WCA Board President Michiel Oostenbrink shared some updates from the board, then gave the floor to Document Review Committee (DRC) Chair Eric Holt. Oostenbrink explained that Holt worked with Kathleen Reres, the association’s legal counsel, to summarize the failed amendments to the CCRs, articles and by-laws.
Chelmsford VM Joanne Maurer asked why they needed to discuss the failed amendments. Oostenbrink told her that the board and DRC were doing their best to be transparent about the voting process. Only 267 units returned ballots community-wide. He added that two neighborhoods don’t currently have VMs, and a few VMs were absent when votes were submitted, which brought the starting point down to approximately 89%.
Holt then advised the VMs to review the failed amendments and reach out to him with any questions. He told the VMs that some of the failed amendments keep rules in place that the WCA can’t enforce because it would violate Florida statutes. For example, one would have removed the requirement that vehicles be parked in garages or driveways from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. That amendment failed, which means that the WCA still technically prohibits on-street parking, Holt explained. Florida statute, however, dictates that violations can’t be issued for parking in the street regardless of association rules.
Woodbay Alternate VM Cal Hargreaves said that he did not realize that a community without a VM simply isn’t represented. He asked whether the board could vote on those residents’ behalf. Holt clarified that any individual resident in a community without a VM who submitted a vote had their vote counted. Residents who failed to submit ballots were not represented.
The policy could be changed, Holt shared, but proposed changes are costly because the association must send them out on paper to all residents. He suggested the possibility of sending proposed amendments out with the budget in November.
A VM asked what the penalty was for having rules in place that contradict Florida statute. Holt responded that there is no penalty, as long as the WCA doesn’t try to use governing documents to supersede state law.
Holt then moved on to the DRC’s next goal, which is to tackle the INSGs. He stressed the importance of having VMs involved in the process. The board has agreed that 51 percent of a neighborhood must support an INSG change before it will even go before the body of VMs, he said. He added that the board is willing to prepare electronic ballots to help VMs gauge the support of their residents.
Pam Wilcox, alternate VM for The Bridges, asked when the VMs could expect those electronic ballots. Holt said the committee’s first task is to identify all of the different INSGs, as every neighborhood has them but they’re not all documented. The DRC hopes to have an update by the April VM meeting, he added.
Holt reminded the VMs that they vote twice a year on proposed INSG changes. Proposed amendments need to be submitted to the association by April 1 to be voted on at the June VM meeting and September 1 for a January vote, he clarified.
Bennington VM Russ Crooks said he felt that the sheer number of amendments included in the most recent ballot was overwhelming. He asked whether proposed amendments could be divided up somehow into smaller increments. He suggested a cap of 30 amendments per year.
Holt responded that there could be a DRC every year because rules can theoretically be changed at any time. However, everything needs to be reviewed, drafted and redrafted, which comes with a financial commitment, he added. Roughly half of the amendments that failed were within seven percent of passing, Oostenbrink said.
Hargreaves stated that he agreed with Crooks, and recommended considering amendments by category.
“Let’s look at paint guidelines one year,” Hargreaves told his fellow VMs. “We could have a continuing process. It would be much easier for the residents to understand, rather than such a mammoth effort. The juice wasn’t worth the squeeze.”
One of the amendments that passed prohibits the board from entering into a contract with a property management company without prior approval from the VMs, Oostenbrink explained. The current contract with Inframark comes up for renewal on July 1. The passing amendments go into effect once Reres submits them to the county to be recorded. The VMs should be able to review the contract 90 days prior to signing, but they likely won’t have a full 90 days due to the timing of the DRC, he continued. Oostenbrink said he wanted to give the VMs a heads up on the approval process and explain why they may not have the full 90 days as written in the amendment.
Oostenbrink then opened the floor to VM comments. Crooks mentioned that he’s on the Covenants Committee and was concerned that they haven’t held a meeting since June. The process calls for violations to go through the board, then through Covenants, he reminded the VMs. Oostenbrink said that, prior to transitioning to Inframark, the association had a property management company that was intimately familiar with the violation process. Inframark is still learning, and the transition process takes time, he added. He said he didn’t think that residents were up in arms for not receiving violations.
Ken Cellupica stated that he also serves on the Covenants Committee and requested that Inframark provide committee members with information on violations that have been corrected and those that haven’t. Inframark said that the company could provide the committee with more detailed information.