Lower tax rate on well site doesn�t require "mandatory assessments" (Ref 20)
"SBFE Transaction Detail By Account Mar 2007"
Total 6803 Legal Fees $3,873.80
"SBFE Transaction Detail By Account Feb 2007"
Total 6803 Legal Fees $4,542.05
Total Member�s money spent on Legal Fees so far in 2007 = $8,415.85
Ref 12:
"SBFE Transaction Detail By Account Jan through Dec 2006"
6803 Legal Fees
CC&Rs $58.50
CC&Rs $78.00
CC&Rs $409.50
CC&Rs $488.50
CC&Rs $699.00
CC&Rs $1710.00
"SBFE Transaction Detail By Account Feb 2007"
6803 Legal Fees CC&Rs $2435.00
"SBFE Transaction Detail By Account Mar 2007"
6803 Legal Fees CC&Rs $709.80
Total Member�s money spent on CC&Rs so far = $6,588.30
Why is the Board still spending member�s money on unneeded CC&Rs including money to hire a marketing firm to sell them to homeowners. The cost just keeps going UP!
Back to top
Ref 13:
"SBFE Transaction Detail By Account Mar 2007"
6803 Legal Fees annual meeting laws $987
"SBFE Transaction Detail By Account Feb 2007"
6803 Legal Fees annual meeting laws $1,667
"SBFE Annual Meeting Minutes 2-07"
A member for 9 years asked " I want to know why the change in our election procedure? It was not done in good faith, it was forced upon us. We want an opportunity to vote off the floor. Don�t we need a quorum to raise the dues?"
The Board�s HOA lawyer stated " the By-Laws did not say we could not vote this way." And "Members don�t need to vote on everything." And "No floor nominations"
Back to top
Ref 14:
Lot # 271 owner Lain Mohn sold his property to Courtney and Marilyn Davis. The Davis�s wanted irrigation and everything seemed fine until the Board claimed that Mohn owed $238 and they expected the Davis�s to pay Mohn�s debt. Marilyn Davis contacted the Board at least 3 times telling them they should not have to pay a debt left by a previous owner. The Board disagreed, added an additional $90 in late fees and insisted the Davis�s had to pay.
The Board put the Davis�s on the cut off list telling them they will not receive water if they do not pay.
This is not the only case of the Board improperly collecting a past owner�s debt from a new owner.
Back to top
Ref 15:
On the SBFE neighborhood forum (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sbfeneighborhood/ )
David Haney, Board member stated, "In regards to the board's ability to lien and foreclosure, the current docs provide for both. The proposed revised documents remove foreclosure." Mr. Haney is wrong when he implies all sections now allow liens and foreclosure (ref AZ Supreme Court �Duffy� ruling) He obviously has not read the current CC&Rs.
Sec. 2 is currently the only section in SBFE who�s CC&Rs give the power to lien and foreclose homes to the Board. The Board�s proposed CC&Rs try to change all four sections� CC&Rs so that, if approved, the Board will be able to place liens on everyone�s home in all sections.
The disbanded CC&R Committee�s proposed CC&Rs, which were written after months of meetings and inputs from homeowners, gave sec. 2 the same protection that sec.s 3, 4 and 7 now have. Their proposed CC&Rs prohibited the Board from placing a lien on any homes. The Board has ignored the homeowner inputs and the CC&R�s Committee�s work.
Back to top
Ref 16:
On the SBFE neighborhood forum (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sbfeneighborhood/ ), David Haney, Board member declared "most of the system will need to be replaced or repaired within the next 5, 10 or 15 years. I wouldn't be surprised if the costs runs us more than a million."
Mr. Haney is not a licensed engineer and neither are any other Board members. The Board shouldn�t speculate. Instead they should keep their promise made over a year ago to get an engineering firm�s analysis.
Back to top
Ref 17:
1) A member in sec 2 tried to get the Board to release minutes from 2005 Annual meeting and to schedule another meeting since they did not have a quorum to conduct business. Even though they are required to by AZ statutes since they claim sec 2 is a planned community, they refused. Instead the Board appointed other Board members and approved expenditures without members� scrutiny. A member�s attorney then communicated that the Board was not following the rules and may be sued if they did not comply.
2) Member in sec. 7, who is an attorney, wrote the Board that their proposed CC&Rs were so punitive that if they pursued getting them approved, he would sue the association.
3) Non members� attorney sent a letter to the Board detailing why it is illegal for the Board to force mandatory assessments on the neighborhood and why the Board�s own action will lead to another lawsuit.
These letters and any response from the association�s lawyer is public information. There currently are no lawsuits so there is no confidentiality limits on releasing this information. The Board is not disclosing why member and non member homeowners believe the Board�s proposed CC&Rs are improper. Instead, they just say they are being "threatened with lawsuits" which creates animosity between neighbors.
Back to top
Ref 18:
"SBFE Transaction Detail By Account Jan through Dec 2006"
6803 Legal Fees zoning $141.00
SBFE Transaction Detail By Account Feb 2007"
6803 Legal Fees plat map $33.00
"SBFE Transaction Detail By Account Mar 2007"
6803 Legal Fees plat map $23.00
Board in their first proposed CC&Rs gave themselves complete control of our Bridle Paths including restricting homeowner�s access.
"Art. 3.1 (a) The right of the Association to suspend"right to use the Multi-Use Shared Paths (the Board�s new name for the Bridle Paths)."
"Art 3.1 (b) The right of the Association to ..transfer all or any part of the Multi-Use Shared Paths to any entity.."
Back to top
Ref 19:
"SBFE Annual Meeting Minutes 2-07"
Board stated they want to "Upgrade Signage; look at the four major corners accessing SBFE and create an inviting entrance with block wall, signage, painting, etc.."
How can the Board say that the water system will "fail" if they don�t change the CC&Rs so they can collect less than 5% more money from homeowners who don�t receive water and yet they want to spend money on monument signs?
That doesn�t make any sense.
Back to top
Ref 20:
"SBFE Newsletter Nov 2006/BOD Meeting Minutes 10-16-06"
"Taxes increased from $10.00 to $956.00 due to assessed value being raised from $500 to $193,000. The well site has been assessed at $500 for the last 7 years. Mary inquired and appealed and got it dropped to $3600 appraised value. Will not change this year�s tax. Can appeal again but criteria must be met: (1) Must have mandatory assessments (2) disclosure & transfer fees."
The Board states that in order to appeal next year and get the lower tax rate, they will have to meet two criteria "1) Must have mandatory assessments (2) disclosure& transfer fees" BOTH ARE REQUIREMENTS OF A CONTROLLED COMMUNITY BUT ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR A LOWER TAX.
No future appeals are necessary because SBFE was evaluated using the "Large Parcel Theory" which reduced its valuation and the well site was assigned a land code of #0262 which permanently sets the lower tax rate next year, year after that and so on.
The Board�s statement is misleading since mandatory assessments are not required.
PLEASE DON�T SIGN THE BOARD�S PROPOSED CC&RS OR BY-LAWS.
Back to top