion to table passed.

Then came Clint.  As part of his Recreation Committee report, Clint Martin said there were some new public health department requirements that may have to be considered regarding the three pools.  He asked another member to come forward to make a proposal to the board.   The proposal was for closing the three pools and opening a central facility at the Country Club!   The member said that he thought the cost might be in the neighborhood of $750,000!   The only thought that came to mind was "What part of NO don't you understand?"  It's interesting that when one chairman was talking about placing penalties on members for covenant violations, he said "The members told us that was what they wanted in the survey."  When another chairman was talking about a central pool, no mention was made that the members overwhelming said that they did not want to close ANY of the three pools.  Now the Recreation chairman is suggesting they spend $750,000 on a new pool facility.  Don't you just love'em?  ^{(* Note:  Clint appears to represent a movement of 1 when it comes to this proposal.  There doesn't appear to be any support from the rest of the board)}    Unfortunately, your writer had to leave, so he was unable to enjoy the whole presentation.   One of the other people in the audience, please write in and tell us how it worked out.

During one of the discussions it was pointed out that the board had approved a $100,000 loan to pay for capital improvements that HAD BEEN MADE THIS YEAR.  Did you catch that?  HAD been made.  In other words, it sounds like they ran of money again this year and decided to explain the loan by saying it was applying retroactively to capital improvements.  It would be interesting to hear exactly what capital improvements were made this year and what they used that assessment for.  In all fairness, this occurred during the administration of the previous GM who had the same problem the year before. 

11/26/2007

  Two days ago this little dog showed up at our door without a collar or tags, cold and hungry. Its hard for me to believe that somone would just throw this dog out and just leave it,( I'm hoping she's just lost,) this dog seeems to have been well cared for, also this dog is a sweetheart. would you put this on your website with hopes that the owner will call. We will keep this dog a few more days however if we get no response we will have to carry this dog to the Daphne Animal Shelter   Please call if own or know this dog. (  447-0235  )

11/26/2007

Well, folks, I hope everyone had a nice safe Thanksgiving.  Now, it's back to the old grind.  Send in your bits of information about the community so that we can all stay up to date.

11/21/2007

It seems that some would prefer to spend less on lifeguards. A balance should be struck between hours of operation with or without lifeguards. We may find that we can save money on the overall pool operations.

11/21/2007

One final note on the perception that your Weblord formed from the working meeting of the board last week, I am optimistic.  Every director appeared to be genuinely concerned for the future of Lake Forest.  The acting general manager actually seems to be willing to step up to the plate and offer some guidance.  That, alone, is an improvement over last year that bodes well for the new year.

There is only one recommendation that I have to offer at this time.   The directors should stop using the word "lose", when talking about our amenities.   Saying that any amenity is losing money is pointless when we consider that they are generating just about as much revenue as the board expects them to.  When one is so involved in the intimate details of an issue, one sometimes has a problem seeing the forest for all the trees.  One of our former general managers used to say, "We are in the dues business, not the golf business."  A director, Willie Robison, actually touched on the point at the meeting the other night.  Willie said "We are not a Country Club, we are a property owner's association."  These are related statements.  We are a property owner's association that happens to own a golf course, pools, tennis courts and Yacht Club.   Our members pay a fee (dues) to be a part of this association.    For that fee, they expect their amenities to be kept up and accessible by them for as reasonable a price as possible.  The amenities are services that our association provides to our members. The association has not been "losing" money as it has provided those services.  With its revenues from dues and user fees, the Lake Forest Property Owner's Association operates in the black.  Yes, some user fees are necessary, but a member of the association is not required to pay them.   The member is only obligated to pay that small monthly fee.  Still, those amenities are there if the member wants to use them.

For several years some folks have deliberately tried to redirect our attention away from the bottom line and toward the amount of money from dues that is used to subsidize the amenities.   The fact is that most members don't care.  They are only concerned with how much money they have to pay each month and what they are getting for it.   For the sake of argument, let's say that we will have an assessment every year.  That means our users will pay $35.00 (dues) +2.50 (tax escrow) +($50/12 (assessment)) or a total of about $42.00 per month.  Below I have created a couple of tables to demonstrate the effect of some normal amenity subsidies on our membership and the effect of some board actions that might be used to reduce them.

