Council Hears Board's Side Of Light Issue
It was a Proverbial night at Council as the board of a condominium corporation came to shed some light on their side of the story involving a dispute with a resident owner.
Speaking on behalf of the Alpine II Condominium board Donna Matthews vice-president and treasurer said Council was wrong in making an earlier decision without hearing their side of the story.
Matthews began her presentation by telling Council despite how condominiums are marketed it is not a carefree lifestyle but it also includes work.
“Some of these owners who are looking force carefree lifestyle may be asked to be part of the board at some time. It is not all holding handstand ready to burst into song ‘Happy Days Are Here Again',” she said.
Condominium boards are bound by extensive rules and regulations which they must abide by, she stated.
“The well being of the corporation as a whole and not just an individual” must be considered and “living in Moose Jaw does not make us exempt from these regulations,” Matthews said.
“Not all owners will like all decisions and some will like none of them but that is true in everyday life as well.”
The dispute between the Alpine II Condominium board and resident owner Kathi Hagman revolved around a new LED security light being too bright. Concerns were it illuminated not only the parking lot but Ms Hagman's unit as well. After hearing her concerns Council authorized issuing a compliance order under Bylaw #5484 the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw against the condo corporation.
Light seen in Kathi Hagman's condo - supplied photo
Matthews said the security light was installed in response to the city's crime rate.
“Moose Jaw Police advised in 2018 Moose Jaw had the second highest crime rate in the province. And it was armed with this information such as we tried to pay as much security to members both to property and to personal safety.”
Matthews said the entire dispute and “all of the negative publicity from Council could have been avoided if we had been aware of or consulted about the situation as presented to you.”
“So many simple things could have been done to avoid this mess.”
Matthews went on to further claim “we attempted to have a meeting with the Mayor but this was refused.”
She said the board was not ascribing blame but wanted to provide the City with the procedures, Acts, guidelines and bylaws they – and other condominium boards – are bound to.
“We wanted you to see we are not a rogue board. We are hardworking volunteer owners who care deeply about our community.”
Matthews claimed the board had tried to work with the owner “without much success.”
“We have always endeavored to take our personal feelings out of our decisions. And we will continue to work with her.”
Matthews said the board had checked how the light shone in other apartments but were not allowed inside of Hagman's suite to check. Instead they were sent pictures of the light with the blinds open prompting the board to suggest closing the blinds.
Despite the board feeling they were acting in the best interests of everyone the light – the same as used by Moose Jaw Housing – has been changed.
“It is a smaller LED light it is not directed to any unit either. However it does not illuminate the parking lot as completely as before. And we are going to have to put up an additional light to eliminate shady areas in an attempt to prevent accidents and address security concerns.”
Matthews said the board was hoping the City would adopt a policy in controversial situations as the one presented with and defer any decisions until both sides are heard.
“What should have been a civil matter was treated as a bylaw infraction of separate properties.”
Matthews said all 23 units in the condo complex shared property tax for common areas on their tax bill.
“Based on the percentage ownership on that (common) property in Ms Hagman's case was 5.1 percent. Plus they pay the individual tax on their individual unit.”
In their written request to Council the board said Council had overstepped its bounds in the interpretation of ownership as it applies to condominiums.
After what had happened the board now had to “pick up the pieces and try to repair the damaging effects this has caused to all 23 owners including Ms Hagman.”
Councillor Brian Swanson said he was unsure if his position on the light in question would have changed but “there is a lesson to be learnt we should have been able to have the opportunity to hear the other side.”
In a 7 – 0 vote the matter was received and filed.
