Pheasant Lake Townhome AssociationDecember 8, 2014

Board of Directors Meeting Minutes

I. The meeting was called to order at 7 pm by President Tom Krippel.

II. All board members were present: Tom Krippel (President), Beth Murphy (Treasurer), Deborah Gardner (director), and William Dziallo (director), with Jerry Spehar (Vice President and Secretary) Skyping (electronically with video) into the meeting since he was out of town. Scott Adler was present representing EPI.

Owners present: Sharleen Karchut, James Gardner, John Sokol, Rita Davis

III. Homeowner’s Forum:

Sherleen Karchut (18206 Mockingbird) indicating that she had shingles missing from the rear of her unit above her bedroom; Sherleen has called about this prior to Thanksgiving. Lang shows that the work was completed already, but Sherleen said that more blew off. Sherleen Karchut would like more skylight information; she wanted more information about the skylights available from the roofer. Beth noted that the contract is just being finalized, so we did not have the skylight option information available yet. That information would be provided with the information being mailed to all unit owners with preparation instructions; Beth indicated that only one mailing would be done, so it would not come out right after this meeting. Sherleen wanted to know if she could pick her own brand if she did not like what the roofer selected; Scott noted that it depends on if the roofer works with the brand involved since the roofer may not want to use a brand that he has never used previously. Scott noted that he would obtain the brand options, and Tom noted that we would defer to the roofer’s preference. Beth noted that we could provide the skylight information on the Pheasant Lake website earlier than the letter goes out. Jim Gardner (8905 Bluebird) wanted to mention that the tuckpointing was done at the rear of his unit and that it was well done. John Sokol (18134 Mockingbird) had nothing to add other than to wish everyone Happy Holidays. Rita Davis (8925 Pheasant Lake Drive) noted that Tom’s son-in-law had his brown dog out and not on a leash, when Rita had her little dog out. Tom noted that food should not be put out by owners. Rita repeated her complaint from prior meetings about people not bagging their garbage. Beth noted that Tom is one of the people who picks up garbage regularly around the lake. Tom noted that he also picked up trash at the front of units along Pheasant Lake Drive and Bluebird, but Rita kept interrupting Beth and Tom when they were trying to respond to her comments.

IV. Beth motioned to approve the minutes included in the Director books. Jerry seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously.

V. Treasurer’s Report

Beth distributed copies of her Treasurer Report. Beth pointed out (especially for Jerry who was attending the meeting online) that she emailed these documents prior to the board

Page 1 of 14

meeting, but since it was just before the board meeting, she provided hard copies to all present.A. Beth did receive bank reconciliations for the Marquette Bank accounts with the Director

books and received the rest of the reconciliations at the board meeting. Beth reviewed them, and the bank reconciliations were all ok.

B. Beth noted that the Com Ed autopay was posted to the ledgers, with the usual one-month lag in expenses to date in the ledgers.

C. Beth noted that the reserve study bill included in last month’s accounts payable was removed and that accounts payable as of Nov. 30, 2014 was zero, so there was no detail list of accounts payable to reconcile to the ledger balance.

D. Jan emailed Beth on the afternoon of the board meeting, indicating that the December ACH batch had to be changed. Thus, Beth changed the ACH batch and set it up for processing on December 15, 2014.

E. The breakdown between delinquent roof and regular assessment totals was provided in the written report to the board. However, Jan emailed Beth indicating that EPI is still having problems with the software system when there is a change of owner; thus, a prepaid assessments detailed report could not be provided. Two owners names are showing up for the same address; no data is lost about the owner amounts paid, but there should only be one ledger for each unit owner when there is a sale. EPI will email a prepaid assessment report as of Nov. 30, 2014 when the software issue is resolved with EPI’s system software vendor. Beth emphasized that no data is lost, so that no owner should be concerned that proper information is not being tracked about their address.

