MINUTES OF MEETING TO CONSIDER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
MAYFAIR OF MCLEAN ASSOCIATION
OCTOBER 2, 2013
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 pm by Association President Bruce Louiselle. It was determined that a quorum was present, between homeowners present and proxies provided, above the 60% requirement of the 37 homeowners.
Bruce outlined the history of preparation for the special assessment recommendation from the Mayfair of McLean Board of Directors. He presented a PowerPoint slide set of photos of problem areas needing repair, and the financial facts on costs and proposed assessment details. A detailed handout on the “2013 Special Assessment – Report of the Board of Directors” was distributed to all participants in the meeting.
Recommended repairs were summarized as follows:
I. SIDEWALK REPAIR $10,750
II. RETAINING WALL REPAIR $15,390
III. DRAINAGE ISSUES
A. KIRBY ROAD WALL $11,910
B. KIRBY ROAD INSIDE CORNER $ 1,860
C. REAR OF 2011-2019 $10,185
D. ABOVE LOWER MAILBOX AREA $ 1,520
E. INSIDE WESTMORELAND WALL 2020-2026 $ 5,990
F. INSIDE UTILITY BOX CORNER (WESTMORELAND) $ 1,910
G. REAR OF 2029-2033 $ 5,895
IV. TOTAL $65,410
Proposed assessment details were provided:
Cost of repairs $65,410.
5% contingency $ 3,040.
Proposed assessment total $68,450.
Proposed assessment per home $ 1,850.
The Board has proposed a two-step payment procedure: one-half ($925) would be due December 15, 2013 and one-half ($925) would be due March 15, 2014.
Discussion followed the presentation. One theme was questions concerning whether some of the costs, such as the sidewalk repair, could be covered from reserve funds. Bruce responded that the reserve study and plan, previously approved by the Association, did not include such an item. A question was also raised about whether County approval had been received for the proposed retaining wall repair. Bruce provided a copy of the approved County document to the questioners.
It was moved by Cheri Taylor that the proposal be put to a vote. A chorus of seconds followed, and Bruce asked the Secretary to call the names of homeowners present for a roll call vote. Results of the vote were:
17 participants present voted YES
2 participants present voted NO
In addition, proxies were voted as follows:
9 proxies voted YES
2 proxies voted NO
Thus there were 26 YES votes, and 4 NO votes. The YES votes exceeded the requirement of two-thirds of the votes, so the proposal was declared approved.
Discussion after the vote covered concerns about the operation of the sprinkler system, and suggestions for other maintenance projects.
As discussion wound down, Russel Jones moved to adjourn – and the motion passed by acclimation.