Allendale

First, let me state that I disagree with the demand for payment of the special assessment as the purpose for which it was approved has become nearly moot since the settlement of the lawsuit. The purpose of the lawsuit was to bring the stormwater detention facility into compliance with the City of Shreveport Standards and that has been or should be achieved in the terms of the settlement. If the settlement does not accomplish this purpose, we need to take another look at the settlement; if it does accomplish its purpose then the assessment is rendered moot by its own terms as indicated in the stated purpose of the assessment itself.

Facts:
The Special Assessment Ballot specifically states, ''This special assessment will provide funding to bring the Storm Water Detention Facility into compliance with City of Shreveport Standards.''

The July 2007 letter from the President does state,''The cost to be paid by each homeowner is significantly lower than originally anticipated. The $400.00 special assessment will be reduced to reflect the lower amount before being billed.''

The July 25th Letter states, ''The board has worked hard in recent months to resolve the drainage ditch issue and work should begin within the next few weeks, weather permitting, to bring it into compliance.''

The settlement states,''Once completed, the City of Shreveport will withdraw its citation issued to the Homeowners Association and will issue a letter attesting to the fact that, as of that date, the stormwater retention area is in full compliance with the plans and specifications approved by the City. Thereafter, the maintenance of the stormwater retention area will be the sole responsibility of the Homeowners Association.

Upon completion of all the work and the issuance of the letter from the City, the lawsuit by and between the parties will be dismissed with prejudice. Each party will pay its own attorneys fees and court costs.''

Comments:
I am well aware that our cap of HOA expenses in this settlement agreement amounts to $7500.00. I am also aware in the billing document it states ''for the storm detention facility (ditch) repair and improvements'. It is very clear that this assessment is strictly to bring the stormwater detention facility into compliance with the city standards and if the city approves the work that has been accomplished, the HOA should be out $7500.00. If one divides this figure by 269 lots that is a total of $27.88 per lot. Of course, any improvements are a totally separate issue and will have to be approved in the future.

The City certainly should complete its inspection soon if it has not already. It certainly should be completed prior to the annual meeting.

Response

When I think back it was you as a member of the previous board that pushed the 400.00 assessment and lawsuit wanting to better our neighborhood. I am at a loss as of now that you would want to accept the ditch in a minimal state of ''city compliance''. We live in a neighborhood of $300,000-$600,000+ home values and it is shocking to think that you do not want more than this! The original plan by the board was not only to bring it to city standards but to get it into a maintainable state. As it is at this point you still cannot mow the slopes of the ditch. If you inspect the entire ditch there is still concrete and debris along the ditch in places. No one could possibly mow due to all of the remaining branches and small saplings bent over and left along the bank. Water is presently standing stagnant. IF the city approves the work as completed there will still be work necessary to bring it up to a maintainable condition. I understand that you have your home on the market and are planning to move and this may not affect you in the future. For the rest of us, the improvements made to the ditch need to be lasting. We need to get this area so that it can be mowed and maintained as regular and as frequent as the rest of the association grounds. This can only be acheived by doing more than the ''city standards''.

Response to Response


#1 I hope I do not have to mow the slopes of the ditch and #2 we did not vote on more than the ''city standards''.

You are very correct when you state that I was instrumental in pushing the assessment and lawsuit, but you were not present in those weekly sessions. I was one of the few initially that was willing to seek some type of justice in this situation. And yes, the original desire of the board was to improve the ditch so that it could be maintainable which technically is a city requirement but maybe not a viable one if they initially approved a 2.5:1 slope. This required (according to our board engineer), a 3 to 1 slope which was not required by the city's initial approval of the plan. (It was 2.5 to 1 as you should recall.)

If I recall correctly, during the first board meeting you attended, you accused the board of misconduct in the annual meeting stating that we were trying to make Mr. Saye do more than he should be required to do and you also had a problem with the proxy vote which 2 attorneys stated are indeed the manner in which these issues are handled. Then if I recall, you met with Mr Saye to determine if the legal assessment should be sent out even though the HOA had already approved the assessment. This is the manner in which this meeting was reported to me.

My whole point in this has been that the homeowners who purchased lots should not have to bring this ditch up to code since it was clearly not up to code when it was donated to the HOA. I would love to see more done, however the terms of the assessment verbage were clearly stated to ''bring the stormwater detention facility into compliance with the City Standards''. I think that is the buzzword of the day; that is what we voted on. If that indeed has been achieved we are much the better for it and if we desire more than that, it should be done legally and appropriately by the investors in the HOA openly and transparently by voter approval.

If the city does approve the work as completed I agree that more work would be desirable but I disagree that the assessment monies were appointed for that purpose.

I have also suggested to board members that the chemical treatment of the ditch should be done in very early spring to avoid the overgrowth and to kill the tall unsightly weeds before they are fully grown and an eyesore. I suggested that this spring to this board and it was ignored.

Bystander's Impression

Donna - Now that you are trying to sell your home, your criticisms appear to be self-serving and not for the good of the community. You really need to back off.(FYI: I am not a member of the Board and I do not personally know any of the board members. However, I truly appreciate the work that they are doing.)