Do you get the point?  Sure, worry about the operating costs of the amenities, but worry a little more about delivering value to the members who support them.  Yes,  management must control our expenses so that the bottom line is in the black after everything has been accounted for.  That means we will have an excess of revenue as we normally do.  That means there is no "lose" for our association.  Outside of that, the only thing the members ask from our association is that it provide more and better value for that $42 per month.  Why not make that the theme for 2008?  Boosting the value!  You know, that was the only real conclusion of this year's survey.

11/21/2007

The old Weblord will be out of town for a few days, so the website won't be updated until probably the weekend.  Have a wonderful and safe Thanksgiving holiday! 

War Eagle!!!  That ought to get a rise out of our Yacht Club selling pal!

11/20/2007

As to the 11/18/07 entry regarding rental properties in LF and renters enjoying the amenities . . . first, we must impress upon these renters (and the people who rented the property to them) to abide by LF rules, regs and covenants . . . as I have found, most renters have never "owned" a home and treat the rental property as they like without paying attention to the rules, regs and covenants. I, for one, am tired of "trashy" yards, loud noises, cars parked in yards and and other "non-suburbia" like attitudes of renters.

11/20/2007

Hey Mitch, Paying lifeguards at the pools is ridiculous. Went to Timbercreek pool a lot this summer and there is no life guard on duty, pools are posted stating parents/responsible-adults must stay with children! If they can do it, why can't we? Also, swimming should be free, it is at Timbercreek, homeowners pay $600 a year, payable in two payts, tennis courts, swimming, security guards 24/7, gym, and the club house, all available for that $600. $50 a month buys them lots, where does our money go? You've got to wonder! The streets in Timbercreek are so much better than our beaten up o nes here in LF. City hall cannot find the money to repair all our streets but every 10 years? or more? Crazy world we live in folks!

In the opinion of this writer, the reputation of the LFPOA would take a real nosedive if it demonstrated such a lack of concern for the welfare of our children by not providing lifeguards at our pools.  We wouldn't even let them have music concerts at our facilities without supervision.  We certainly should not allow twelve year olds and up to play around an association swimming pool without it.

11/18/2007

I'm taking that trip in my mind. All the way past Montclair Loop and to the Lawson entrance. What a sight! The streets are lined with 30 year old houses with families who can't afford a round of golf. But during this trip, I realized that most along this path choose not to give up an extra grand in mortgage payments in order to have one of those $200,000+ homes. I should know, I am one of them. Never underestimate what you see on the outside. Chances are, we choose a smaller house so that we can use that extra money to enjoy life, or play a round of golf. I oh so much love options.

Absolutely!  There are some immaculate homes in those areas.  There are also many starter homes for young families on a budget and rental houses along there.  There are rental homes in all other areas of Lake Forest as well.  It would be great if we could get all of them to patronize the association's amenities.

11/16/2007

Tuesday night there was some talk about a future plan for the Country Club during the discussion about the roof repair.  It appeared that the question was whether or not they might replace the building in a few years and, therefore, might not want to spend the money replacing the roof.  Steve kept saying the he thought that they could do some patchwork on it and save money.  However, several of the directors reported that every one of the roofing companies told them that they could not patch the roof; that it is in too bad a shape for that.   Steve was not convinced.  People I have talked to over the years (this flat roof problem is not new) have also said the roof can't be patched.  They say that if you patch one spot, the water will just move somewhere else and come in.

There are a couple of issues about that which are worth considering.  Steve really would like to have a new golf shop on the other side of the parking lot closer to the first tee.  There's nothing wrong with wanting that.  He is a golf pro and, as such, should be expected to want improvements that will help his area.  However, the membership has made it clear many times over that they will not support tearing down that clubhouse and building another.  The survey just this last year demonstrated the position.  Let's be optimistic and say that 500 members play golf.  That is optimistic.  I doubt that even most of those golfing members care whether or not we build a new clubhouse.  Even if they do, we are still talking optimistically about only 20% of our membership.  The other 80% definitely do not want a new clubhouse.  If such an plan were presented to the membership, we can almost be guaranteed a NO vote.  Also, we have had enough patchwork maintenance done on our amenities.  This job needs to be done right.

