Two years ago, the Board of Trustees voted to have a shed erected on a section of common ground. The board decided to do this because we are self-managed association and have a maintenance man who does the necessary repairs. The shed was needed to store materials, ladders, tools, etc. There was no question from any of the residents as to the legality of building the shed. The board has now decided to put in a drive leading to the shed because the constant driving over the grass has begun to erode the lawn making ruts and, in general, making that area a bit messy. Now, one of the residents has decided that the board is overstepping its bounds by not having a vote on this expenditure of $2,100. He is claiming this is a capital expenditure and it needs to be approved by the residents. The board feels that, since there was no need for a vote for the shed, the drive is necessary to (1) complete the shed and (2) improve the area around the shed which is getting close to shabby. Should the board go ahead with this drive without putting it to a vote? Can this be called a capital expenditure?
Answers (5)
What are your thoughts on this topic? Please share your answers below. We ask that you remain respectful of each other, and be advised that responses are monitored.