F. Beth reconciled the income. Both the regular and the roof assessment income is correct as of Nov. 30, 2014.

G. Beth noted that she did receive the financials via email from EPI on Friday, which was very helpful since the Director books came late this time.

H. The auto transfer from the checking account to the Marquette roofing account of the full amount of the roof assessments was done on the 15th of the month. Beth wanted to clarify that the amount transferred from the checking account to the roofing account includes full amount of the roof assessments for all 92 owners, both the $195 collected for roof assessments and the $12 from the $165 assessments going to the roofs rather than the regular assessments, regardless of what is received in cash. If we wanted to review what is transferred to the roofing accounts versus the roofing prepaids and receivables, that can be done by using the totals in those accounts. Beth noted that there was a big deal made last month about what was going from the checking account to the roof accounts; from Beth’s perspective, she noted that the amount of effort that it would take to transfer the exact cash received in the bank accounts each month (in terms of prepaids) is not worth the effort involved. PLEASE NOTE that the amount prepaid by EACH owner is tracked and MUST be tracked, but tracking the total cash actually received each month for the roofs and transferring a different total each month would be very time consuming for both EPI and Beth and does not provide much benefit. Beth noted that it was important to mention that the roofing funds is not going to be applied to anything other than the roofing project AND that the unassigned reserves are needed to help fund the roofing project. Thus, Beth indicated that she did not see any need to change the process that has been used for the past 3 years in terms of how to account for the roofing assessments and should handle them the same way going forward.

Page 2 of 14

I. The Waste Management bill was made electronically and posted by EPI to the ledgers, with its usual one-month lag (with year-to-date expenses being understated by one month’s charges).

J. The net income reflected in the financial statements continues to be overstated by about $7,600 due to the reversal of a prior year’s write off.

K. The next 4 items on the Treasurer Report provided to the board are the list of the unit owners who are new where there are detailed ledgers remaining for both the new and the old unit owners; however, this will get resolved when EPI gets their software vendor to fix this software glitch.

L. Beth noted that $60,000 was transferred from the Marquette roofing account to the checking account since the unassigned reserve account at Marquette was too low. Therefore, Beth needed to replenish the Marquette roofing account with unassigned reserves included at bank accounts other than Marquette. These accounts had not previously been used, and Beth had not received the checks for these accounts that were supposed to be mailed to EPI. Therefore, Beth requested the bank (US Bank) mail checks again to EPI (with no cost to the association); Beth alerted EPI to watch for these checks, which Scott did give to Beth at the December 8, 2014 board meeting. Beth noted that she will write a check from the non-roof bank account and deposit it with Marquette Bank in the roofing reserve account to replenish it for the $60,000 transfer made earlier. Beth will provide documentation to EPI via email when the transfer is made.

M. Beth indicated that she was reminding EPI to get the 1099’s to her by January 31, 2015 so she can prepare the tax return.

N. Beth also requested that the January 31, 2015 financials be emailed to Beth (since the Board is not meeting in January) so that she can use the information needed for the adjustments to the 12/31/14 year-end financial statements.

O. Beth noted that Deborah Gardner provided a financial report to the board at the last month’s meeting. Beth replicated that report, but supplemented it with Beth’s explanations of how she thinks that Deborah calculated the amounts in her report. Beth also provided all board members with a list of discrepancies in terms of Deborah’s numbers. Beth itemized the discrepancies that she found with Deborah’s numbers: (both Deborah’s report with Beth’s notations for calculations and Beth’s list of discrepancies are included as attachments to these minutes)1. Beth noted that the standard gutters is not what the board approved to be included in

the base contract. Deborah’s numbers understated the base contract cost for the gutters by $2,700.

2. Beth’s projected cost for the contract extras (which includes wooden roof deck repairs) included a RANGE of costs, not a single estimate, which is appropriate when the costs are not fixed in amount, but will vary depending on the amount of wooden roof decks that need to be replaced. Beth’s high end of the cost range is $58,400 higher than the contract extra cost amount included in Deborah’s report. Beth noted that her high estimate is taking into consideration what would be the worst-case scenario.

