Votes for Directors

Votes for Directors
2009 Annual Meeting...32 members voted
2010 Annual Meeting...46 members voted
2011 Annual Meeting...41 members voted
2012 Annual Meeting...39 members voted
2013 Annual Meeting...66 members voted
Our Bylaws require that a majority of the members (a minimum of 64) must vote in order to elect our Directors.

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA) DISPUTE PROCESS PETITION

 This email explains why I was not at the Annual Meeting, and why I withdrew my name as a candidate. 

Dear Ms. Lashlee,
Please extend my apologies to the Lot Owners at the Annual Meeting, and read to them the following statement:
Dear fellow homeowners:
Due to circumstances that I was unaware of when I submitted my Statement of Interest and put my name on the ballot, I will not be attending the Annual Meeting and hereby withdraw my name as a candidate. If you have read the Petition Statement posted at my blog, I'm sure you will understand why it would create a conflict if I'm a Director at the same time I'm presenting my case to the Administrative Law Judge at the hearing this December. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to email me at billlee520@yahoo.com. In the meantime this is your Annual Meeting and your chance to have the Board address your concerns. Based on my past experiences, I recommend that you record the meeting.
My sincere best wishes to all of you,

Bill Lee
**************************************************
Excerpt from the Petition Statement.

Several years ago, Susan Jennings, Judy Kyrala, Cindi Sorrentino, and Melanie Lashlee did, after conspiring to do so, use fraudulent means to remove Vice President Bill Lee from the Board of Directors. At that time, the Board provided no evidence of any kind to support any of the charges HOA President Susan Jennings made against Mr. Lee. When Mr. Lee filed a complaint with the Dept. of Fire, Building, and Life Safety, Judy Kyrala and Melanie Lashlee testified at the hearing where they lied under oath bearing false witness against Mr. Lee, thereby committing perjury which is a felony under state and federal law.”

The claims made in this statement can be easily verified by simply comparing the complaint, the Association's response to the complaint, the transcript of the hearing, and the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas to the relevant ARS, emails, the Minutes of meetings, and the recordings of the meetings made by Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee on behalf of the Association.

What you have just read is an excerpt from the Petition Statement I filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate. What follows is the text of that Petition Statement minus the line and page numbering, which for some reason, that I don't understand, was removed when I pasted the document here. If you would like me to provide you with a PDF of the Petition Statement just email me at billlee520@yahoo.com. Also, I have not included the many Exhibits.
The Association's response follows the Petition Statement.

****************************************************************
Petition Statement for the
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA) DISPUTE PROCESS PETITION
filed by William P. Lee against Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two on September 11, 2018

Directors:
Susan Jennings Lot Owner since 1987 2656 E Jeffrey Loop
sjennings@flagstaff.littleamerica.com
Judy Kyrala Lot Owner since 2001 2501 E Eva Loop
j.kyrala@gmail.com
Dave Christensen Lot Owner since 2010 2406 E Eva Loop
dave@davechristensen.org
Ronald Houston Lot Owner since 2015 2601 E Jeffrey Loop
RonaldL.Houston@gmail.com
Nita Poden Lot Owner since 2016 2536 E Eva Loop
nita.poden@nau.edu


BOOTING OF VEHICLES.
Solely on the whim and caprice of the Board, and in direct contradiction of the CC&Rs and the Rules and Regulations, the Association banned all parking on Association streets and contracted with a towing service to boot vehicles.

Exhibit A The Association's Rules and Regulations
Exhibit B The Association's CC&Rs (see the 1993 Amendments, excerpted below)

Exhibit C is photo of a section Eva Loop which I measured to be 27' 8'' wide. When driving a loop drive in a clockwise directions, the right side of the street is a designated fire lane; the left side is not and never has been a designated fire lane. Though Regulations 14A-E of the Rules & Regulations, and Amendments 1, 2, and 3 of the CC&Rs, do limit parking on Association streets, they do not require that both sides of the loop drives be designated fire lanes. Also, nowhere in the CC&Rs or the Rules & Regulations is all parking forbidden, and nowhere is there anything that authorizes the booting of vehicles. Furthermore, it should be obvious to all that booting a vehicle parked in a fire lane would guarantee that the owner would be unable to move the vehicle in the event of an emergency, thereby increasing the danger to all concerned. And yet, as Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee's response to my below email, and the May 2017 Newsletter make clear, the Association has contracted with a company to boot vehicles.

From: William Lee [mailto:billlee520@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 11:21 AM
To: Melanie Lashlee
Subject: Booting

Dear Ms. Lashlee:

It is my understanding that the Board and/or you have ordered the booting of at least one vehicle on the HOA's loop drives. Please let me know the procedure that is followed concerning the booting of vehicles.
Bill Lee
From: Melanie Lashlee <mlashlee@hoamco.com>
To: William Lee <billlee520@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017, 2:41:32 PM MST
Subject: RE: Booting

Bill, I did not call the towing company and I am not aware of any board member that did . There is “No Parking” on the street so if the tow company were to tour the property then they can boot a car/truck in violation .
Melanie Lashlee
Flagstaff Regional Director

Exhibit D is a PDF of the May 2017 Newsletter. Paragraph 7 states “As a reminder please remember there is “No Parking” on the streets or alley ways. The streets are narrow and need to remain open for emergency services at all times. There is open parking on King Street if you need extra parking for guests. Please be advised you could be towed or your car booted if you are parked on the street.”