11/16/2007

At that working meeting the other night when Clint was trying to convince the rest that they should not charge for the pools, they kept saying that the operating costs of the pools this year was around $124,000.   One of them asked him what pool he would be willing to close in order to offset that expense.  I don't believe that operating cost figure is correct.  If I'm not mistaken, I believe that figure included a lot of equipment like new pumps and so on that would represent capital expenditures and not operating costs.  That expense would be amortized over the life of the equipment and not be taken in one year.  So, the operating cost for the pools are not as high as they seem to be saying.  Also, they have made a big deal out of wanting to do what the membership wants.  That's why the claim they took the survey.  Yet, the membership made it very clear that the do not want a centralized pool and the do want to keep all the pools where they are now.  They just want the amenities maintained properly. 

This is similar to the Weblord's previous contribution today regarding the Country Club.  The membership does not want it.  They do not want that pool.  They like their tennis courts where they are.  And in the opinion Weblord, they demonstrated that with their vote in October when Clint received so many fewer than the two people who had never served before.  Even after the survey results were in, he kept insisting on his plan for an updated clubhouse with a new pool and tennis courts, then a just few weeks later the members let him know what they thought with their vote.  After all that, he seems to still to persist.

11/14/2007

The Board of Directors held a working meeting tonight.  In the audience were three former presidents; Ed Kirby, Henry Lawson, and your old Weblord, Mitch Davis.  Here are a couple of observations for you.  First, in the opinion of this writer it was a very good meeting.  The president, John Peterson, allowed everyone to say their piece and was able to bring the discussion back on topic whenever things started to wander.  There was not a single "point of order" all night.  Most of the discussion had to do with the user fees that will be voted on at the next meeting.  The golf pro/acting general manager recommended no increases for golf because of the problems we had this year due to the drought.  Jim Moss said that the golf course definitely had problems, but that they were turning things around and the condition was getting much better.  I heard the same thing from a golfer friend of mine just yesterday, who said "Seriously, they are getting better - but even I can grow winter grass. We are seeing a better effort and I think we are headed in the right direction. If only we could sell that darn Yacht Club!! "  Obviously my friend is not always right. ;-) The discussion then moved to the Recreation Committee, where chairman, Clint Martin, also said that tennis fees should not change and the swim fees should be eliminated.  There was spirited discussion over that one, because Sherrie Weller is still apparently convinced that every user should pay something for the use of any amenity.  Clint pointed out that the swim user fees generated very little revenue (something around $10,000) and a whole lot of bad public relations.  New board member, Bryan Frater, seemed to agree that the amount of revenue did not justify the bad press.  They discussed user fees for the marina and seemed to agree that they will support some increases in that area.   Other matters discussed tonight mainly concerned the assessment and loan that will be called for at the next stated meeting.  Their plan is to use that money to repair the roof at the Country Club, do some other maintenance work there, and work on one of the docks with whatever is left.  They also discussed the non-voting membership fees and new architectural fines that they intend to impose.  The meeting went very smoothly and everyone in attendance seemed to be willing to listen to other opinions.

