POA Board candidates begin their campaigns

BY

Spring is in the air – which means campaign signs are beginning to blossom on yards and street corners around the community. Canyon Lake is fortunate to have so many residents who care about the future of the Association and are willing to get involved by attending meetings, asking questions and keeping up with information that affects property owners and renters.

This year’s election is especially important because property owners will be asked to vote on revisions to Canyon Lake’s Bylaws, which can be read at www.canyonlakepoa.com.

Nine candidates are running for the three seats that are coming up for re-election in May. Completing their two-year terms are Dawn Haggerty, Eric Spitzer and Bruce Yarbrough. Eric and Bruce have decided to run for re-election; Dawn has been on the Board four years and is now serving her first term on the Canyon Lake City Council.

In addition to Bruce and Eric, candidates running for the Board of Directors are Ted Horton, Larry Greene, Harold Larson, Tamie Mongold, Lawrence Neigel, Paul Queen and Dale Welty. Their resumes can be read on the POA website.

The Notice of Annual Meeting, Ballots and Candidate Statements will be mailed to property owners on April 8. The Annual Meeting and Election are scheduled for May 14.

Three Candidate Forums are scheduled in the month of April:

• Saturday, April 11, 9 a.m., at the Senior Center, sponsored by the Senior Work Group
• Monday, April 13, 7 p.m., Holiday Bay Room, sponsored by various community groups
• Monday, April 20, 7 p.m., Holiday Bay Room, sponsored by the Home Owners Club

Because voting on the Bylaws revisions is such a critical issue, and residents seem to have many questions, The Friday Flyer made it the subject of the first question asked of candidates. Their stated positions here should give readers the basis for asking further questions at the upcoming forums. Their answers were limited to 250 words and are listed in the order their names appear on the official ballot.

Please note, the candidates responded to this question prior to a Board of Directors meeting that took place on March 17 at which Directors were scheduled to approve potential amendments to the proposed Bylaws.

Question 1

Will you vote “Yes” or “No” on the proposed ByLaws. Why or why not? Per the POA: “The Davis-Stirling Act, the law governing homeowner associations, went through a comprehensive amendment on January 1, 2014. The Association’s Bylaws have been updated to ensure that they are in compliance with the new law and reference the new code sections. It’s important to note, that ultimately, the Bylaws cannot be amended without the membership’s vote. Therefore, every member eligible to vote will be asked to do so at the upcoming election with Association’s Board of Directors on May 14, 2015.”

Eric Spitzer

Keeping the Bylaws up to date with David Sterling does not require a vote of the people; it’s the other amendments or changes we’re making that require approval of the membership.

When I speak to the Board members and lawyers in favor of the new Bylaws, their explanations seem sound and I feel like we have a good document, but when I speak to the members opposing the changes they also have good arguments.

My main worry is that the new Bylaws will give the POA more power to maneuver without permission from the membership. Today we are very healthy financially. We can build new buildings, keep up all the current amenities and still lower the dues. Why would we want to change anything?

Having said that, I have personally paid for an independent HOA/POA  attorney to read the proposed new Bylaws from the members’ point of view. I will share that information with the membership when I get it.

Harold Larson

The proposed changes to a number the Bylaws in some cases are fine. However, the definition between Capital Improvements and Repair & Replacement is not as it should be.

How can one say that the Main Gate is not a Capital Improvement? A broader definition should be given. It is the duty of the Board to assure our amenities are always maintained at a high level. However, the gate, in my opinion, does not fall in the Repair and Replacement category. This item should have been voted on by the membership for approval.

I’m in the process of reviewing the proposed changes to all Bylaws and will give my decision on what other changes should be made prior to the election

I will not support the current changes, and ask members to review and take a position of not supporting the changes!

Paul Queen

I will be voting “No” on the new Bylaws. The current Board is trying to give themselves a blank check, removing our financial protections from the Bylaws, and removing us from the decision-making process.

They completely remove the spending limits from the Reserve budget. They remove the $200,000 spending limit for the purchase of new property, and they double the amount for capital expenditures from $800,000 every two years to $1.6 million (based on 5 percent of budget).

That $1.6 million would apply to every separate project; meaning they could do several at once, spending several million dollars without the need to get the approval of the residents who are paying for it. Spending would become immense and our assessments would have to be raised to cover it.

In addition, they disenfranchise many owners. Corporate or LLC titled properties would get only one membership, while everyone else receives a primary and associate membership.

They also add a new paragraph that states that all homeowners “expressly waive any objection to the enforcement and foreclosure of a lien on your property.” Why would you ever agree to waive any objection to the POA foreclosing on your home?

There are many other problems with the re-write of the Bylaws, but we’re limited on how long this statement can be. Suffice it to say that this is an attempt to take control away from the residents and give it to the Board of Directors. It’s a very bad idea that needs to be defeated at the polls.

Tamie Mongold

I find it odd that our current Board of Directors rewrote our Bylaws so they can have more freedom to spend on pet projects. In particular they are asking you to give them the right to spend up to 5 percent of the budgeted gross expenses ($1.5 million) on any capital expense in any fiscal year without membership approval.

Right now they are limited to $800,000 in a two-year period. They also want to change how some of our members can vote and how they can hold their property (LLC or Trust).

The Davis-Sterling Act was rewritten to simplify the policies and procedures that govern an association. The whole point of Davis Sterling is to protect the members of an association. Protect the homeowners from annual increases in assessments. But only with approval from more than 50 percent of the members.