Regulation 14A of the The Association's Rules and Regulations states, “Temporary” parking for a limited period of time is permitted on the Association streets (Eva, Heidi and Jeffrey Loops.) You may not store vehicles on the Association streets.”

In regard to the Amendments to the CC&Rs dated 04/29/1993 (Exhibit B, pages 21 & 22 of the attached PDF), Amendment 1 establishes fire lanes, Amendment 2 deals with snow removal, and Amendment 3 deals with abandoned vehicles:

Amendment #1
Article II, PERMITTED USES, is amended by adding a new paragraph (n) as follows:

The Association, after conferring with the office of the Fire Marshal, City of Flagstaff, shall cause signs to be placed and curbs painted red to designate fire lanes for access of emergency vehicles. No parking shall be permitted in such designated fire lanes and violations will be enforced by citation as with other fire lane violations on private property.
APPROVED: Yes 39, No 6.

Amendment #2
Article II, PERMITTED USES, is amended by adding a new paragraph (o) as follows:

It shall be a violation of these Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for any resident or visitor to park on roads of the Greenlaw Townhouses Unit II Subdivision during periods of snow removal. At the direction of the Association, violators will be towed at the expense of the owner of the vehicle.
APPROVED: Yes 39, No 6.


Amendment #3
Article II, PERMITTED USES, is amended by adding a new paragraph (p) as follows:

Vehicles parked at curb side in an obvious state of disrepair for a period of seventy-two (72) hours shall be considered abandoned and towed from the property at the expense of the owner of the vehicle
APPROVED: Yes 42, No 6.

On most Flagstaff streets overnight parking is forbidden during the winter months, so being able to park overnight on Association streets during those months is a thing of value. For the Association to take away the Right of the Lot Owners to park on the Association streets during those times, or any other times, is to take away a thing of value. In 2003, when the Board was adopting the original Rules and Regulations, most of the Directors wanted to eliminate all parking except in garages and driveways. I opposed doing so on the assumption that for some Lot Owners the extra parking might have been an important factor in buying their townhouse. So I wrote the original parking regulations as follows:

A. In order to provide for the protection and safety of all, the Flagstaff Police Dept. shall strictly enforce all FIRE LANE parking regulations.
B. In order to provide necessary access for Emergency Service Workers, homeowners and work crews, there shall be no parking in common area alleyways (access-ways, easements). Any vehicle parked in an alleyway shall be towed at the owner’s expense.
C. In order to provide for the safe and effective removal of snow from our streets, any vehicle interfering with snow removal shall be towed at the owner’s expense.
D. In order to provide for the delivery and pick-up of mail, any vehicle blocking the mailboxes shall be towed at the owner’s expense.

Regulation 14A was added after I resigned from the Board.

Evidence Request:
1.     All bids, contracts, and invoices related to towing/booting services.
2.     The time and place of each incident that a vehicle was towed or booted.



Additional examples of habitual and ongoing violations
Because the booting of vehicles in no way benefits the Association or any Lot Owner, and because it is so obviously a violation of the CC&Rs, the Rules and Regulations, Arizona Law, and just plain common sense, I have chosen it to be the basis for this Petition. However, booting is just one of the many violations that have been committed by the Association. And therein lies the problem. If I were to make every violation I know about an Issue in this Petition, I would have to pay multiple filling fees, which I would prefer not to do. If I were then deemed to be the Prevailing Party in each instance, the Association would probably have to reimburse those filing fees. So, the Lot Owners would wind up paying for violations that harm the Lot Owners. I don't want that to happen. So, the following examples of violations are presented here as evidence of the Association's complete lack of good faith in dealing with the Lot Owners and in managing the Association. Hopefully, each of these violations will be taken into account in the Court's decision. I believe the best possible outcome of this Petition will be that all violations discussed in this Statement be referred for investigation, and that everyone who is responsible for the violations be held accountable.

GUTTER CLEANING
The unauthorized use of Association Funds to clean gutters, in direct contradiction of the Association's Rules and Regulations, and in many cases to clean gutters that rarely, if ever, need cleaning.

Exhibit A—The Association's Rules and Regulations
Exhibit B—The Association's CC&Rs

Regulation 19. The Association repairs and maintains the following elements of the Project as prescribed in the CC&Rs Section #V (a). ...(lot owners are responsible for gutter and down spout cleaning)...

Regulation 20. Lot Owners are required to repair and maintain the following: ... gutter and down spout cleaning

$70. During an email exchange concerning gutter cleaning, Judy Kyrala wrote on Sept. 31, 2013,
"The CC&Rs defer to the Rules and Regulations about gutter cleaning and so that can be changed by board action. Susan is correct about the yearly cleaning being done in the past for nominal cost - from memory, I think the cost was something like $70 for the fall cleaning as part of the general fall cleanup (last action of the landscaper before winter and after leaf drop)."

$1890. Exhibit E. Contract in the amount of $1890 awarded in 2013 to Spike Landscaping to clean the gutters in the Fall. (Approved without my knowledge, though I was a Director a the time. As I recall, and according to the emails I have reviewed, gutter cleaning was under discussion by the Directors, though nothing had been resolved, and no action had been approved. While I was a Director, it was policy that anything dealt with between meetings required unanimous approval, or it would be held over for the next meeting. )

$3200. Exhibit F: Contract awarded in the amount of $3200 in 2014 to Incline Custom Builders to clean the gutters in the Spring and the Fall. (As before, this too was done without my knowledge.)