One of the nice things about having one's own website is that one can just chime in on any subject.  So, please forgive the weblord for just jumping in on a couple of these matters.  Most people who know me are aware that as president I was very concerned that all of the members enjoy tangible benefit from being a part of this association.  I just wish that when considering issues like those above, that each of our directors would take a drive around Lake Forest at least in their imagination.  We have some lovely homes in the $200,000+ range.  We have some nice sections made up primarily of those kind of homes.  We also have many sections where the homes are smaller and less expensive; where the homes are 20, 30 or more years old.  Drive through the Windsor entrance and go all the way around Ridgewood Drive.  Take a trip down some of those streets that lead off of this long loop.  Take a trip in your mind down past Montclair Loop toward Lawson Road.   Would you say that we have members who cannot afford to play golf or even tennis on our beautiful soft courts?  That would be true.  Would you say that we have a share of our membership with two working parents?  These are people who are working hard so that their families can enjoy living in a nice community like Lake Forest.  A round of golf would take a bite out of their disposable income.  Do we require the families in the older, lower prices homes to pay less in association maintenance fees?  No, they are expected to pay the same thing that the families in the more expensive homes pay.  When we take a survey asking how they feel about the association, do we really expect them to say "Oh, it's wonderful!  We can't wait until we can afford to use some of it!"   When we ask them how much are they willing to pay to improve the amenities, do we expect them to give us a positive number?  Clint and Bryan are right.  The revenue generated from those swim fees is chicken feed for an organization that brings in close to three million dollars a year.   Removing those fees will buy the association three swimming pools full of good will.  It did for my board and it can do it again.  I would suggest that before they ask the membership to vote on the future, the board should consider making it better for them in the present.

Along those same lines, let's consider that $252 fee for a non-voting membership.  With that $252 the non-voting member can really do nothing more than eat in one of the restaurants.  In order to use the golf course that non-voting member has to pay the same golf fee that our voting members pay.   When we consider that, let's do so from the viewpoint of what it does for our voting members, not what it does for the non-voting members.   It provides our property owners with outside users, whose patronage helps us defray some of the operating expenses of the amenities.  In other words, it let's other people help us pay for our amenities.  For our tennis players, it brings use some good competition to play a set with.  For our swimmers it brings us some more people for our swim team.   So, rather than thinking that these non-voting members are getting a better deal than us, let's just consider how much they are actually helping us.  More on the meeting later.

11/13/2007

Stated meetings are to continue to be as they were previously. For December, it will be moved due to the holidays. The board is having a working meeting Tuesday at 7:00 pm. It will take place in one of the rooms at the clubhouse. Come out to the Bayview, relax and watch them work. Maybe we can get the calendar at the official site up to date and you can link to it. Let's work on that.

I think that's tonight folks.  Thanks for the invitation.

11/12/2008

It certainly has been quiet here on the Grapevine for the last week.  Does no one have anything to say these days?  Perhaps we are all just waiting to see what the new board will do now that they have unloaded some baggage.  This writer for one is very optimistic.  It appears that they are already taking the bull by the horns and planning to begin some long overdue maintenance.  It would be very nice if someone would send us some digital before and after pictures, so that our readers can see the progress as it is happening.  Someone tell us what has finally been decided about the day and time of the stated meetings. 

11/7/2007

Your readers will be happy to know that the building repairs and maintenance has been given a priority by the board. At the organizational meeting of the new board, the board voted for an annual assessment as well as to add $100,000 to our long term debt to fund these items. With this money, roof repairs and replacement at the 19th hole and country club will be underway shortly. Maybe we can keep our ceiling tiles dry for a while. We will also be looking at a timed replacement of the cedar shingles siding in selected areas where these old wooden shingles have deteriorated and exposed the building to further degradation. The replacement product will likely be an alternate material with the same look. Hardi-Shakes are one such product. A long-term, low maintenance material that has the appearance of cedar shakes. Other products will be considered depending on costs and availability. Hopefully, in time we will have the exterior of the main clubhouse looking very good. We will also have a more easily maintained finish. Other improvements will be considered as funds are available. The truth is, though, that without assessments and borrowing, the money is not there. Your contributor needs to accept that fact or maybe he/she can sit down with us one day and show us what decisions would make it appear. While it is true that members believe there is plenty of money to fund all of our facilities and operate them, it is just not the case. Who is managing them has nothing to do with it.

Very good.  Although we have said for years that we wanted to bring the debt down, perhaps a little too much has been made of it.  What good is it to say "We have ten million dollars worth of run down amenities, but there's no debt."  Credit is a resource that can be put to good use if done so wisely and with caution.  It will allow the board to renovate and perhaps generate enthusiasm among our membership for their amenities.  Who is managing them does have something to do with it when we have to use that credit resource to compensate for poor management.  Whether all our readers think this is a good idea or not, I can't say.  However, this writer is excited to see the board taking action and look forward to seeing improved Lake Forest amenities.

