WCA Board President Michiel Oostenbrink announced that County Commissioner Joshua Wostal was scheduled to speak, but had to cancel. He informed the VMs that the budget workshop is tentatively scheduled for Saturday, Nov. 8. Oostenbrink added that the board had decided to survey the community regarding whether to do away with lifeguards at the community’s pools. He said that a petition in favor of keeping lifeguards year-round at the facilities circulated throughout Westchase, but collected only 230 signatures. He acknowledged the complexity of the issue and noted that the board and Inframark staff will have to prepare the budget to reflect full lifeguard staffing since the decision will not be made before the workshop.
Document Review Committee (DRC) chair Eric Holt then took the floor and thanked fellow committee members Mary Griffin, Cal Hargreaves, Jack Maurer and Bob Rohrlack. Holt said the DRC met 18 times and evaluated more than 200 recommended changes to the governing documents after soliciting input from residents, voting members and legal counsel.
Holt explained that the committee recommended changes to the governing documents, then legal counsel vetted those potential changes to ensure there would be no legal exposure for the WCA. The DRC shared the redline documents and a summary of proposed changes with the VMs before the meeting.
A discussion on the proposed changes ensued. Woodbridge VM Rick Goldstein told Holt that he had a question about the revised voting thresholds on the summary sheet that the DRC had provided to the VMs before the meeting. Goldstein said that because the VMs are responsible for approving the WCA’s budget, they should have the ability to weigh in before the board enters into any contract. Holt clarified that the VMs don’t approve the budget, but they do have the power to veto it.
Reres interjected that the VMs don’t approve contracts; However, the DRC is recommending that the VMs should have the right to approve or disapprove of the management contract. Goldstein asked whether that was the only contract that the VMs would have authority to approve. Holt said there were perhaps ten or eleven areas where the board cannot act without the VMs’ approval.
“The most significant decision that the board makes is choosing our property management company. We felt that it was also a very important and suitable area where the check of the VMs made sense,” explained Holt. “It’s such an important decision that we felt like that was justifiable to have the board come and explain why they recommend a particular company.”
Holt noted that Article III, Section 19 of the bylaws would require the approval of VMs by a majority vote to enter into any property management contract. Goldstein expressed concern that the board could enter into a financially disadvantageous contract, which could negatively impact the body of VMs.
Reres explained that the DRC was recommending that the association have the right to contract with any person as long as a majority of directors consent. She added that in the existing documents, two-thirds of the seven-person board must consent, so the change is meant to simplify the process.
Dawn Gingrich, VM for The Bridges, asked for clarification regarding a change to the noticing period for VM elections. Holt said the intent was to ensure that all residents of a given neighborhood are notified in the event of a VM vacancy prior to the election. Essentially, it’s more important to give residents the opportunity to run than to quickly fill the vacancy, Reres added.
Article X, Section 9 of the CCRs addresses the capital contribution. It states that a homeowner who sells their home and purchases another home as a primary residence within six months may receive a credit toward their capital contribution in the amount of the capital contribution they paid when they purchased their previous home. Gingrich wondered whether an exception could be made in regards to the six-month timeframe. Holt told her that the VMs could collectively change that timeframe if they chose to do so.
The goal of the credit is to promote owner occupancy in Westchase, noted Reres. She added that there would be administrative hurdles to prove that a home was being used as a primary residence. An association should not change the assessment scheme, which is how much a resident pays in proportion to their neighbors, Reres explained.
Regarding a revision to “include any allowable dates for fireworks to be used under FL statute,” Shires VM Barry Anderson said that permitting fireworks on certain dates would be a mistake. Holt explained that state law had changed and the association could not prohibit residents from using fireworks on certain holidays. Reres said the WCA could keep the prohibition as a deterrent and warned that if the VMs opted to do away with it, they wouldn’t be able to put it back in place. Fifteen of the 24 VMs present voted to keep the prohibition.
A working group consisting of Anderson, Gingrich, Goldstein, Christine Hennes (Enclave VM) and Daniel Perez (alternate Shires VM) made four recommendations to the DRC regarding rental properties, and Anderson stated that the committee opted to endorse only one. He said that The Bridges and The Shires are being “overrun” by rental properties, and the proposed amendments would help curb the tide. The committee chose not the adopt the following recommendations: 1) eliminate six-month leases; 2) require landlords to contract with landscaping companies; 3) require owners to hold the title to a property for one year before they would be allowed to lease it.
Hennes said in The Enclave, rental companies own more than 50% of the neighborhood’s 108 homes and governing documents require 75% approval to make changes. She asked her fellow VMs to strongly consider the group’s recommendations.
Reres explained that very limited rental restrictions can be put into place. She warned that enforcement could be quite complex and that implementing such policies could limit the pool of potential home buyers. Following a lengthy discussion, 18 of 24 VMs voted to prohibit homeowners from renting out their homes during the first year of ownership. The same number voted in favor of instituting a minimum rental term of one year.
A conversation followed about the use of artificial turf and a potential requirement of three feet of natural turf at the perimeter of a home for drainage. Holt explained that the association can’t prohibit homeowners from using artificial turf per Florida law, but it can require homeowners to abide by the standards established by the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Harbor Links/The Estates VM Nancy Sells said she was uncertain of the intent behind a guideline prohibiting the expansion of driveways “beyond the width of the original garage footprint.” Holt explained that it was intended to keep homeowners from paving over large portions of their lawns. The VMs discussed the matter at length, and 10 of 17 VMs present at that time voted in favor of the recommendation. Reres recommended removing it because the vote was so close.
Reres then asked about the format for the ballot, and the VMs agreed that they wanted it listed article by article. Holt said he spoke with Reres about the existing authority of the board to decide which amendments go on the ballot. He recommended adding a revision that makes it clear that only the VMs may authorize ballot content. Reres explained that the articles of incorporation spell out who has which powers, and, when unspecified, they are exercised by the board.
The VMs The VMs discussed the pros and cons of such a revision and ultimately agreed that a vote that evening would be ineffective because several members had left. Hennes suggested that Reres compose two versions of the revision: one that would allow VMs the final word on ballot content and one that would give the board the final say. Reres agreed, and Holt asked to put the matter on the agenda for the November VMs meeting.
Editor’s note: The votes mentioned above were solely to determine which proposed amendments will be included on the final ballots. They do not constitute final votes on changes. All VMs will receive an updated list of proposed changes, including the revisions listed above, any revisions by counsel and the proposed version(s) regarding the referendum question. A ballot for the CCRs/Bylaw revisions will be mailed to homeowners later this year. Homeowners only vote on CCRs/Bylaws. Voting Members vote on Guideline changes. We’ll have additional updates on the timing of ballots as that information becomes available.