4 lakes condo 1 balconies

[Dan]

Resident For 7 Years wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not attacking you or anyone, the other guy said he would waste time and money suing Condo #1 instead of taking the time to make positive changes. That is our money that would be spent to defend any lawsuit, money better spent fixing things. The board is not special, they are simply people we put in office, if you don't like the way things are then run for the board yourself or vote them out. Folks, if you like this type of behavior in your community, them you are not in touch with what is going on. Check your property value and ask yourself, can i afford not to be involved?

Believe me, the board is wassting your money on lawyers and not telling you. I have been in contact with condo 1's attorneys when I tried to get some information and Lisa wouldn't give it to me. The condo law states that we owners have a right to the information I was requesting and that it has to be given to me within a certain amount of time. I don't know what the lawyers charged us, and no one will ever know. I do know it cost me alot of money to hire an attorney to get me that information that by law should have been given to me without getting lawyers involved. Now before this whole conversation on here gets even uglier, I'd like to suggest that before you speak again, get all the facts and know what you are talking about.

[Interesting]

I need to clear something up. The board I was refering to was the previous board. I haven't been around much since the new board was voted in, but it looks terrible around here. Not blaming anyone.

[Resident For 7 Years]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Believe me, the board is wassting your money on lawyers and not telling you. I have been in contact with condo 1's attorneys when I tried to get some information and Lisa wouldn't give it to me. The condo law states that we owners have a right to the information I was requesting and that it has to be given to me within a certain amount of time. I don't know what the lawyers charged us, and no one will ever know. I do know it cost me alot of money to hire an attorney to get me that information that by law should have been given to me without getting lawyers involved. Now before this whole conversation on here gets even uglier, I'd like to suggest that before you speak again, get all the facts and know what you are talking about.

You do not know and yet you have an negative opinion. From the meetings I attended here are the facts:

1) Be mad about the upcoming attempt to remove by-law 5.1 which requires residency to be on the board, because if that changes all positions can be held by investors then the grounds could be in real trouble.

2)The attorney is on retainer for around $600 a month, so we no longer encur hourly fees ($150-$200/hr), for that retainer they reviewed the bylaws and updated the verbiage to reflect current regulations as an included service for no charge, check the webiste and by-law 5.1 which requires residency.

3) In the past, if you contacted the lawyer and represent yourself as a condo #1 resident THEY CHARGE US for the phone conversation at their rate above, so please keep your conversations with your own lawyer.

4) You do not go to meetings, so how do you know they wasted any money? From what I have been told the newer board (2004 version) retired $100,000 in debt to the utilities in 2 years (by 2006) and if you read the budget they are going to sack away close to $100,000 into reserves in 2009, while finishing a 5 year balcony project and refreshing the Hillcrest buildings.

4)

[Resident For 7 Years]

Interesting wrote:

I need to clear something up. The board I was refering to was the previous board. I haven't been around much since the new board was voted in, but it looks terrible around here. Not blaming anyone.

I'm cool with that, no worries.

[Interesting]

1. I think that would be a good thing. If I were an investor I would want to know that I can actually make a profit from my investment. I'd also like to know why my condo rates go up, but the maintenance is worse then ever. Obviousely you haven't taken a walk around the lake or the property around Maple Terrace. There was a time when you could take a nice walk, and except for a few areas, you would be along the lake. No one maintains the trees so people that bought a place because of the view of the lake can't even see it anymore. Makes for a tough sell. "Beautifull views of the lake, just peer between the weeds and leaves...there...see that little spot? Thats the lake" LOL
2. For your benefit, let me try to explain this one more time. Because Lisa would not give a resident information that is required by IL Condo Law, this resident was forced to hire an attorney. That attorney was then forced to contact Condo 1"s attorney more then once. See, according to your own statement Condo 1 is being chrged by the attorney whether it's hourly or a retainer. Get it? Condo 1's attorney charged us to get the info. for a Condo 1 member that should have been given to him by Lisa.
3. Re read the above. If Lisa was following IL Condo Law, there would have been no need to get ANY lawyers involved.
4. Have you had the Condo 1 records audited or are you just taking there word for it? I would rather see that $100,000 go to cleaning the place up. As far as the balconies, did you know that the board did not seek any bids from other builders?

