Open Letter to the HSV POA Board of Directors
Sewer/Water System – Update and Clarification
Let me start this particular clarification article, which results from a private meeting with the board, by clarifying what the Declarations say regarding the sewer and water system. An interpretation by the law firm dated 7-25-2023 indicates that the POA is only responsible for both systems up to the right-of-way area of each property. This interpretation would then result in each and every property owner being responsible for everything else located on their property including pipes, grinder system, etc. It appears over the years that other boards, management, and/or law firms have differed in who should be responsible for repair to the sewer grinder system. The legal opinion was issued by someone I have worked closely with in the past, and I trust that he was thorough in his opinion, but remember, opinions are paid for and only a court of law can render a final determination.
For instance, in Chapter Four, Article 1, with a date of 12-19-01, it was stated:
Section 4. Pumps & Motor – “Installation, repairs, or replacement shall be performed by the Property Owner Association.”
Section 5. Responsibility of Owner – “A. Cost of material labor for the installation of tank, pump, motor, electric power and alarm system; B. Cost of repairs, after the one (1) year warranty period. Repair work will be performed by POA personnel. C. In the case of community tanks/pump i.e. where more than one townhouse is serviced by one tank, the above cost shall be divided equally among those property owner units connected to that tank/pump.”
Prior to 2015, it appears the property owner was being charged for repairs to the grinder system. Then In October 2015, the board voted to no longer charge for these services obviously setting yet another precedent. Going back in time, and unless long-term residents may recall, a different standard may have been applied. The rationale for this change was outlined in this Board of Directors report dated October 21, 2015: “The revised budget recommends incurring $1.8 mil of bond debt in 2016 and forecasts an additional $1 mil for 2017 and $1 mil for 2018. Bond debt will not be incurred without a comprehensive Board discussion and vote. Likewise, water and sewer projects will be based on those decisions.
“The noted rate increases are based on the information provided during Dan Jackson’s study and resulting public presentation. The increase means that property [owners] will no longer be individually charged for grinder pump replacements. The bond debt is also covered by the new rate structure.”
During the “information sharing” meeting with the board on August 10, 2023, to discuss concerns I had raised, I was confronted with a couple of very contentious interactions from a couple of the attendees. However, the shining light of the meeting for me was the polite, logical, and knowledgeable approach of Ken Unger. He explained the POA’s stance on this issue. Ken further indicated that he welcomed inquiries regarding Public Works issues, and I would encourage you to take him up on his offer should you have questions.
During the course of this meeting, the board asked me for an apology and while I regret it took these actions to get valid information on this subject matter, I cannot apologize to the property owners for attempting to look out for their best interests. I also don’t believe a property owner should ever have to apologize for attempting to get to the bottom of something they do not understand or agree with. Nor do I believe a property owner should ever have to be subjected to the type of hostility I encountered during this meeting.
The sequence of events was:
- On June 20, 2023, I sent an email to the board outlining some concerns I had about actions being taken. I received no response from anyone representing the board.
- On June 28, 2023, I took my concerns to social media, which is oftentimes the only way you can gain the attention of certain people.
- On August 10, 2023, the board set up a private information-sharing meeting.
- On August
2416, the POA Board approved the revision to Chapter IV, Section 1, stating that “the property owner owns all components of the wastewater collection system.”
Bottom Line
I regret that many property owners, through the years, have grown suspicious of boards and some senior management, but I might add, for good reason. While I can see the perspective of the legal opinion, it doesn’t mean that I fully endorse, or agree with it.” Plus, determination of what is actually legal could only come as a result of a court ruling if it ever came to that. It is very well possible that previous boards and senior management also interpreted issues differently. The on-again, off-again approach to this issue is
baffling to many and also very misunderstood by many. The explanation provided by cooler heads at the information-sharing meeting was that both senior staff and the board, are attempting to get things right, and for that, they are to be commended.
I believe in the future, it would be helpful when attempting to clarify major items of this nature, a communication plan to the community would be helpful in explaining what, why, when, and where, much like was done in 2015. Nothing works as well as Q & A presentations to ensure as many property owners as possible are informed, and when I say property owners, I mean ALL property owners, not just residents. You also cannot depend upon the internet to get the word out, In-person sessions should be used for those who don’t utilize the internet.
So, while I cannot provide the type of apology the board might desire for doing what I thought was right, I will in the future give the benefit of the doubt and try not to resort to social media so quickly, but I encourage the board to ensure they respond to communications they receive in a timely manner. All this confusion could have been avoided had that happened in this matter.
As an aside, I want to remind property owners that they have the right to inspect and copy “any and all records” of the POA per a court order issued by Judge Hertfeld dated 7-8-2019. Of course, there is a procedure to follow to accommodate this process and one is to ensure that the information is only distributed/communicated to property owners, which is why a copy of the legal opinion is not attached to this article.
It should also be noted that the latest revision of Chapter IV, Section 1 advises a yearly inspection of the alarm system, as well as installation of a pop-off cleanout device if your system does not presently have one. What may be an issue in the future might be a result of Section 5 where it states “or for any repairs required on privately owned residential wastewater collection systems due to negligent acts by the property owner.” That statement on its own seems open to interpretation.
By Lloyd Sherman
Lloyd Sherman
Author & Real Estate Agent
Email: lloydhsv@gmail.com
Thanks for your diligent work on this issue. If the response you received at the meeting was anything like the diatribe from a board member regarding the logo change, you have my sympathy.
this article s very informative. thank you for taking the time to publish this.
Another opinion: Sometimes you get back what you put out. Expecting the full BOD and GM to meet with one privately when they are already putting in 30-40 hours or more providing voluntary leadership seems to me to be highly disrespectful. Your questions could easily have been answered at a regular meeting. It might even make one wonder if the questions raised weren’t more muckraking than protecting Villagers. Cooperation goes so much further than insisting one’s rights/opinions are more important than someone else’s!
Thanks for your considered opinion Cathie. However, you may not have read the article all the way through. First, I didn’t call the meeting; they did. Second, I had reached out to them via email and they didn’t respect my time enough to even respond or acknowledge my concerns. This group serves the property owners and they need to be just as respectful of our concerns and time as we should be of theirs. I am painfully aware how many hours this function can take and there were many weeks when I put in as many as 60 hours a week on board business. To me it wasn’t about the hours, but rather attempting to do a good job.
Thank you very much for your explanation.
My dealings with Ken Unger have been very good.
It troubles me that any BOD finds it acceptable to be disrespectful to those they represent.