$4600. From 2015 thru 2018, $4600 was budgeted annually for cleaning gutters in the Fall and Spring.

Approximately half of the townhouses have gutters that rarely, if ever, need cleaning. As can be seen in Exhibit G, end units only have gutters over the driveways, and almost half of the townhouses are end units. Also, it seems obvious that once the gutters are cleaned “after leaf drop” in the Fall, there is nothing that could drop out of the sky that would require all gutters to be cleaned again in the Spring. At a cost of $2300 per cleaning, even if a worker put in a full eight hour day doing a Spring gutter cleaning, that would come to just shy of $300 per hour for unskilled manual labor to do work that had already been done.

Evidence Request:
3. All bids, contracts, and invoices for gutter cleaning.
4. If the Defendant wishes to use as evidence any emails concerning this or any other matter, I request that all related emails be provided.


FENCE REPLACEMENT
Solely on the whim of the Board, and without consulting the Lot Owners or obtaining the required approval of the Lot Owners as per Article VIII of the CC&Rs and the 1999 Amendment (Exhibit B—pages 9 & 1 respectively of the CC&Rs PDF), the Association undertook a Capital Improvement project to replace all the fences, even though the CC&Rs and the Rules and Regulations only authorize the Maintenance and Repair of fences. Furthermore, the Association did so without informing the Lot Owners that a new fence would cost each of them about $1,500, and the Association has deliberately withheld from the Lot Owners the eventual need of the truly essential Capital Improvements of replacing the roofs and repaving the loop drives, and the need to raise more than a million dollars to pay for them.
In 2013, then Director Pat Mount (a retired contractor) recommended using $300,000 as the assumed cost of repaving our thirty year old loop drives; at the February 2014 Annual Meeting Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee estimated it would cost $800,000 to replace our roofs; and the project to replace our fences will cost about $200,000. That comes to $1,300,000 in Capital Improvements. When our roofs were re-shingled in 2003, 2004 and 2005, it was paid for with a five year $50 per month Special Assessment. At that time it was expected that the roofs would last twenty-five years; however, in May of 2015, then Director Barbara Tauritz had half of her roof replaced even though it had been re-shingled only ten years before.
Susan Jennings and Judy Kyrala, who have been Directors continuously since before 2003. They participated in that five year $50 per month Special Assessment, and they were Directors at the Board Meeting when the roofing contractor was chosen, so there can be no doubt that they, and through them the Board, knew that approval by the Lot Owners was required for any Capital Improvement project such as replacing roofs or fences, and that the only mechanism the CC&Rs provide to pay for Capital Improvements was the Special Assessment, as per Article VIII. Furthermore, Susan Jennings and Judy Kyrala participated in writing the original Rules and Regulation in 2003, and were Directors when the Rules and Regulation were revised in 2006 and 2010, and Ms. Jennings was a Lot Owner when Article VIII was amended, so Ms. Jennings and Ms. Kyrala clearly knew the difference between an Annual Assessment and a Special Assessment, and the difference between Maintenance and Repair and a Capital Improvement when the Association decided to replace the fences.

For the convenience of the Court, I have copied here Regulation 19 of the Association's Rules and Regulations:

Regulation 19. The Association repairs and maintains the following elements of the Project as prescribed in the CC&Rs Section #V (a): the private streets, all Common Areas of the Project, all front yard areas of all lots (including sprinkler systems) roofs, repairs to fences due to normal wear and tear, fascia and trim, gutters and down spouts (lot owners are responsible for gutter and down spout cleaning) exterior painting, siding material and any and all other required items specified in the CC&Rs. All exterior painting will be performed on a rotational basis as established by the Board of Directors. If you choose to paint components of your exterior at your own expense out of the scheduled sequence, you must follow all Architectural Review Guidelines and submit your proposal for review and written authorization. Fixtures and additions made by a lot Owner are not maintained by the Association. The HOA does not make repairs on roofs or gutters damaged by ice damming. Please contact the Property Managers for information and forms for Architectural Review.

MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
In order to pay for the new fences without doing a Special Assessment, the Association has stopped doing the most basic maintenance and repair as required by Regulation 19. What follows are just a few of the things that I know about because these things all happened on the north leg of Eva Loop where I live:

2015/2016. The sprinkler at 2525 Eva Loop leaked the entire winter—for more than three months. (Exhibits H1, H2, H3)

2016. The sprinkler at 2529/2533 Eva Loop leaked the entire month of July. (Exhibits I 1, I 2, I 3)

2017. For the first time since I bought my townhouse in 2001, the HOA did not do the full rotational painting. Instead it only did a touch-up and some carpentry work. (Exhibit E)

2018. The rotational painting was done; however, for the first time since I bought my townhouse, the HOA did not replace trim where necessary, even though doing so was recommended by the painting contractor, CertaPro. (Exhibits J, K1, K2 are two examples)

Any of the above can be easily verified by the Lot Owners on the north leg of Eva Loop. After all, it's not like I'm the only one who noticed these things. The pictures are included for the convenience of the Court, and to aid any investigation.

When my neighbors and I found out that we were not going to get the full rotational painting we were entitled to and had paid for, we sent the following petition. (The new fence at 2536 Eva Loop mentioned in the petition is at the townhouse of Director Nita Poden.)