11/7/2007

Mitch, I am going to give you the facts. The official reason for my dismissal was " in-correct information on a report " I did not.  I reported an alarm call on my weekly log, Toni was angry because one time I did not hear my phone ring at 3am on a Saturday morning and she had to answer the call. Odd though that when I was on medical leave I answered five alarm calls at different times in the middle of the night.  Toni had a problem with me because I told her frankly that if she did not let me spend some money on the Facilities it was going to cost L.F.P.O.A alot more in the long run.  She simply would not let me spend any money at all, yet did not want to take the responsibility for the condition of the Facilities.  I worked for ten years to improve the Facilities some of that during your time as President.  I received three commendations for a job well done and three bonuses for saving the association money during that time. Her lack of experience and not telling her what she wanted to hear cost me my job.  By the way, the doors that were brought up to fire code, I ordered the parts before I left. I ordered the parts without her permission because it was a matter of safety, it had to be done. this angered her as well. Kenneth Eggers

Best of luck in your future endeavors, Kenneth. 

11/6/2007

I keep reading how dissatisfied the members are with the amenities.  I do not think this is an accurate description of the results of the survey. When I responded to my survey, I probably checked dissatisfied because of the funds we have not used to even basically maintain the facilities as they were in the past. We never saw buckets of water in rooms to catch leaks instead of calling a roofer. Ceiling tiles are stained and the smell of mildew in the water soaked carpet.  How much of the roof has rotted due to lack of even the basic maintenance?  Yes, I and many others checked dissatisfied, but it was because of poor management and upkeep of the facilities, not that I wanted a new building or fancy golf facilities. A few low cost improvements should have easily been made with the monthly income we have.  One is to put a low cost black aluminum fence around the pool in my neighborhood and another one around the other pool in my friend's neighborhood on Montclair with the addition of some wood shade would be all the improvements I was hoping for. What makes me burning mad is when that Lawson guy says something about the "remote pools". The ridicules pool he keeps suggesting at the golf facility would be the "remote" pool. One that no one except the golfers would be close to.  My kids walk to the pool in my neighborhood to swim and have fun all summer while I am working. Close this one and open one for the golfers and their children and my kids and many others would be sitting at home all day in the summer. That pool would be too remote for any of either neighborhood to attend! This is one of the main reasons I bought my house in this location.  Here is the reason for the apathy in LF.  After the survey says the members overwhelmingly do not want to close or change the pools and like them right where they are, some of the board members still hint of aging facilities, upkeep of three pools, and use the stupid word "remote".  They just want to twist it their way no matter what.  Speaking of that, didn't about 75% of the people NOT even bother to return their surveys. One would have to conclude that these people were pretty much satisfied with everything or they would have said something. You really can't say LF residents were definitely dissatisfied, when only about 25% even returned a survey.  Didn't they disregard the vast majority of the ones who did return their survey; who said they would not pay any more money for improvements. They said they only counted the ones who would pay something which would average $6.  If they averaged EVERYONE, it would be no increase without a doubt. Once again the membership feels the money is adequate but is being poorly managed by people with self interest and inadequate skills. With all the golf course drainage problems in LF, didn't I read something about the only one being fixed was behind Lawson's and another board members house?  Strange isn't it!!!  We should get an investigative reporter from the press on this story.  Did any of our regular members have their drainage problems repaired by the city?  Speak up and let us know.  I rest my case.