3. Deborah’s numbers excluded the $7,000 cost for the oversized downspouts.4. Deborah’s amounts excluded the $75,000 cost of the work on the vertical walls

(Tyvek, ice/water shield, siding), unless that is one of her unlabeled amounts on her document.

5. The total costs missing from item a in Deborah’s numbers is $143,100.

Page 3 of 14

6. Deborah’s “projected” analysis of roof assessments in item b excludes the $12 per month per owner for years 2013, 2014, and 2015, totaling $39,744.

7. Deborah’s operating expenses are noted for Oct., Nov. and Dec. 2014; however, the October expenses paid in October have already been deducted from the bank account balances as of 10/31/14 used in Deborah document; also, no documentation was provided in how she determined her “Oct., Nov., & Dec 2014 operating expenses”.

8. When projecting for 2015, Deborah does not include all of the projected expenses, but she includes all of the projected assessments. A total of $22,248 in projected expenses is missing from Deborah’s numbers.

9. Deborah’s analysis excludes the remaining assessment income for 2014 for November and December, totaling $66,240.

10. Deborah’s analysis includes the projected assessments for 2015 for all 92 owners, but ignores the fact that some of those assessments are already prepaid and already included in the association’s bank accounts. Thus, $18,965.19 in prepaid assessments were not considered in her document, and thus counted twice in Deborah’s document.

11. Deborah mislabeled her item f as being the balance the regular reserve accounts as of 10/31/14, but the amount represents the balances in ALL of the bank accounts as of 10/31/14.

12. The conclusion drawn by Deborah at the November 2014 meeting was that the association was in financial difficulty, which resulted in an email to EPI from a new owner attending the November meeting saying that the financial condition of the association was poor. Beth noted that she did not believe that the association was in financial difficulty. Beth reminded everyone that there was a document (copied in yellow) given out to all homeowners prior to the September 2014 annual meeting; Beth gave out copies again to all board members. Beth noted that the document was provided to all owners and provided information in great detail about what amounts were included in all of the bank accounts and projecting the assessments going forward, considering the prepaids, and considered every aspect of the roofing project, noting which costs could be handled by the reserves. A range of reserves available after covering the costs was noted using the 7/31/14 financial statement information that was available at the time the report was prepared for distribution to owners. Beth noted that the financial data has only improved since that date since delinquent funds have been collected. The detail for the range of projected costs (not a single estimate, as used by Deborah in her report) was provided in that document. Beth noted that not one single unit owner questioned this document, and that there are plenty of unit owners with financial savvy to be able to evaluate the document. Not one single owner said that they were concerned about the financial condition of the association at the annual meeting. Beth wanted to make it clear to owners that she was also not concerned with the financial condition of the association. Beth distributed one more document which was an update of the report using the financial statement and bank account information as of 10/31/14 (the same date that Deborah attempted to use in her document) so all could see the difference in Beth’s 10/31/14 analysis versus Deborah’s. Beth wished that the owner who attended their first board meeting in November and received the wrong impression was there to get her feedback.

Page 4 of 14

13. Beth noted that we conducted a vote at the November meeting approving Lang as the roofing contractor, but we did not specifically vote on specific sections of the contract. Beth motioned that we vote on the $75,000 segment of the contract.