Subject:Painting/Fences
From:billlee520@yahoo.com
To:mlashlee@hoamco.com; sjennings@flagstaff.littleamerica.com; j.kyrala@gmail.com; cindi@flagstaffinnovativerealty.com; btauritz@hotmail.com; jonzimmermann2@gmail.com
Date:Tuesday, April 18, 2017, 9:08:01 AM MST

Attached to this email is a PDF of six signed copies of the following petition; you can expect to receive a few more:

To the Directors and Community Association Manager of Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two:

This April of 2017, we homeowners on Eva Loop, who were due to get a full rotational painting of our townhouses, only got a touch-up. It is our understanding that the money that should have paid for the rotational painting, is going to be used for the rotational fence replacement. Since we didn't get the painting we paid for and deserve, it is only fair that we get the new fences that are going to be installed this Spring. And the new fence at 2536 Eva Loop makes clear that our fences need replacing just as much as any other fences. Obviously, if we don't have new fences and properly painted townhouses our property values will suffer, and, just as important, it will diminish our enjoyment of our homes. This is also true of any tenants. After all, they're paying for new fences and painting every time they write a rent check.

Furthermore, we request that each of us be provided with the HOA's painting invoices for as long as records have been kept, so that we can see for ourselves if we have been treated unfairly. It is our understanding that HOAMCO digitized the HOA's records so it should be easy for Melanie Lashlee to print out copies of the invoices, and mail them to each of us.

Name.....................................................................

Signature................................................................

Address.................................................................


So, what was the response to our petition?
As far as I know, I am the only petitioner who got any response at all. What I got was a few emails:
From President Susan Jennings I received an automatic reply stating:
I'll be out of the office until Dec 13th.
Susan Jennings

Jon Zimmermann's response was:
Take me off your mailing list.
Jonny

Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee did provide a few of the requested documents to me, but never followed up with the remaining documents. To the best of my knowledge she did not respond to any other petitioner, with one exception.

What follows is an exchange between one Lot Owner (Phyllis) and Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee (Exhibit L is a PDF of the emails as they were forwarded to me by the Lot Owner):

Lot Owner:
Malanie,
My townhouse got the touch-up painting and they did a good job.
I'm wondering why we did not get the full paint job as the other townhouses did. I watched and the project came closer, expecting to get the whole place painted. ???

Community Association Manager:
The Board determined that we would do touch up this year . Is there more on your unit that needs to be done ?

Lot Owner:
Am I understanding the board determined that, though other units were completely painted, ours was only deemed necessary to have only touch ups? Again, I ask, Where is the fairness? We pay the same Home Owners fee, don 't we get the same for our dollar?

Community Association Manager:
Phyllis , there is only so much money the HOA has to spent every year. They are doing a fence replacement project which you and every other member know about which is very expensive ! They are doing the best they can to get everything done for everyone without having to SPECAIL ASSESS the membership ! If there is something you need done on your unit it will be done . The HOA cannot do everything that needs to be done all at once as it would bankrupt the association !

Lot Owner:
I understand about the budgeting, but it is clearly not fair for some of the townhomes to be completely painted, and others not. The value of my home is the same as others. To switch to fences when the painting is not complete doesn't even sound legal to me. How can I inform the board of my issues?

Lot Owner:
If you would please forward this, also: Why is it that the same houses that were painted are also now getting new fences, while my townhouse remains unpainted with shabby fences? Again, I ask, is this legal?

Community Association Manager:
It has been sent . Yes, it is legal !

Evidence Request:
5. The rotational painting contracts and invoices for the past fifteen years, or for the last two complete rotational painting cycles, which ever is less.

FAILURE TO PROVIDE FULL DISCLOSURE
As mentioned above, Pat Mount recommended using $300,000 as the assumed cost of repaving; Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee estimated it would cost $800,000 to replace our roofs; and the project to replace the fences will probably cost about $200,000. I have twice written to the Directors asking them to provide Full Disclosure to all Low Owners on how they intend to pay for these Capital Improvements. The first time was on May 26, 2016. The following is an excerpt from that letter. (At that time I thought Ms. Lashlee had estimated $1,000,000 to replace the roofs.)
“How does the Board intend to pay for the afore mentioned projects? If the above estimates are correct, the only way to make certain that, when the time comes, the necessary funds are available is to do a 10 year $95 per month special assessment. Director Cindi Sorrentino is a licensed real estate broker so she must understand the importance of full disclosure in real estate transactions. It is long past time for the Board and Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee to provide full disclosure to the Membership, and especially to anyone who has bought a townhouse since February 2014. Please provide a letter, not just to me but to every HOA Member, detailing how you intend to pay for the afore mentioned projects.”

It is my understanding that to deliberately withhold material information in any real estate transaction is considered perjury. At least a dozen townhouses have changed hands since Pat Mount and Melanie Lashlee gave their estimates. So far, the Association has still not provided any information as to how it intends to pay for these projects. Instead, by beginning to replace the fences without the authorization to do so and without arranging for the necessary financing, the Association has put the Association in such financial jeopardy that when a Lot Owner asked why the Board was not going to do the required rotational painting, Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee answered, “the HOA cannot do everything that needs to be done all at once as it would bankrupt the association !”.

MY CONTRIBUTIONS WHILE ON THE BOARD
The first time then Director Jon Zimmermann ever spoke to me was at the February 2012 Board Meeting. He told me I was a troublemaker, but when I asked him, how am I a troublemaker, he was stumped by the question. So I repeated the question, how am I a troublemaker, and he still had no answer.
What follows are highlights of my time on the Board.