Come back with some actual facts. I can prove every thing I've stated, can you? Do us all a favor and take a walk and look at the property. Since you claim to have only lived here for 7 years, you may not realize how beautiful this place used to be.

[Former board member]

Interesting wrote:

1. I think that would be a good thing. If I were an investor I would want to know that I can actually make a profit from my investment. I'd also like to know why my condo rates go up, but the maintenance is worse then ever. Obviousely you haven't taken a walk around the lake or the property around Maple Terrace. There was a time when you could take a nice walk, and except for a few areas, you would be along the lake. No one maintains the trees so people that bought a place because of the view of the lake can't even see it anymore. Makes for a tough sell. "Beautifull views of the lake, just peer between the weeds and leaves...there...see that little spot? Thats the lake" LOL
2. For your benefit, let me try to explain this one more time. Because Lisa would not give a resident information that is required by IL Condo Law, this resident was forced to hire an attorney. That attorney was then forced to contact Condo 1"s attorney more then once. See, according to your own statement Condo 1 is being chrged by the attorney whether it's hourly or a retainer. Get it? Condo 1's attorney charged us to get the info. for a Condo 1 member that should have been given to him by Lisa.
3. Re read the above. If Lisa was following IL Condo Law, there would have been no need to get ANY lawyers involved.
4. Have you had the Condo 1 records audited or are you just taking there word for it? I would rather see that $100,000 go to cleaning the place up. As far as the balconies, did you know that the board did not seek any bids from other builders?
Come back with some actual facts. I can prove every thing I've stated, can you? Do us all a favor and take a walk and look at the property. Since you claim to have only lived here for 7 years, you may not realize how beautiful this place used to be.

I was on the board for a while and quit because no on cared enough to come to meetings. Chat boards are nice, but they cannot address the opportunities you mention, only writing letters w/pictures helps, since most board members do not see your area. If you want to focus on changing things the HOA is a good place to start, they raise Condo #1 dues $34,000 in 2009. Could be another $34,000 in 2010, who knows. I guess we pay them $305K a year now, so use those amenities, without 482 units we would really feel the pinch.
Based on the budget it looks like we had a small 1.5% and 2.5% increase in 2008 and 2009, not too bad considering the current economic situation.
The board does audit the finances from time to time and this board finances seem better than past years (prior to 2004). The reason we know this is that a $100,000 debit owed to the utilities was retired within 2 years. That does not happen without great money management and budget cuts. The balcony project was started by the folks who got us into some trouble and a new board was appointed in 2004, that is the board that reitred debt, finished the balcony project, etc. Most of that 2004 board is long gone, at least the active resident members.
The attorney is on retainer and the contact between anyone's attorney and our attorney in the past cost us an hourly rate($150/$200 an hr). Now it is included in the retainer, court cases cost extra, if any occur.
When I was on the board we occasionally received suggests with pictures and those are the ones that were completed first, since they provided potential solutions.
Good luck !

[Guess Who]

I met in person with board members and Andreas so I didn't need pictures. I also sent pictures, I think, in order to get the building code violations on my and my neighbors balcony corrected. Guess what, the violations still exisist. Also as I stated before, when Andreas and his crew finally answered my pleas to clean up around our area, the simply stole my chairs. I still find nails, screws and pieces of wood laying around from years ago when our balconies were destroyed. They did trim some tree's, and planted ground cover. A large section of the ground cover was killed after our wonderful deck builders put all their wood and equipment on top of it. The rest just died because no one was looking after it. Andreas claimed that the board wasn't allowing them to do the type of maintenence that is required. I am not sure on this, but I believe our former head of maintence left to start his own landscaping company and he is now the one we pay to cut our grass. A blatant violation of condo law.