14. Deborah provided a rebuttal. Deborah claimed that she did not provide her document in advance of the board meeting because she didn’t think she could email information to board members in advance of a board meeting. Deborah claimed she was trying to figure out where we stood relative to the base roofing contract and the $75,000. Beth noted that she did not understand why Deborah did not use the financial information provided to all owners prior to the September 2014 board meeting that outlined in extensive detail the financial aspects of the roofing contract and the financial information about Pheasant Lake; the document was date 9/5/14. Deborah did not respond to Beth on this issue. Deborah then noted that the cost breakdown for the $75,000 was supposed to be obtained from Lang, per the November board meeting discussion. Then she claimed that Lang did not provide the breakdown requested. Scott noted the cost of $7,000 is the cost for the ice/water shield, which is what the board questioned. The cost of the siding and Tyvek is required by code, whether or not enforced by the Village of Tinley Park. Beth noted that the only cost requested to be broken out separately was the ice/water shield and asked Deborah to reference the minutes unanimously approved where this issue was discussed. Deborah dramatically stated again whether there was adequate funding for the roofing project. Then Deborah stated that the association was in an operating deficit. Beth noted that the association was not in a deficit, and that funds merely had to be transferred into the checking account from another bank account. Deborah was making her comment solely based on looking at one bank account, not all bank accounts. Beth noted that Deborah needed to be more careful about statements that she is making that are scaring unit owners. Deborah claimed that she was merely asking questions. Beth noted that Deborah did not ever ask any questions about the 9/5/14 document that was given to all home owners that clearly outlined the financial aspects of the roofing project. Nothing was mentioned at the 9/29/14 annual meeting or the October 2014 budgeting meeting questioning the information presented in the 9/5/14 document, and Deborah had access to that document before it was distributed to owners. Deborah claimed that she didn’t have all of the information needed. Beth noted that Deborah (as a board member) has more information about the roofing project and the financials than any individual unit owner.

15. Beth called for a vote on the $75,000 for the siding of the vertical walls with the Tyvek and ice/water shield. Tom, Jerry and Beth voted yes. Deborah and Bill voted against. The motion carried.

16. Beth motioned that the board vote on the oversized gutters and downspouts. Deborah then claimed that the oversized gutters and downspouts could not be done since they could only replace what was there. Beth noted that the cost is under $10,000, so that improvement did not require owner approval. Jerry seconded the motion to vote. Jerry, Beth, Tom and Bill voted yes for the oversized gutters and downspouts. Deborah voted against them.

17. Deborah then made a motion to have all owners pay their 2015 roof assessments by August or September 2015. Beth then reiterated that meant having owners pay their assessments over 8 months rather than 12 months. Then Deborah stated that she would merely have owners paying $195 monthly, but then have owners pay 5 months

Page 5 of 14

in August. Beth noted that, IF needed, Lang agreed (based on Beth’s request) to allow Pheasant Lake to make payments over the remaining months of 2015 when roof assessments are still being collected. Beth also noted that this is assuming that the actual wood repair costs is higher than the range of costs estimated; Beth asked both Lang and Scott from EPI about Beth’s estimate, and both noted that Beth’s high estimate is very high and not expected to occur; however, the actual costs will still not be known until the roofs are actually replaced. Beth also noted she went to more than 3 banks and was able to get approval for a loan, if needed; this was done to avoid increasing assessments all at once for the soffit/fascia siding (if approved --- but it wasn’t), but also to cover the remaining assessments, if needed, and as yet another cushion for covering unanticipated wood repairs (over and above the high estimate). Thus, Beth has attempted to plan for unexpected contingencies. Beth noted that putting the burden on owners to increase the roof assessment in 2015 so payments can be received over 8 months is not appropriate. Deborah then stated she was not recommending increasing the 2015 assessments, but just make owners pay 4 months of $195 payments in September. Beth noted the problem is still the same, which is making owners pay 12 months of assessments in 8 months. Beth noted that some owners are not financially able to prepay by September. Tom noted that there would be many owners complaining since the meeting room would not have enough seating with the complaints received. When the roof assessments were first announced, owners came in mass to complain and request that a way be found to decrease the payments, so the roofing project was delayed one year so that the payments could be lowered by collecting them over 4 years instead of 3 years. Tom indicated that owners would not be able to pay, and then legal fees would also be incurred to collect the fees. In addition, Beth noted that the mere idea of requiring this is an inappropriate scare to the home owners. Deborah then claimed that she’s never been involved with an association that handled projects the same way. Beth asked Scott about similar situations. Some associations require a lump sum and others require assessment payments over time. Beth asked if the work is done before or after the assessments are collected; Scott stated that sometimes the project is done before the assessments are collected and other times after the assessments are collected. Jerry requested that a specific motion be made by Deborah, and Tom stated that Deborah’s motion was to have all 2015 roof assessments collected by September 2015. Tom asked for a second, but none was received. Thus, Deborah’s motion did not carry.