Elected Secretary:
At the May 2, 2012 Board Meeting I was unanimously elected to be the Association's Secretary.

Painters:
In 2012 there was supposed to be a Board Meeting to interview painting contractors. That meeting took place but without a quorum. At that meeting there were three contractors, property manager Jim Joyce, Director Susan Jennings, and myself. (I don't have a recording of that meeting because I didn't record any of the meetings at which contractors were interviewed). Following that meeting I inspected two properties where CertaPro did the painting, and recommended CertaPro to the Board. The Board then approved a thee year contract with CertaPro to do the rotational painting and replace any trim or siding that needed replacing. (By contracting for three years we got a better price than if we had contracted for just one year.) Following that, Jim Joyce, Jim Furst, and I did a walk-through with Jason Bower of CertaPro to inspect the townhouses that were to be painted that year and to see what carpentry work was needed, though it was understood by all that there where many areas that might need extra attention that we could not see from the street. But that was always the case, so it was standard practice that any additional work be pre-approved. Which is why it is so troubling that the trim in Exhibits J, K1, K2 was not replaced even after CertaPro recommended that it be replaced, and even though carpentry work was allowed when CertaPro did the touch-up in 2017 (Exhibit E).

Mailboxes:
Immediately after the walk-through with Jay Bower of CertaPro, Jim Joyce, Jim Furst, and I continued on. We noted that the mailboxes and the supporting crosspieces were in very poor condition. According to the Minutes of the next Board Meeting, “The Board discussed repairing, painting, and replacing the mailboxes. Jim Joyce will contact Major League about making replacement units for mailbox stands w/mailboxes attached.” Some time after that, when nothing had been done, I recommended replacing all 127 mailboxes and volunteered to do the research comparing synthetic wood and resin mailboxes to natural wood and metal mailboxes. After evaluating the pros and cons of various materials and products, I recommended replacing the cross pieces with natural wood and installing metal mailboxes, which is what was done at a cost of about $6,000.

Management Bids:
When Jim Joyce resigned as property manager, I sent letters to property management companies requesting bids for the management of our Association.

Chain-link Fence:
The chain-link fence at the southeast corner of the Association's property had been cut too many times to be repaired. After Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee arranged for DC Restoration to replace the fence at a cost of $1,000, I did some research and informed the Board and Melanie Lashlee that the area being fenced was an easement so it was probably not vandals or drunks cutting the fence (as Director Judy Kyrala had claimed) but utility workers who needed access to the area. The damaged fence was removed, but not replaced, at a cost of $300.

Security Fence:
When Director Judy Kyrala reported a security problem at the north end of that same easement, I met with George Gillette of Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Three—who's property was adjacent to both the easement and our Association's property—about erecting a wooden security fence/with gate that would block access to the easement so that transients coming from Bushmaster Park would pass us by and not spend the night in the common area that the easement gave access to. Mr. Gillette and I agreed that it would be fair for my Association to pay for the fence and his Association to pay to maintain the fence, assuming of course that the utility companies that needed access to the easement would give their permission. When I presented the plan to the Board and Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee, all were in favor of it, and Ms. Lashlee said she would get the necessary permission. Following that Board Meeting, I emailed a letter to George Gillette, which I copied to the Board and Melanie Lashlee, requesting that Mr. Gillette get bids for the fence and submit the plan to his Board of Directors, of which he was a member. After he took care of his part, Mr. Gillette came to the September 24th, 2013 Board Meeting and submitted to our Board the estimate he had gotten for the fence and informed our Board that his Board had approved the project. After he left, the Board voted unanimously to go ahead with the project, at which time Melanie Lashlee informed the Board that APS had provided a lock for the gate and we could start immediately. As it turned out, though it was assumed that Ms. Lashlee had gotten permission from all the utility companies that used the easement, she had only gotten permission from APS. I informed Ms. Lashlee that we needed permission from all the utilities that used the easement. A day or two later, we all got an email from Ms. Lashlee that UniSource would not give permission. The project was canceled.

Spillways:
Along that same easement there are “V” shaped spillways to channel storm water that are about 8 feet wide and 18 inches deep (including surroundings). At the end of the section of the spillway behind Judy Kyrala's property, silt had piled up and had fanned out into the common area forming a hill about 2 ½ feet high at the end of the spillway and extending about 25 or 30 feet into the spillway and out into the common area. When Spike Landscaping removed the silt from in the spillway there remained a berm at the end of the spillway and the hill beyond. Obviously, we still had a problem that Spike Landscaping recommended solving by installing a culvert at a cost of $3,200. All approved except me.

About six weeks later a second bid was obtained from DC Restoration to:
Install 30' culvert drain pipe; 12" diameter into silt berm in the drainage area at Greenlaw.
Dig out existing dirt, install culvert with two aprons
Back fill and cover
Total: $1044.34
This too was approved by all except me.
I requested that we meet on site with Kyle Brown of the City's Storm Water Division. Mr. Brown objected to a culvert since it would cause a bottle-neck, erode around the sides of the pipe, and probably clog. Instead he recommended removing the berm, reestablishing the grade, and letting it drain the way it was designed to do.

His recommendation was accepted by all, and the work was done at a cost of about $650.

Light Fixtures:
When some of the townhouses had front entrance light fixtures that needed replacing, I went to Home Depot, found the suitable light fixture, and forwarded the information to Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee. The light fixtures were replaced wherever necessary.