[No Friend of Jim Swanson]

Resident For 7 Years wrote:

Think its bad now, wait until the non-residents investors on the board try to change the original 1980 by-law 5.1 under "administration", which at least requires residency for board members.
Watch for the vote in August, my neighbor went to the meeting and they want all spots for non-residents a.k.a. investors if the bylaw is changed.
I'll call the office on your behalf and complain. Maybe you should ask for help on this site....instead of attacking....

There are currently two non-resident board members. They've been board members for the past 4.5 years. Only recently did it come to light that this isn't allowed under our bylaws. Unfortunately the Illinois Condominium Property Act (765 ILCS 610/18b2) states that there can only be one class of membership in an association.
The Illinois Condominium Property Act supersedes our by-laws preventing our condo association from doing anything illegal. Our attorney however has given the board some bad information. The Managing Partner of the association's law, Jordan Shifrin has a completely differnet view on this matter and thinks the non-residents have every right to be on the board. Joardan Shifrin was hand picked by the Governor of Illinois to head up an advisory council under 765 ILCS 610 with several other law makers. Their suggested revisions to the law make 765 ILCS 610/18b very clear cut in stating "the association shall have only one class of membership and there shall be no distinction between resident and non-resident owners", thereby removing any ambiguity and eliminating the need for non-resident board members to go to court to keep their duly elected seats on a board.

Further more the two non-resident owners spend a good amount of time on the property playing in volleyball tournaments and leagues, fishing, boating and swimming. They are rather active in maintaining and attempting to restore the prior beauty of this community.

Jim Swanson, our past president quit the board in January, but then returned under a technicality, only to quit again 4 months later because he didn't get his way. He also put up all kinds of false information about elevator special assessments for the Hillcrest Buildings and propaganda about all board seats being taken by investors. He's a whinny, my-way-or-the-highway, wuss of a man that the board is better off without. It would be nice if he would refrain from commenting on this forum as well, under the name "Resident for 7 years"

[Dan Schuler]

Thank you for this well written, informational post. It's cleared up a few things.

[Reply From Jim Swanson]

No Friend of Jim Swanson wrote:

<quoted text>
There are currently two non-resident board members. They've been board members for the past 4.5 years. Only recently did it come to light that this isn't allowed under our bylaws. Unfortunately the Illinois Condominium Property Act (765 ILCS 610/18b2) states that there can only be one class of membership in an association.
The Illinois Condominium Property Act supersedes our by-laws preventing our condo association from doing anything illegal. Our attorney however has given the board some bad information. The Managing Partner of the association's law, Jordan Shifrin has a completely differnet view on this matter and thinks the non-residents have every right to be on the board. Joardan Shifrin was hand picked by the Governor of Illinois to head up an advisory council under 765 ILCS 610 with several other law makers. Their suggested revisions to the law make 765 ILCS 610/18b very clear cut in stating "the association shall have only one class of membership and there shall be no distinction between resident and non-resident owners", thereby removing any ambiguity and eliminating the need for non-resident board members to go to court to keep their duly elected seats on a board.
Further more the two non-resident owners spend a good amount of time on the property playing in volleyball tournaments and leagues, fishing, boating and swimming. They are rather active in maintaining and attempting to restore the prior beauty of this community.
Jim Swanson, our past president quit the board in January, but then returned under a technicality, only to quit again 4 months later because he didn't get his way. He also put up all kinds of false information about elevator special assessments for the Hillcrest Buildings and propaganda about all board seats being taken by investors. He's a whinny, my-way-or-the-highway, wuss of a man that the board is better off without. It would be nice if he would refrain from commenting on this forum as well, under the name "Resident for 7 years"

There is some significant errors in the message above, I'm no wuss, enormous pain in the rear, probably, but not a wuss. I do have to say that the ongoing harassment needs to stop, none of our former board members deserve it.