18. Beth motioned that the board vote on the aluminum siding section of the roofing contract. Beth indicated that she did not support it because the association does not have the funding to do the project, and the owners did not support it, even with a follow up survey of the owners who did not attend or vote on this issue at the annual meeting. Tom did not support it either. This optional separate section of the contract will not be pursued in 2015. No vote was taken.

19. Bill asked the same question that he asked and was answered at the November board meeting, which is why are skylight replacement costs being paid by owners, not the association. Beth noted that skylight replacement costs are being covered by owners since they are windows and have been included in the roofing bid specs as an owner cost all along during the development of the roofing specifications during 2013 and 2014, with those specs being approved by the board. Skylights are also windows, and window costs are the owner’s responsibility. Beth also noted that skylight flashing

Page 6 of 14

cost is being paid by the association. Then Bill asked why ranch units aren’t paying more because their square footage is higher. Bill asked if he had to replace his skylight if he did not want to do so, and all indicated no.

VI. Management ReportA. Scott discussed the draft notice to unit owners and the feedback received from Dustin

from Lang. Dustin indicated that he would like the start date to be earlier, preferably in March, if weather permits. The schedule of what buildings will be done will be requested from Lang to provide to owners. Beth noted that due to the Palm case restriction about what can be done between board meetings without board vote, Beth volunteered to oversee the correspondence and any other issues that arise with Lang since the board is not meeting in January and February 2015. Deborah wants to see the final notice going to owners. Beth indicated that she would get the notice going to owners, but there would not be emailed correspondence between board members with comments about what should/should not ne included prior to the mailing going out to owners. Tom motioned that a vote be taken making Beth the “conduit” with Lang. Jerry seconded the motion. The vote for was unanimous. Beth wanted to make sure that any follow up needed with Lang could be done by her as the designated board liaison, based on the board vote just taken. Beth indicated that she didn’t want board members challenging her authority to act, as was done when a similar vote was taken in the past relative to her handling of the roofing project. Beth indicated again that the board’s vote authorized Beth to give direction to Lang about anything related to the board project before the next board meeting, including the draft letter discussed and anything else currently not anticipated. The board agreed with Beth’s statement.

B. Scott noted that he had the roof replacement contract and would have SMS start on that as soon as they can.

C. Homer Tree Service contract has been included in the director books for the tree at 18212 Mockingbird. That should be done when weather permits.

D. Bush removals were started Dec. 8, 2014 by Quinn & Sons. More work will be done this week, weather permitting. Replacements will be monitored in spring to make sure they take if they are planted in December. However, an owner at 18133 Pheasant Lake Drive changed their mind about a bush removal in the front now also including a bush replacement. The board agreed to have Judy Glazewski review this in spring.

