Section: 7.2 Payment of regular annual assesments
Line Number:
Homeowner Comment: Discount should not be conditioned on voting. The discount was an incentive to ensure assessments were paid and the association did not have to take extra step to get the money owed. If the condition of voting to get a discount is kept, then the definition of a quorum needs to be updated be much higher than 20%. A quorum should be at least 50% if voting is required to receive the 5% discount. It appears that this is only being done to get to the revised quorum of 20%.
Suggested Revision: Discount should not be conditioned on voting. The discount was an incentive to ensure assessments were paid and the association did not have to take extra step to get the money owed. If the condition of voting to get a discount is kept, then the definition of a quorum needs to be updated be much higher than 20%. A quorum should be at least 50% if voting is required to receive the 5% discount. It appears that this is only being done to get to the revised quorum of 20%.
Reason/Explanation:
Submitted by: Bryan Trimberger
Administrator Response: The ballot discount will be removed and other incentives, such as entry into a raffle with prizes, will be provided to those who return a ballot.
Date Approved: 2025-12-08 21:04:26
Section: Section 7 Assessments
Line Number:
Homeowner Comment: The limit of raising the assessments by no more than 10% should be kept. By removing the 10% limit, there is no protection against a substantial increase.
Suggested Revision: The limit of raising the assessments by no more than 10% should be kept. By removing the 10% limit, there is no protection against a substantial increase.
Reason/Explanation:
Submitted by: Bryan Trimberger
Administrator Response: Pending
Date Approved: 2025-12-07 17:30:17
Section: Section 3 Withdrawal of property from the provisions of this declaration - approval required
Line Number:
Homeowner Comment: The requirement for 100% agreement should be lowered to a supermajority. Even say 80-90 would be good but one property owner should not be able to prevent everyone else from leaving the association if that is what most people want.
Suggested Revision: The requirement for 100% agreement should be lowered to a supermajority. Even say 80-90 would be good but one property owner should not be able to prevent everyone else from leaving the association if that is what most people want.
Reason/Explanation:
Submitted by: Bryan Trimberger
Administrator Response: Pending
Date Approved: 2025-12-07 17:29:48
Section: Section 1 Definitions
Line Number: 175
Homeowner Comment: The requirement for a quorum should remain at 25% and not be reduced to 20%.
Suggested Revision: The requirement for a quorum should remain at 25% and not be reduced to 20%.
Reason/Explanation: Reducing the quorum to 20% doesn't protect the interests of the association to allow a small group to make major changes.
Submitted by: Bryan Trimberger
Administrator Response: Pending
Date Approved: 2025-12-07 17:29:18
Section: 7.1/7.3
Line Number:
Homeowner Comment: Currently, regular assessments may not be increased more than 10% in a year without owner approval. The revisions to section 7.1 and 7.3 remove that limitation on the board's power. I do not agree that such limitation should be approved. The board should have to justify and get owner approval of any increase in dues of more than 10%, as has been the case for decades.
Suggested Revision: Currently, regular assessments may not be increased more than 10% in a year without owner approval. The revisions to section 7.1 and 7.3 remove that limitation on the board's power. I do not agree that such limitation should be approved. The board should have to justify and get owner approval of any increase in dues of more than 10%, as has been the case for decades.
Reason/Explanation:
Submitted by: Ryan Brown
Administrator Response: Pending
Date Approved: 2025-12-01 11:55:09
Section: 7.3. 7.4 Special Assessments
Line Number:
Homeowner Comment: A limit should be set on the amount of increase allowed when setting the yearly unit Assessment amount. for example, a maximum increase of 10%.
All Special Assessments of any kind should follow the procedure in section 7.4.2
Suggested Revision: A limit should be set on the amount of increase allowed when setting the yearly unit Assessment amount. for example, a maximum increase of 10%.
All Special Assessments of any kind should follow the procedure in section 7.4.2
Reason/Explanation:
Submitted by: Kathryn Schroeder
Administrator Response: Pending
Date Approved: 2025-11-30 18:57:21
Section: 7.5
Line Number: 511
Homeowner Comment: Change wording to "those expenses provided in the budget accepted at the annual meeting."
Suggested Revision: Change wording to "those expenses provided in the budget accepted at the annual meeting."
Reason/Explanation: How was it determined that $15,000 was the limiting dollar value used for the board to pay for Goods or Services which the Board deems to be of general benefit. This wording is very vague and leads me to believe that the Board could determine this on their own and without notification to Unit owners on any dollar value under $15,000. If a budget was passed, I agree that expenses need to be paid but this section appears to give the board at will, the right to pay for items they deem could generally benefit unit owners.
Submitted by: Robert Voeks
Administrator Response: Pending
Date Approved: 2025-12-01 11:54:20
Section: 12.2
Line Number: 902
Homeowner Comment: Should “several responsibility” be “severable responsibility”?
Suggested Revision: Should “several responsibility” be “severable responsibility”?
Reason/Explanation:
Submitted by: Jeff Vanderpol
Administrator Response: "Severable" is a legal term that means that something, such as a contract or a law, is capable of being divided into separate, independent parts. If one part is found to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the other parts remain legally valid and effective. For example, in a severable contract, the breach of one provision does not nullify the entire agreement.
Date Approved: 2025-12-03 14:24:41
Section: 11.3
Line Number: 848
Homeowner Comment: Clarify what the notification requirements are.
Suggested Revision: Clarify what the notification requirements are.
Reason/Explanation: What are the requirements for notification of intended entry to Unit Owner? I can’t imagine sending an email 5 minutes prior meets the intent of this.
Submitted by: Jeff Vanderpol
Administrator Response: A 24-hr notification has been added.
Date Approved: 2025-12-08 20:59:36
Section: 11.3
Line Number: 843
Homeowner Comment: Clarify what is meant by a “major alteration”.
Suggested Revision: Clarify what is meant by a “major alteration”.
Reason/Explanation: Does this mean the Board can enter someone’s house if they are remodeling the kitchen e.g. flooring, cabinets, appliances, or paint?
Submitted by: Jeff Vanderpol
Administrator Response: The possible following CHANGE to section 11.3 is being reviewed by our attorney.
"A representative of the Board or any member of the Architectural Review Committee authorized by the Board may at any reasonable time, and from time to time at reasonable intervals, enter the exterior grounds of a Unit during new construction, structural additions, or reconstruction for the purpose of determining whether or not such Unit is in compliance with the provisions of this Declaration, any Community and Architectural Rules and Regulations pursuant thereto or any applicable Supplemental Declaration. Any entry into a Unit shall only be made prior to occupancy and after at least 24-hr notification of the Unit owner or Owner’s contractor. Any entry into a building within the Unit that is occupied by Residents, whether or not the Residents are present, is prohibited."
Date Approved: 2025-12-08 20:44:09
Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