Seriously, here are the facts, once and for all:

1) I did offer my resignation in January, due to the enormous increase in the HOA dues and our lack of return on investment. The increase was $34,000 in 2008 leading to a $305,000 annual dues (doubled in 6 years) and i thought the board should ask for more services to offset costs or updated amenities. We were getting no where when we asked for help on things and I thought that was wrong. In 6 years we pay over 1.8 million or nearly 1 year's worth of our budget to the HOA. In 10 years it is over 3 million dollars. That is a ton of money we could put to good use.

2) I never posted anything about an elevator increase (i'm in an elevator building), I was out of the country during that event and have never seen the "flyer". Heard it had A $20,000 special assessment or some other ridiculous number.

3) The by-law that requires residency to be on the board was written in 1980 when I was 6. If we did not enforce it we would be in violation of our own bylaws while holding others to it. Plus we needed to find out if the owners wanted it removed or left as is. There is healthy passive debate going on in out state legislature about this rule, but nothing is final. Once we became aware of the by-law violation as a board we had to address it. The board voted to delay the owner vote on the by-law until August.

4) It was unclear to me if our D&O insurance would cover us during the delay in the vote since we were technically in violation of the by-laws, so i decided to call it a career.

Thanks for the support and please buy my condo if you want me gone.

[Reply From Jim Swanson]

Reply From Jim Swanson wrote:

<quoted text>
There is some significant errors in the message above, I'm no wuss, enormous pain in the rear, probably, but not a wuss. I do have to say that the ongoing harassment needs to stop, none of our former board members deserve it.
Seriously, here are the facts, once and for all:
1) I did offer my resignation in January, due to the enormous increase in the HOA dues and our lack of return on investment. The increase was $34,000 in 2008 leading to a $305,000 annual dues (doubled in 6 years) and i thought the board should ask for more services to offset costs or updated amenities. We were getting no where when we asked for help on things and I thought that was wrong. In 6 years we pay over 1.8 million or nearly 1 year's worth of our budget to the HOA. In 10 years it is over 3 million dollars. That is a ton of money we could put to good use.
2) I never posted anything about an elevator increase (i'm in an elevator building), I was out of the country during that event and have never seen the "flyer". Heard it had A $20,000 special assessment or some other ridiculous number.
3) The by-law that requires residency to be on the board was written in 1980 when I was 6. If we did not enforce it we would be in violation of our own bylaws while holding others to it. Plus we needed to find out if the owners wanted it removed or left as is. There is healthy passive debate going on in out state legislature about this rule, but nothing is final. Once we became aware of the by-law violation as a board we had to address it. The board voted to delay the owner vote on the by-law until August.
4) It was unclear to me if our D&O insurance would cover us during the delay in the vote since we were technically in violation of the by-laws, so i decided to call it a career.
Thanks for the support and please buy my condo if you want me gone.

Sorry, I did the math and was also on the board for 4.5 years. I think that is too long for anyone and there should be a 2 consecutive term limit for all positions. Problem is no one runs and the number one reason I have been given is the harassment.

You see it is not whether or not someone wants to serve on the board, it is whether or not they wish to deal with all the extra harassment that goes with making decisions. I can honestly say I made the best decisions I could with the information I had available, but my biggest problems came from those both on and off the board who wanted a different result.

It is very hard to please everyone, but the decisions I made were based on long term success of this community. Once we fixed our financial issues (we are in good shape as an association), I began thinking "where do we want to be in 5 years as a community". I probably will not be here in 5 years, but wanted to make sure your association was here for you and thriving. Sacrificing my personal popularity for our future success is and always will be a trade I am willing to make. No one wants to increase dues, but if we did not implement small increases we end up with double digit ones or huge amounts of debt because we did not prepare for the future.

The thing people did not understand about me and why my name is trashed on this site is the harder people tried to bully me the more I dug in and held my ground. I figured that if bullying was allowed to run my community and my home, that people would be afraid to speak their mind and there is no way I could let that happen to my friends and neighbors.

I have high hopes for the new board and hope you support them.