E. Landscape maintenance contracts proposals for 2015 were received from 3 contractors. The bids per season were from Landworks for $37,961, Acres Group $30,912, and MVD for $51,900 (excluding lawn treatments). Scott confirmed that the contracts go through 10/31, per Beth’s request. Acres Group was the landscape contractor for Pheasant Lake prior to Landworks, who has had the contract for the past 3 years. Deborah asked what was budgeted for 2015, and Beth noted it was $31,124. Bill asked about Landworks’ reputation, and Scott noted that they have been Pheasant Lake’s landscaper for the last 3 years. Deborah then talked about the landscape contract specs in terms of the number of the bush trimmings; so Deborah claimed that there will be an extra charge for any extra bush trimmings. Beth noted that at the November board meeting, the board was asked to approve the bid specs to be given to the landscape contractors for bidding. No board members offered any comments, and now a change in the bid specifications are being suggested. Beth noted that we could not wait to get further bid information from landscapers since we would want to select the landscaper now and let them know they

Page 7 of 14

will have the work, which starts April 1. Waiting until the March 2015 board meeting to select a landscaper would be inappropriate. Beth noted that we can only make a decision based on the information currently provided. Tom noted that the contractor selected would be more inclined to give us a better deal on bush trimming. Tom motioned to approve Acres. The board unanimously approved Acres. However, Deborah indicated she wanted an extra trimming. There was no further discussion on Deborah’s comment.

F. The lake maintenance contract for 2015 has been signed.G. The Palm Review confirmed that taking direction from the President and Treasurer is not

in violation of the Palm decision. However, it does not mean that the President and Treasurer have unilateral authority to act on behalf of the board unless the board delegates authority to that board member. Deborah then asked why a board member sent a letter to an owner without clearing it with the rest of the board. Deborah stated that she never saw the email from the unit owner. A letter was drafted by a board member and not cleared with the rest of the board. So, Beth asked who should be authorized when there is a question about the financial status of the association when a new owner indicated that they were scared about the financial status of the association. What board member should respond to that? Beth noted that the owner received the document dated 9/5/14 given to all owners at the annual meeting about the financial information associated with the roofing project. They also received the information about the online system for checking their assessment balances because they were concerned about whether their assessments were processed properly. The owner received assurance from someone who is a CPA that the financial condition of the association was not in jeopardy. Then Deborah mentioned who audits the association, and she said nobody audits us. Beth then suggested that be put to a board vote. Deborah also said someone else should prepare the tax return, which she claims is a form of an audit. Then Deborah complained that she did not receive bank statements every month. Scott noted that bank statements are not typically given to board members each month. Beth noted that EPI provides monthly bank reconciliations to Beth and that if Deborah does not trust Beth’s comments that EPI has done them properly, those can be scanned and emailed to board members. Deborah then wanted to make it clear that all correspondence sent out should be approved by the board before it is sent. Beth noted that EPI sends out violation notices and financial delinquency notices without board approval; requiring the board to approve that correspondence prior to being mailed would unnecessary delay getting things done on a timely basis. Then Deborah pointed out an error in a notice raised by and owner and discussed at the prior month’s board meeting; Beth noted that that was the only error she can remember occurring in a very long time, and it did get resolved. Beth also noted that if a unit owner is concerned about the financial condition of the association, and when there is a qualified Treasurer who is a CPA can respond to it, then questioning whether the Treasurer should be able to respond to that owner’s concerns is outrageous. Deborah never responded to Beth’s comment. Deborah repeated that all letters going to owners between board meetings should be approved by the board. Beth suggested that Deborah draft her ideas of what she is proposing in a written document and provide it to the board in advance on the next board meeting for all to review and discuss. Jerry also stated that her letter should appropriately reference the declaration and bylaws and consider Roberts Rules of Order.

H. A rule about using electronic notices for owner mailings was unanimously approved by the board.

Page 8 of 14

I. A violation appeal for dog feces and garbage cans being left out was discussed. Beth noted that the address was a Frankfort address, and Scott noted that this was for a rental unit. The garbage can was out due to it being replaced, if that is indeed true. Since dog feces were found previously, the board voted to waive the garbage can fee but not the dog feces fine.