11/6/2007

Call another meeting?  It's been costing us up to and probably over $7000 for these annual meetings at the old theater.  Then we started to use the Civic Center, and I do not think that is free, tell me I'm wrong! You want the Senior Golfers, Women's Club, Garden Club, plus the Women golfers (we're all the same people for the most part) to decorate the 19th hole and two dining rooms in the club house, the Bayview Lounge, and the front foyer donating our time because they are short of money?  Maybe someone will decorate the entrances for us!  Like the employees!  Oh, my God, where are our priorities. I'm against seniors being told "bring your ladders" to decorate.  We have no business on ladders at these facilities. We do not get on ladders in our home.  You can't find $350-$400 to pay someone to decorate for Christmas???  We have the decorations.  My God, we are definitely in big trouble.  Personally, I think the money is there, but some people want us to work free!  A big breakfast or brunch is promised, Steve you need to be sure and have it laid out when we arrive. All this work is gratis!

11/3/2007

Today, there were two responses to some statements made yesterday regarding the vote at the annual meeting.  They are both very reasonable. See items 1 & 2 below and some further discussion.

Item 1

Mitch, We, as a board were aware of the situation with the Friday votes. Unfortunately, our attorney instructed us to respect the vote, even though it was in error. We have discussed and would consider a Special Meeting of the membership to 1.) allow the Lake Forest members to amend those by-law sections that would have been approved and 2.) Conduct other business that may be necessary to conduct. There is an issue of cost and effectiveness that will have to be considered before any such meeting. You may be hearing more about this issue as the board contemplates improvements of the amenities and how to attain them. We have found that our membership is dissatisfied with the condition of the facilities, pretty much all of them. To correct this will take some time and a bunch of money. One by-law that deserves consideration is the borrowing limits. A $100,000 limit annually will place caps on the level of improvements that can occur. An increase in this capacity or even a specific borrowing authority for specific improvements may be worth considering. A capital plan that outlines all improvements, their cost and the borrowing capacity to do them should be voted on by the membership at large.  In any case, this discussion will likely begin at board meetings and such.  Improvements will come and we will do what we can and have the ability to do within our means.  I just hope that enough can be done to achieve higher satisfaction levels in the future.

Item 2

Your endorsement of the idea to change votes puzzles me. Looks like this would be setting a precedence that any vote could be changed after the count by anyone saying they had not voted how they wanted to. Seems to me the only way to change is to call a special meeting of the membership with these items on the ballot. Changing votes after the count has a bad connotation to it no matter how it happened, don't you think.

Both of the contributions above make perfect sense.  However, it would seem to this writer that a little common sense could be used for the benefit of the membeship.  The developer has said that the vote cast by its emissary was an error.   He has asked that it be voided.  This is not some third party asking this.  It is the voter himself.  The members who did care enough about the issues to take the time to cast their votes are, if you think about it, presently having their votes voided.  If the developer's wishes had been implemented as he wanted, there would have been 1 NO decision and 2 YES decisions.  That would have been as the home owners wanted.  However, because of the mistake, there are 3 NO decisions, which means that the legitimate wishes of ALL of the voting membership are being ignored.  Now, we can say "Call a special meeting".  Even though it is clear that we understand what all of the voters intended, we want to force an already financially strapped association to spend more money and cause an already inconvenienced membership to take the time to go through a formal process.  Why not just let the board acknowledge the error and correct the vote? 

I can hear some of you right now saying "That is a slippery slope to trouble."  Maybe you are right.  If we agree that such is possibly the case, then let's consider another option.  The two amendments that were affected by the error were the one that changed the stated meeting night and the one that changed some minor wording on the term limits section.  The board can choose not to change the vote results.  It can simply ignore the meeting night section of the by-laws.  The board does not have to make any statements suggesting that it is disregarding a section of the by-laws.  It does not have to make any big deal over it at all.  It can simply just publicize on the entrance sign, newsletter and website that the stated meetings this year will be held on the third Thursday and not worry about it.  Almost no one will notice.  They can let the term limit thing ride "as is" this year, because it is really unlikely that anything will arise that would have been affected by that change anyway.  Then next year, they can resubmit the amendments, if they wish.  Now, granted, there will be a few who grumble that we are not following the by-laws to the letter by meeting on Thursdays instead of Mondays.  I can just hear Henry now.  It is highly unlikely, though, that anyone would do more than grumble because of something that on the surface seems pretty trivial.  This option should satisfy almost everyone.