[Reply From Jim Swanson]

No Friend of Jim Swanson wrote:

<quoted text>
There are currently two non-resident board members. They've been board members for the past 4.5 years. Only recently did it come to light that this isn't allowed under our bylaws. Unfortunately the Illinois Condominium Property Act (765 ILCS 610/18b2) states that there can only be one class of membership in an association.
The Illinois Condominium Property Act supersedes our by-laws preventing our condo association from doing anything illegal. Our attorney however has given the board some bad information. The Managing Partner of the association's law, Jordan Shifrin has a completely differnet view on this matter and thinks the non-residents have every right to be on the board. Joardan Shifrin was hand picked by the Governor of Illinois to head up an advisory council under 765 ILCS 610 with several other law makers. Their suggested revisions to the law make 765 ILCS 610/18b very clear cut in stating "the association shall have only one class of membership and there shall be no distinction between resident and non-resident owners", thereby removing any ambiguity and eliminating the need for non-resident board members to go to court to keep their duly elected seats on a board.
Further more the two non-resident owners spend a good amount of time on the property playing in volleyball tournaments and leagues, fishing, boating and swimming. They are rather active in maintaining and attempting to restore the prior beauty of this community.
Jim Swanson, our past president quit the board in January, but then returned under a technicality, only to quit again 4 months later because he didn't get his way. He also put up all kinds of false information about elevator special assessments for the Hillcrest Buildings and propaganda about all board seats being taken by investors. He's a whinny, my-way-or-the-highway, wuss of a man that the board is better off without. It would be nice if he would refrain from commenting on this forum as well, under the name "Resident for 7 years"

(765 ILCS 605/18)(from Ch. 30, par. 318)
Condo #1 only has one class of membership, but the by-law 5.1 establishes requirements for board members. Board members also have to be in good standing with their dues in order to run.
http://www.condobooks.com/FourLakes/document_...
We did not make the by-law (5.1) it was written into the original 1980 version of our by-laws when we became an association. When we had our law firm review them for accuracy and compliance with current laws in January this by-law stayed in the revision, which means the revision by the state did not go through yet or died in the process.
So, as your board we could have ignored it and continued to operate an invalid board which opened us up to potential legal and insurance issues or we could ask the ownership if the by-law was valid in their opinion through a vote. Personally, the only part I played in this is send it to an owner vote. There was no value in fighting about the rule because only an 2/3 vote of the ownership can change a by-law.
Based on what I can tell from the recent election, the ownership re-affirmed the by-law. They may have been concerned by the fact that all 7 board positions could be held by non-resident owners.
The person above misquoted the IL Condo Act, the section that mentions "one class of membership" is 20.b.2
(20) that the board of managers may establish and
maintain a system of master metering of public utility services and collect payments in connection therewith, subject to the requirements of the Tenant Utility Payment Disclosure Act.

(2) that the association shall have one class of
membership;

[ficfanny]

I sure hope you are at the December meeting for the 4 lakes meeting cause I want to say Hello and more. I have had enough of the williamson Management Co and there tx to the owners.
See you there for a change has gotta come.

[ficfanny]

Come to the December meeting in the lodge...It is not the board but it is the management CO
Please show up and thanks I believe in change

[ficfanny]

All owners of 4 lakes condos please come to the December meeting in the lodge. I am worried about my investment but more important, my love, my condo...my retreat my money maker.

Please come and I thank you.

[ficfanny]

Please attend the December meeting in the lodge// I need support as an owner and an investror/ I love 4 lakes Help

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Believe me, the board is wassting your money on lawyers and not telling you. I have been in contact with condo 1's attorneys when I tried to get some information and Lisa wouldn't give it to me. The condo law states that we owners have a right to the information I was requesting and that it has to be given to me within a certain amount of time. I don't know what the lawyers charged us, and no one will ever know. I do know it cost me alot of money to hire an attorney to get me that information that by law should have been given to me without getting lawyers involved. Now before this whole conversation on here gets even uglier, I'd like to suggest that before you speak again, get all the facts and know what you are talking about.

[Dan]

So far all I see is "come to the meeting" but no reasons why. It appears that you are more concerened about your "money maker". So, tell me why it's so important to show up? Why is this meeting going to be any different?