Vice President:
On 3/20/2014 I was elected Vice President.
Pothole:
Exhibit M

On 6/15/14, I copied to Melanie Lashlee the following email to Mr. Hearne of the City of Flagstaff:
Hello Mr. Hearne,
There is a deep pothole where the street and the curb meet that appears to be undermining the curb and maybe the sidewalk. It is on the east side of King Street next to the home at 2500 Heidi Loop.
About a month later, after Ms. Lashlee failed to followup and nothing had been done, I showed the pothole to a police officer who happened to be in the area. He reported it, and the next day it was repaired and the area cordoned-off for a week or so while the repair set.

Pressure Regulating Valves:
When I found out that in addition to the above ground plastic pressure regulating valves already installed on our sprinkler systems, underground pressure regulating valves were being installed to protect underground stop/waste valves, I did some research. It took me about fifteen minutes online to find a stop/waste valve with a forty year warranty that was the exact type that were used as the main shut off for our sprinkler systems, which are usually only turned on and off once a year. I could not find any pressure regulating valve with a warranty of more than one year. I also sought advice from plumbing suppliers and from the City of Flagstaff Utilities Division Engineering Manager, Ryan Roberts, PE, about both above and below ground pressure regulating valves. None recommend the above-ground valves. I shared what I had learned with the other Directors.

On September 3, 2014 I emailed the following motion:
I move that the Board obtain a test sample, to find out if the above-ground PRVs installed on our sprinkler systems are worth the cost to the HOA every time one is replaced, by instructing the contractor to replace the next twelve (12) above-ground PRVs that fail with an appropriate section of pipe; the ongoing results will be determined by keeping track of the relevant work orders.

Leaving out a few in-between emails, on September 9, I emailed the following:

All,
The purpose of the motion is to answer all those questions by obtaining the real-world results of the experiment on our sprinkler systems. The only way we can obtain empirical evidence directly related to our sprinkler systems is by doing the test.

Also, we may well have a situation in which the landscaper is replacing the above ground plastic PRVs on systems where the plumber has already installed, or may install in the next year or so, a below ground PRV. And, so far there is not a shred of evidence that the PRVs have saved us even one penny, let alone the initial $100 per unit it cost to install them. And now Royal Plumbing is charging at least $325 per unit to install a different PRV.

One very important fact is that the Board budgeted about $4,000 a year for sprinkler repairs before and after Morning Dew was paid about $10,000 to install the plastic above-ground PRVs. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever that PRVs save more than they cost. It's time to get that evidence. Please vote "Yes" and approve the Motion to obtain that evidence.

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Susan Jennings <sjennings@flagstaff.littleamerica.com> wrote:

All,
I am calling a special meeting for the purpose of requesting approval from the membership to remove Bill Lee from the Board. For notice requirements to the membership I would like to have this meeting on September 30th at noon. Please confirm your availability so Melanie can send notice to the membership.
Thank you,
Susan

On September 11, Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee wrote:

Notice will be sent to the membership per your request.
Thank you !
MELANIE LASHLEE| Flagstaff Regional Manager

On September 30, 2014, in clear violation of Arizona Revised Statute 33-1813, the Lot Owners were sent a ballot asking them to vote for my removal from the Board. That ballot was accompanied by a letter that trashed my reputation so thoroughly that seventy of my neighbors voted to remove me from the Board (Exhibit N). To clear my name, I filed a petition with the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety that resulted in a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. CASE NO. HO 14-15/007 DOCKET NO. 14F-H1415007-BFS.
Without going into detail, Exhibit O is an email from Judy Kyrala which included nine pages of forwarded emails, one of which was a Privileged email from attorney Keith Hammond. I have removed everything after the word “Privileged” from that email. The matter discussed in those emails concerned a response letter to Lot Owner Tad Klein. Exhibit O is proof that Judy Kyrala participated in writing that letter, made no objection to the letter being sent, and made certain Melanie Lashlee knew about it.

Also, concerning the testimony of Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee, if the Minutes of all meetings had been available to me at that same hearing before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas, I could have proven then and there that Melanie Lashlee's testimony was a complete fabrication when she claimed that at the meeting at which we interviewed landscapers, I was out of control, screaming at a landscaper which caused the landscaper to withdraw the bid and leave the meeting. (Exhibit P is the Minutes of that March 2014 Board Meeting)

Evidence Request:
6. The Minutes of all meetings since January 2013, when HOAMCO became the Association's management company, including Annual Meetings and all Regular, Special, and Executive Session Board meetings.
7. The Recordings of all meetings since January 2013, when HOAMCO became the Association's management company, including Annual Meetings and all Regular, Special, and Executive Session Board meetings. (For the purpose of transcribing the Minutes of meetings, Melanie Lashlee recorded the meetings. Those recordings were made on behalf of the Association, and are the property of the Association.)
8. The Decision by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas.
9. The transcript of the hearing before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas.
10. The invoices for everything billed to the Association as expenses related to
CASE NO. HO 14-15/007, such as lawyers fees and travel expense, including hotel/motel, restaurants, room service, entertainment, etc.
11. All landscaping contracts and bids for 2014

This was not the first attempt to remove me from the Board.
At the 2009 Annual Meeting, I found out the Association was using 25% as the quorum requirement for Annual Meetings. I later checked the Bylaws; the quorum requirement was and is “a majority”. At the 2010 Annual Meeting I asked for clarification and was told an amendment to CC&Rs Article VIII set the quorum at 25%. After I pointed out that Article VIII had nothing to do with Annual Meetings, and a second Lot Owner requested that the matter be looked into, the meeting was adjourned, and reconvened several weeks later. At that reconvened meeting attorney Tevis Reich opined that the quorum requirement was 25%, though, as I recall, his written opinion did not agree with his remarks as stated in the Minutes for that reconvened Annual Meeting.