Of course there is another option.  We can say "rules are rules" and do nothing.   Some will say that has been the approach we have used for a couple of years now, doing nothing but talk.   We can continue to hold meetings on Mondays where very few members actually attend.  (Very few members will attend on Thursdays either.)  At least, this way no one can accuse us of breaking the rules.  After all, when you think about it, this whole issue is pretty trivial.  Whew!  That was a close one. 

By the way, if we are going to amend the by-laws section regarding the day and time of the stated meeting, why specify a day and time at all?  Why not just say "There must be a stated meeting of the board to be held at least once a month.  The day and time of the meeting must be published in the newsletter, website and any other media that the board thinks will be most effective for notifying the membership"  The day and time could be established at the organizational meeting where the directors can decide among themselves what day and time would be most convenient.  After all, it is the board's meeting.

I am very grateful to the two readers who submitted their contributions on this issue.  If it is everyone's goal to make the best decisions possible for our community, then it is through discussions like this that we can hash out almost any solution.

11/3/2007

Regarding the suggestion in the previous contribution that we consider changing the limit on the amount of money that the Board of Directors can borrow, why?   The limit is $100,000 now.  They have had the ability to borrow $100,000 for capital improvements for the past two years and have not used it.  They did borrow money to cover operating expenses, when the former director lost control of the finances.  We certainly would not want to increase the limit for reasons like that.  If they have a project that will cost more than the limit, they can take it to the membership for a vote, if they wish.  No by-laws change would be needed for that.  They could also plan a major project so that it spans more than one fiscal year and use multiple years $100,000 to accomplish the task. 

The real question would seem to be "if there is work that needs to be done, why haven't they borrowed the money before now?"  They can also call for another assessment right now.  There's a $150,000 and it is free money, no interest.  If they have not already borrowed money to cover operating expenses again, they can also borrow another $100,000.  That means that as we read today's Grapevine, the Board of Directors has access to $250,000 additional cash without having do much of anything.  If a project is going to cost more than $250,000, don't you think that the board ought to take it to the membership?  Oh, that's right, they have.  The membership said NO.  Check the survey results.

One final opinion regarding the idea of taking "A capital plan that outlines all improvements, their cost and the borrowing capacity" to the membership for a vote, let me offer an opinion.  They'll vote NO.  How many times do we have to do things like this to figure that out?  There are measures provided in the by-laws for financing projects.  Use those measures to plan a way of getting the job done.

11/2/2007

Mitch,

First of all, I enjoy your site and it is on my list everyday to check the pulse of LF. I am prompted to write for the first time (probably last), as it relates to a prior posting on your site. I have been out of town  on overseas business for the last 3 weeks and missed the annual meeting. As I have passed along to the GM and another BOD member who emailed me while I was gone, there was an mistake in our voting at the annual meeting. I instructed our representative that our position was a "NO" vote (don't vote). He interpreted that to mean vote "NO" on all issues. I have apolgized and offered to do what I can to ammend our votes (not sure what can be done). After all, why should I care if the members want to meet at 7:00 vs 6:00, or other issues on that agenda. As you know from our past conversations, I want LF to control LF. It has always been my thought that what is good for LF is good for Friday and vice versa. Our position has nothing to do with the "slow down of the RE market" nor "BOD rolling over". We are proud of our position in LF and would encourage all to visit our projects on Timberline and Rolling Hills Circle. I think people will be pleased. Thanks for the platform.

Mike

Thank you for clearing up that little mystery.  When the director previously told us that the overwhelming vote came from Friday Construction, I really was puzzled.  As you said, I did not see why Friday would care when the board meets either.  The contributor's explanation is perfectly reasonable and since Henry is no longer on the board to complicate things, it should be fairly simple for the them to accept the explanation and remove the mistaken votes so that the wishes of the property owners will prevail.  They might simply document the action with something like an Email or letter from the developer indicating the error.  This writer has always believed that the developer would do what is its own best interest and so would the property owners.  The goal, it would seem, should be for both to work together to accomplish their mutual goals.  It is encouraging to hear that Friday Construction shares that view.