J. The owner request to be reimbursed for a chimney replacement was reviewed by the attorney, and the attorney did not recommend reimbursement. Bill then asked questions about the initial letter to the owner 10 years ago about replacing their rusty chimney cap. Beth noted that this was discussed in length at the last board meeting and that we would just get the attorney’s opinion about not reimbursing the owner. Now that we have the attorney’s opinion, we should not have to discuss the same issues over again. Then Bill stated why should we pay the attorney $250 when this could be settled for $525. Tom noted that the attorney said not to reimburse for the 10-year-old chimney cap. Then Deborah had a comment about the second part of the attorney’s opinion which indicated that he was not sure about the board’s decision to replace all chimney caps. Tom put the decision to a vote. Tom, Beth, Deborah and Jerry voted against the reimbursement; Bill voted yes for the owner’s reimbursement. Thus, the board did not approve the owner reimbursement.

K. The next item discussed was related to an owner who wanted a response about prior correspondence relating to comments made to a board member outside a board meeting. The owner claimed that they made comments to a board member as a landscape committee member and was not violating any association policies and procedures. Tom noted that the board is not supposed to be initiating communication about association business with owners and vice versa, and owners are not supposed to initiate conversations with contractors and their help. Beth noted that the policy approved by multiple board about owner communications is on the website. The board unanimously authorized EPI to send out such a letter to this owner as follow up.

L. A complaint about dog feces was noted by an owner in written correspondence to EPI, and the owner also requested than an additional month of landscaping work be done that extends the contract until November 30th instead of 10/31. Tom Krippel noted that the cost of extending the landscape contract by one month was previously addressed when he was on the board, and the cost involved thousands of dollars and was not worth the added cost. No other board members had any other comments.

M. Scott mentioned that the owners with electrical chords running across the sidewalks will get a notice about securing them. Beth raised concerns about the damage they would cause to contractor equipment or the contractor personnel. Tom mentioned that the letters to owners should indicate that the owner is responsible if the chord is damaged and for any damage to snow blowers or other equipment or the contractor’s personnel doing work as a result of the electrical chords.

VII. Old BusinessA. Tom mentioned that he worked on the fence in the rear of Bluebird by putting in 2X4’s as

a temporary fix; SMS checked it out and suggested a permanent fix in Spring.B. Tom reported that the electrician came out and checked the front entrance light on the

west side and stated that the wattage of the light bulb had to be lowered and shouldn’t burn out any more. The electrician indicated he would not charge the association for his visit.

Page 9 of 14

VIII. New BusinessA. Since Deborah brought up the topic of having an audit done and having someone else

prepare the tax returns, Beth suggested that the board discuss the issue and vote on it. Beth noted that it is not required by the declaration, but that it is up to the board about whether to do an audit. Tom indicated that he did not see any problems with having a teaching CPA and with everything going through EPI. Tom and Bill asked about the cost, and Scott mentioned he would expect the cost of an audit to be about $3,000 to $3,500. Bill asked when the last time an audit was done, and Scott mentioned that he did not think one was ever done. Bill indicated that if an audit was done, then we could get confirmation that everything done was 100% correct. Scott then noted that they would look over JUST the last year’s financials. Tom noted that the level of detail coming from Beth’s information is far more extensive than the level of detail that would be provided by an external auditor’s report. Bill stated that million dollar corporations have an audit, so why don’t we. Tom noted that the larger corporations have $3,000 to $4,000 to throw away and they might not have the trust in their accountant that he has in ours. Deborah stated that there is one person reviewing contracts and write bills and doing everything, and they can’t audit themselves. Deborah also believes that an accountant should file the taxes. Beth noted that there is not just one person who reviews the contracts and writes the bills. Beth noted that EPI co-signs all checks that are based on written documentation that they review; thus, there are at least 2 sets of eyes on every transaction in terms of writing checks. Thus, it is an inaccurate statement that one person is completely in charge of the financial transactions. Deborah then stated that they just do what the board tells them. Beth noted that EPI is still supposed to review all documentation and not sign a check unless the check is appropriately paying a cost incurred by the association before giving it to the Treasurer for her signature. Deborah noted that the audit should be done but there is not funds to do it. Tom suggested that it be put to a vote. Deborah and Bill voted for an audit. Tom and Jerry voted against having an audit. Since the vote was tied, then even though Beth acknowledged that there is a conflict of interest with her voting on this issue because she is the current Treasurer, Beth did not believe that it was necessary to incur the additional cost. Beth also noted that the board and the association gets far more financial information from her as a Treasurer than would be provided by an external audit. Thus, the final vote was 3 against an audit and 2 for an audit. Therefore, the motion to have an external audit did not pass.