At the 2011 Annul Meeting I was elected to the Board. In February of 2012, at the first regular Board Meeting, I tried to explain to the Directors that we had not been legitimately elected, which put us at risk. The result, to put it briefly: they jumped all over me. At the end of that portion of the meeting a motion for my removal from the Board was offered, seconded, and approved. When I refused to leave, everyone else left and continued the meeting somewhere else. No Minutes for that meeting were ever submitted for approval, though I do have a recording.

Following that meeting, though I only found out about it much later, attorney Tevis Reich was paid $854 to investigate me, and to find a way to remove me from the Board. At the next regular Board Meeting, James French, who had put forth the motion to remove me from the Board, put forth a motion to make me Secretary. Judy Kyrala, who voted to remove me from the Board, voted in favor of making me Secretary, and I became an Officer.

SUMMARY
While I was a Director, contracts were signed and canceled, and money spent without my knowledge or approval. Because of that, I don't know to what extent individual Directors are responsible for the above violations. What I do know is that Susan Jennings and Judy Kyrala have been Directors continuously since before 2003, so there can be no doubt that Susan Jennings and Judy Kyrala have always known that parking is allowed on Association streets and that there is nothing in the Rules and Regulations that allows the booting of vehicles. Susan Jennings was a Lot Owner when the parking amendments to the CC&Rs were adopted, and both Susan Jennings and Judy Kyrala participated in writing the Rules and Regulations. Clearly, they must have known that the booting vehicles was in direct contradiction to the Association's Rules and Regulations, and Arizona Law. Simple common sense would have informed any Director that to disable a vehicle by booting, without the authority to do so, is illegal and probably criminal. Any victim who's vehicle was booted would have had the right to call the police, file charges, and sue the Association for any damages.

There can also be no doubt that Susan Jennings and Judy Kyrala have always known that gutter cleaning is the responsibility of the Lot Owners. Obviously there is little harm in the Association paying a landscaper $70 to clean the gutters as part of the fall cleanup, but to secretly pay $1890 for the same gutter cleaning, and then secretly sign a contract to pay $3200 for a Fall and Spring gutter cleaning, makes no sense at all unless something a good deal more nefarious was going on. Someone had to sign those contracts and approve the payments, so it is worth noting here that at a meeting immediately following the February 2014 Annual Meeting, at which Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee requested that Cindy Sorrentino be appointed to the Board, Ms. Lashlee was adamant that Susan Jennings be reelected President.

As serious as these violations are, the violations related to the project to replace the fences are so much worse. The Association began the project without arranging for the necessary funding, and without disclosing to the Lot Owners that the combined cost of replacing the fences, re-shingling the roofs, and repaving the streets had been estimated to be $1,300,000. By doing so, the Association was put in such financial jeopardy that when a Lot Owner asked why the Board was not going to do the required rotational painting that all Lot Owners are entitled to and pay for, Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee answered,
Phyllis , there is only so much money the HOA has to spent every year. They are doing a fence replacement project which you and every other member know about which is very expensive ! They are doing the best they can to get everything done for everyone without having to SPECAIL ASSESS the membership ! If there is something you need done on your unit it will be done. The HOA cannot do everything that needs to be done all at once as it would bankrupt the association !”
In this one email, Ms. Lashlee admitted that the Association knew replacing the fences was not routine maintenance and repair, that the Association deliberately did not seek the approval from the Lot Owners that a Special Assessment would have required, and that the Association knowingly risked bankrupting the Association to pay for the fence project.

One way to determine what part each Director played is for the Directors to provide sworn statements detailing what they did and what they knew. Unfortunately, based on what occurred at the hearing before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas, such sworn statements may very well be useless. It is because of that, and because all of the above violations are so serious, that I believe a full investigation is necessary. When the five year $50 per month Special Assessment to replace the roofs was started in 2000, the Annual Assessment was $50 or $60 per month. Now the Annual Assessment is $126 per month. A Special Assessment to pay for the total estimated cost to replace all the fences, roofs, and repave the streets over a ten year period would have added about $85 to what the Lot Owners would have to pay each month, not including any increases in the Annual Assessment. Obviously, for the Association to deliberately withhold material information such as this from the Lot Owners is a clear breach of the Association's fiduciary duties. If one adds to that, the misuse of Association funds, the unauthorized booting and towing of vehicles, and the various other violations discussed above, I believe that there can be no doubt that an investigation by the appropriate law enforcement agency is essential if the Association and the Directors who committed these violations on behalf of the Association are to be held accountable, and the rights and interests of the Lot Owners protected.

