Board of Directors Meeting
May 16, 2012
Upcounty Regional Services Center, Room A
12900 Middlebrook Road, Germantown MD
I.
Farouk Youssef called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM. FY, Peter
Franke and Kreg Williams were present and constituted a quorum. (Andrew Kim
arrived at 7:20 PM; Hinaya Jainoor was absent.) Meeting was announced by post
card and sign. Motion (FY, PF) to read & approve minutes of April 18, 2012.
Vote: 3 Aye, 0 Nay, 2 Abstain.
II.
Continuing business and management report (Elan Krueger)
a. Motion (FY, KW) to close meeting
at 8:30 PM to discuss delinquencies and another legal matter. Vote: 3 Aye, 0
Nay, 2 Abstain.
b. FY reported on the construction
and the loan; issue of gutters and downspouts; temporary repair work
related to the project; inspection of concrete; ironwork:
i.
Since the roofs were finished faster than expected, we’re now in a
lull. That is a calamity for all of us,
as the loan has not yet been approved, so we don’t have enough money to proceed
to the next logical step (the siding and the balconies.) The portion not yet done also includes new gutters
& downspouts, and we don’t want to tear them out again when the siding is
removed. That said, heavy rains caused some units to continue to leak, especially
around the sliders.
ii.
We have not been idle in this regard, and have promptly answered all questions
from the bank about our cash-flow. For example, actual cash-based income is not
reported in the accrual-method statements. To calculate cash income for the
bank, we tabulated actual income listed on the monthly activity reports and
arranged the data by class of ownership. For the period from January 2011
through March 2012, it took about 36 hours to reverse-engineer the reports to
get a single value (cash income) for that period. Since the accountant could
not get to that project in time, we did the work.
iii.
We asked the bank for a date certain on the loan, explaining that if
we are further delayed, we need to go ahead with the gutters, downspouts, and balconies.
They explained that they cannot give us a date certain, and we asked what it is
exactly that they want, so that there is no misinterpretation. The bank wants
it simplified, and understands and mostly agrees with our statements of cash on
hand.
iv.
A now old, repeated problem is that the engineer did not know where
the leaks are coming from. In one case, about a week ago, the engineer and his
assistant located the source of a leak, at a cost of $6500. In another
incidence, in “Bldg 2,” we’ll see how to remedy within two weeks.
v.
FY, EK and PF inspected concrete walkways and concluded the issue is
not pressing right now. TH people own their lot so concrete is theirs; what is
a concern are the walkways from one building to another.
vi.
Found a trade person who has fixed the iron railings.
c. Motion (PF/KW) to proceed
at this time with drainage, tree replacement between TH Buildings 6 and 7
(behind 14 DPC). Vote: 4 Aye, 0 Nay, 1 Abstain.
d. 13055B ACC requests (AC,
vent): The owner wrote on May 10, 2012 that: “…the current disconnect box can
and will be reused since 1) it will not negatively impact the functioning of
the new system and 2) the box does not need to be relocated.” The BOD approved
the owner to remove a portion of the fence and reapproved erecting the ventilation
pipe. FY underlined the instruction to not change or relocate the disconnect
box from its current location and signed both requests.
e. 20608DPP ACC request
(removal, replacement, realignment): Deferred decision pending a meeting at the
site, and an examination.
f.
EK noted the Annual Meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 24,
2012. The meeting notice and call for candidates will be mailed in August.
g. FHA. Motion.
III.
New business and community forum
a. BBQs are prohibited on
Plex decks and patios: EK sent 4 letters and 1 email to Plex unit owners notifying them
that use or storage of BBQ grills on Plex decks or patios is against the rules
and a violation of the Montgomery County Fire Code.
b. Discussion of the “MD Pit bull Case”: The MD
Court of Appeals has ruled that owners in multifamily housing are not allowed
to keep that breed or mixed breed. FY stated that if this singles them out, that
may constitute an illegal enforcement of law, and that the case may be put into
the Federal Courts system. EK stated the case involved a pit bull in an apt
building; the victim’s family sued everyone, including the apt building owner;
the Court stated the breed is inherently dangerous, and allowing a pit bull is
negligent and makes the building owner liable; the recommendation is if
Association’s rules allow, to pass a rule to prohibit
pit bulls and pit-bull cross breeds; insurance will not cover us if sued. Should such
a rule apply to anyone who now owns a Pit bull breed, or hence forth? What now
is the MD law on liability if an animal’s owner does not assume full liability?
As other Condominium Associations may be asking similar questions, may we limit
our Association’s portion for legal consultation of these matters to two hours,
or however much is a fair share?
c. Motion (PF/FY) to pay Structura
Invoice #7511. Vote 4 Aye, 0 Nay, 1 Abstain.
d. FY deferred discussion on
drafting a binding resolution for repayment of a construction loan.
e. PF noted that some new
owners may not be paying their dues, or not paying consistently. To avoid this,
and to give the benefit of the doubt, FY recommends a warning letter to those,
stating that fees are due the first day of the month, a $15 late fee is applied
after the 15th, and after 90 days the delinquency may be referred to
the attorney for collection of assessments, legal fees, and legal interest. Discussion
of recovery of legal fees for collections, warning letters.
f.
Received a letter, allegedly from 13001B, a form of threatening
correspondence to pay or else. First, the letter is not dated or signed and is not
a legal document. Second, we will not yield to threats. In the past, that owner
was the first to receive an engineering study of a unit, as well as temporary
repairs. The work he has done will be
redone in the project, and everything he has done will be destroyed. FY rejects
the letter.
g. Open discussion included
the project, loan and Brickman landscaping.
i.
Anna Prisutti of 13009 B stated “At least we [the previous Board]
succeeded in doing one building, but not the stuff not required, which was the
roof."
IV.
Closed discussion and adjournment
a. Discussed WTP cases and
actions.
The ACC met in a special session at 20608DPP at 7
PM on May 24, 2012.
1.
AK, PF and MH (owner) were present. FY, KW & HNJ were unable to
attend.
2.
Owner measured the areal dimensions (100”W and 72”D) of the proposed
flagstones. This depth is slightly greater than the existing pavers & will
displace a few inches of grass. Space between pavers will consist of a
sand-gravel mixture.
3.
AK & PF found no objections
& recommended approval of the proposal.
The BOD met in an emergency session at a public
location at 7:45 PM on June 4, 2012 to discuss ANB’s approval of Cloverleaf’s
request for a commercial term loan.
1.
The Executive Committee (FY, AK & PF) was present. KW & HNJ were
unable to attend.
2.
FY moved to hire a competent attorney from WTP to execute the ANB loan
documents until closing. Vote: 3 Aye, 0 Nay, 2 Abstentions by absence.
3.
AK volunteered to draft a binding resolution to direct repayment of the
loan.
a.
Repayment is funded by the special assessment, as amended, and by 57%
of the reserve fund.
b.
The BOD directs that no less than minimum required payments shall ever
be made. The BOD authorizes payment of $18,000 or more per month, if possible,
so as to pay off the loan during the term of the special assessment.
c.
Attach a copy of the executed June 4, 2012 commercial term loan
letter.
4.
FY called S. Katchmark, who affirmed that downspouts will be removed
and reattached with greatest care, and that gutters will not be touched during siding
work.