Civil Code S5605 says the Board may not impose more than 20 percent greater assessment than preceding year or impose special assessments that exceed 5 percent of budgeted gross expenses of the Association without a majority approval (more than 50 percent of the members).

Vote “No” on the Bylaws. They are not for our members.

Larry Greene

The Davis-Stirling Act was revised in 2014. Canyon Lake’s Bylaws were last revised in February of 1997. Our Bylaws must be in compliance with these revisions. The Board and Legal Counsel updated the Bylaws to reflect the changes to the law, including code references.

I have reviewed both the current and proposed Bylaws. I understand the proposed Bylaws clarify and better define certain areas which were confusing in the past. The Association must have a set of Bylaws that reflect changing times, inflation and current state law.

It is my understanding the Bankruptcy Court will review the document after it is voted on by the membership. I will vote “Yes” for the new Bylaws.

Bruce Yarbrough

The Staff, Legal Counsel and the Board of Directors have worked for over a year updating the Association’s Bylaws. The main reason for these updates were to make them compliant with new laws and code sections in the Davis-Stirling Act and have one set of Bylaws.

These revisions more clearly explain the issues that are vague and that cause the reader to seek other documents to understand their meanings. These revisions also include the amendments that became effective in the Davis-Stirling Act effective on January 1, 2014 which were not in existence when the old document was written.

Over a year of work has gone into this document with four open homeowners’ workshops where we discussed all of the recommended changes. But, with any change comes controversy, and after listening to the membership at these workshops, we have decided to place this vote on the ballot in a way that gives the voter more choices. The ballot presentation gives the membership the ability to vote for acceptance/rejection of the complete document or portions thereof.

Some have criticized these revisions suggesting this would give the Board unlimited spending limits, which is not true. The spending limit of $800,000 for new projects will be changed to 3 percent of the operating budget. Spending requests for maintenance and new projects are discussed in open session and then voted on by the Board.

The existing Bylaws are outdated. These changes bring the Bylaws up to date with existing laws and I recommend a “Yes” vote.

Dale Welty

I believe that that new Bylaws should be approved, but would like some clarification of the issues below.

Bylaws address trust and corporations. For a person to be member, there does need to be legal documents that connect the member to the ownership of the property. Corporations getting a home loan would need to provide this documentation; why should CLPOA accept a lower standard? Corporate ownership information held by the POA should be private. Many homeowners hold title in a family trust. The Bylaws are not clear whether families who hold title in a trust can have Associate members.

The proposed Bylaws change the spending criteria for Capital Improvement projects. For our community to stay healthy, we need to invest in our community, both by maintaining our current amenities and building new amenities. There is a myth than any new Capital Improvement will result in a significant rise in dues. Capital Improvement funds are in every year’s budget; the funds are set aside and built up over many years.

It takes many years and public notices for a major project to go from conception to construction. A successful project would have to withstand the scrutiny of the community and get the support of more than one POA Board.

In the next Canyon Lake Living and The Friday Flyer, I would like the POA to clarify the Associate membership policy, and inform the community of the financial safeguards in place to protect the community from irresponsible spending.

Lawrence Neigel

I will vote “No” on the Bylaws proposals.

The only proposed changes should have been the ones that the legislature allowed to be changed to conform to the updated Davis-Stirling Act of the Civil Code or the ones that changed the dollar amounts to the current assessment amounts. The necessary changes in the Bylaws allowed by the Davis-Stirling Act can be made without voter approval and those should be the only changes made for now.

The new proposals will:

• Impose more bureaucratic duties on property owners who own a property and register it as a corporation or trust to protect the individual owner’s interest. The Board has no legitimate interest in making these changes;
• Lift the current control of the members to oversee the Board’s spending of our money and lessens the members’ right to have the final say over large spending.

When a board takes any action, it should always be under the watchful eye of the total membership. That is not happening now. Contracts are being given without the process open to the membership and the Board spends more of our assessment money without our knowledge.

This massive change proposal is not in the best interest of the general membership; rather, it gives the Board unlimited expansion of power over the membership. The Bylaws have been drafted in a manner that overreaches the Board’s duties and imposes new restrictions and conditions upon the Association members that will expand the Board’s control over the individual property owners.

Ted Horton

I will vote Yes!

On January 1, 2014, the Davis-Stirling Act was completely renumbered and reorganized in California Civil Code to make the law more user-friendly and easy to understand. As I understand it, our Association’s Bylaws require this proposed rewrite to become compliant and more consistent with the new laws and codes as amended.

The proposed rewrite is also designed to clarify inconsistencies with the other Association governing documents such as the CC&Rs or Articles of Incorporation. The proposed revisions better define the qualifications to be a “member;” establish guidelines for corporate property owner membership; the number of members per corporate property; and spending limits for Capital Improvements and Repairs and Replacements.

Perhaps controversial, the proposed Bylaws will modify Board eligibility requirements to: (1) must be a member or Associate member; (2) must be in good standing; (3) must have no adverse legal action against the Association; (4) must have no criminal, felony or misdemeanor convictions; and (5) must be a full-time resident (at least 10 months per year).

At this writing, the issues surrounding corporate membership and spending limits may be separated from the general rewrite of the Bylaws and voted upon individually. I believe this will have been determined at the POA Board Meeting on March 18. (After deadline for this statement.)

Please exercise your right to participate in the governing of our Association and vote at the Annual Meeting and Board of Directors Election on May 14, 2015. (Website: www.electtedhorton.com Email: electtedhorton@gmail.com)