After the last election, I made a sincere effort to inform the newest Directors, Ronald Houston, Nita Poden, and Dave Christensen, of the above violations, and of my ongoing efforts to hold the Association fully accountable (Exhibit Q). As the majority on the Board, they can refuse to allow the use of Association funds to defend against this Petition. Instead, they can support my request for a full investigation of all violations, and fully cooperate with any investigation. Or not. The choice is theirs.
However, before they decide, they need to keep in mind that unless I completely misunderstand the meaning of the words conspiracy, fraud and perjury, the following statement is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
“Several years ago, Susan Jennings, Judy Kyrala, Cindi Sorrentino, and Melanie Lashlee did, after conspiring to do so, use fraudulent means to remove Vice President Bill Lee from the Board of Directors. At that time, the Board provided no evidence of any kind to support any of the charges HOA President Susan Jennings made against Mr. Lee. When Mr. Lee filed a complaint with the Dept. of Fire, Building, and Life Safety, Judy Kyrala and Melanie Lashlee testified at the hearing where they lied under oath bearing false witness against Mr. Lee, thereby committing perjury which is a felony under state and federal law.”
The claims made in this statement can be easily verified by simply comparing the complaint, the Association's response to the complaint, the transcript of the hearing, and the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas to the relevant ARS, emails, the Minutes of meetings, and the recordings of the meetings made by Community Association Manager Melanie Lashlee on behalf of the Association.

Requested Remedies:
1. That all violations discussed in this Statement be referred for investigation.
2. That the Association cease and desist all violations of the Controlling Documents and of Arizona Law.
3. That the Directors who committed the above violations on behalf of the Association be prosecuted for any criminal activity.
4. That the Directors who committed the above violations on behalf of the Association reimburse the Plaintiff for all filing fees.
5. That any settlement agreed to by the Plaintiff be without any condition that could limit or prejudice any future legal action against the Association or the Directors who committed the above violations on behalf of the Association.
6. That the Association and the Directors who committed the above violations on behalf of the Association, be enjoined from using any Association funds to pay for any part of any response to this Petition.
7. That the the Association, and the Directors who committed the above violations on behalf of the Association, be enjoined from using any Association funds to pay for any part of any settlement resulting from this Petition.
8. That the Board of Directors immediately cause to be mailed to all Lot Owners of Greenlaw Townhouses Unit Two via first class mail, with all printing, copying, and mailing costs paid for by the current Directors, the following:
a. A Notice for a Special Meeting to elect Five (5) new Directors that follows all the procedures of an Annual Meeting.
b. A signed letter from each Director swearing to never again serve as a Director, and swearing to make a good faith effort to provide any assistance or information the new Board requests.
c. A copy of this entire Petition Statement.
10. Any other remedies that may be found necessary after the requested documents are provided.

Evidence Request beginning with the requests numbered above.
I am requesting the following documents so that they will be available as evidence. As mentioned above, if the Minutes of all meetings had been available to me at the hearing before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas, I could have proven then and there that Melanie Lashlee's testimony was a complete fabrication when she claimed that at the meeting at which we interviewed landscapers, I was out of control, screaming at a landscaper which caused the landscaper to withdraw the bid and leave the meeting.
1. All bids, contracts, and invoices related to towing/booting services.
2. The time and place of each incident that a vehicle was towed or booted.
3. All bids, contracts, and invoices for gutter cleaning.
4. If the Defendant wishes to use as evidence any emails concerning this or any other matter, I request that all related emails be provided.
5. The rotational painting contracts and invoices for the past fifteen years, or for the last two complete rotational painting cycles, which ever is less.
6. The Minutes of all meetings since January 2013, when HOAMCO became the Association's management company, including Annual Meetings and all Regular, Special, and Executive Session Board meetings.
7. The Recordings of all meetings since January 2013, including Annual Meetings and all Regular, Special, and Executive Session Board meetings. (For the purpose of transcribing the Minutes of meetings, Melanie Lashlee recorded the meetings. Those recordings were made on behalf of the Association, and are the property of the Association.)
8. The Decision by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas.
9. The transcript of the hearing before Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas.
10. The invoices for everything billed to the Association as expenses related to CASE NO. HO 14-15/007, such as lawyers fees and travel expense, including hotel/motel, restaurants, room service, entertainment, etc.
11. All landscaping contracts and bids for 2014
12. All Mailings sent to all Lot Owners via First Class Mail since January 2013, when HOAMCO became the Association's management company, including meeting notices, newsletters, special announcements, ballots, etc.
13. The mailing addresses of all Lot Owners to which First Class Mail is sent.
14. The email addresses of all Lot Owners for whom the Association has email addresses.
15. All bids, contracts, and invoices for the installation and staining of the fences installed and stained during the project to replace the fences.

Exhibits:
Exhibit A. The Association's Rules and Regulations
Exhibit B. The Association's CC&Rs
Exhibit C. Photo showing a section of the Eva Loop Fire Lane
Exhibit D. PDF of the May 2017 Newsletter
Exhibit E. Invoice--Spike Landscaping
Exhibit F. Contract--Incline Custom Builders
Exhibit G. Photo showing Gutters and Carpentry
Exhibits H1, H2, H3. Sprinkler leak at 2525 Eva Loop
Exhibits I 1, I 2, I 3. Sprinkler leak at 2529/2533 Eva Loop
Exhibits J, K1, K2. Two examples of trim that should have been replaced during the rotational painting.
Exhibit L. PDF of the Lot Owner/Manager Exchange as forwarded to me by the Lot Owner
Exhibit M. Photo of pothole
Exhibit N. Letter accompanying the ballot for my removal from the Board.
Exhibit O. an email from Judy Kyrala proving perjury. (Exhibit O has been edited to remove everything following the word “Privileged”. I will provide the nine page unedited version upon request.)
Exhibit P. Minutes for the March 2014 Special Meeting of the Board of Directors.
Exhibit Q. Letter To Three Directors.


End of Petition Statement.
What follows is the Association's Response.