B. Jerry then noted that Deborah says that she has many things hidden from her that are not fully explained. Jerry wanted Deborah to explain why she did not disclose to unit owners that her unit was up for sale when she was running for the board at the last annual meeting. Deborah asked what that has to do with running for the board; Deborah stated that she may not intend to sell but only has her unit up for sale just to see how much it is worth and what her options were. Jerry noted that she was hiding this information from owners, and Deborah claimed she was not. Jerry stated that Deborah has repeatedly stated that we should be up front with all of the owners to make sure that they knew exactly what was going on. Jerry found it to be deceitful to not disclose the fact that her unit was up for sale when running for the board.

C. Bill then stated that removing Deborah from the Vice President’s office was done without any prior notice to the board. Jerry pointed out that the issue was raised in an open, public board meeting and voted on at an open, public board meeting. That is all that was

Page 10 of 14

required. Bill still claimed it was wrong because Bill claimed it is not what the by laws and declaration states. Then Bill announced that he was walking out of the meeting and not staying for the rest of the board meeting.

D. The electrical chord running across the stoops was identified as a problem. Jerry stated that he thought running chords across the sidewalk is a Tinley Park Village violation. The letter going to owners should be adjusted accordingly. Owners will be given 10 days to correct the problem for anything that’s a hindrance to getting work done.

E. The 8832 Bluebird sump pump discharge has been re-directed and is not leading toward the sidewalk. We will keep an eye on this in the future to see if the redirection works.

F. Dog waste on the lawn was reported for a unit for multiple previous violations for dog feces, and those fees are still delinquent. Beth noted that there is an accelerated fee for multiple violations, which Scott confirmed is $25 per violation instead of $20. The board concurred.

G. The 8905 Bluebird unit item was already addressed.H. A tree stump has not been removed yet for one of the tree removals done by Smitty’s.I. Snow markers are being placed at 18213 through 18217 PLD to avoid snow piling around

the mailboxes.J. Beth brought samples obtained from Lang. Jerry voted on the lightest grey. Deborah

voted on the darkest grey. The color is pewter grey that most board members liked. Bill Lang says that slate is closest to our current color.

K. The majority of the open work orders are related to tree trimmings that we hope to get done before the roofing project starts, but Lang may be able to work around most of these if they start before the tree trimming is completed.

L. Deborah suggested just closing an open work order open since 2013, but it was pointed out to her that this issue should be fixed.

M. Beth noted a 18201 PLD owner complaint about the driveway condition causing water in his garage. Scott told the owner that the driveway was lower than the garage pad, and the owner agreed he needed to change his garage door seal. Then the owner complained about his driveway repairs. The board agreed that driveway repairs would be done based on contractor inspection next year, along with the bi-annual sealcoating. The owner will be sent a letter to that effect.

N. Work orders to be closed are about the front entrance lights and about snow piling up by mailboxes.

O. The 18201 PLD complaint about a roof issue would be done at the same time as the roof issue being addressed that was reported by the unit owner on Mockingbird at tonight’s meeting.

IX. The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 8:35 pm but the open meeting was reopened and reconvened due to items in the inspection report and work orders requiring open meeting discussion and voting, per items D through O above under New Business above.

X. The meeting adjourned at 9 pm.

Page 11 of 14

Page 12 of 14

Page 13 of 14

Page 14 of 14