News, sports, politics, blogs and forums for Chaska, Minnesota • (952) 448-2650

Chaska, Minnesota

Keep up with the Herald! Sign up for email newsletters and RSS feeds.
Click to Login
No account? Sign up!

Advertising

Jonathan residents ready to fight for association's future


» Read similar stories filed under:

By Mollee Francisco 

With the chambers full, Jonathan residents gathered in the hallway outside, straining to hear what their neighbors had to say.

They gathered Tuesday night to give input as to whether or not the Jonathan Association Board of Directors should go to court to seek a judge’s opinion on neighborhoods annexed into the association after 1979.

The Jonathan Association is a large homeowners association encompassing almost 8,000 Chaska residents in 2,900 households, spread across 23 neighborhoods. But the validity of up to 60 percent of those neighborhoods, essentially anything added after the Jonathan Development Corporation ceased to exist, has been called into question by Jonathan lawyers who believe those neighborhoods were brought into the association illegally.

“This is a night for you to listen,” Rod Krass, a Jonathan attorney, advised the Jonathan board, which was meeting in the Chaska City Council Chambers. “Simply listen.”

For two hours, residents approached the podium to talk. Some asked questions of the board’s legal counsel, while others stated their reasons for wanting the association to remain intact or for their neighborhood to be released.

Some of the most contentious neighborhoods, like Clover Ridge and Autumn Woods, had the widest range of opinions.

“I don’t want my money, my dues, spent on this,” said Katie Tierney, a resident of the Clover Ridge neighborhood, of the proposed legal action. Tierney said she understood her dues were supposed to be spent on maintaining association amenities.

Joan Felt, who lives in Clover Ridge Village and also belongs to a condominium association, felt differently.

“I believe our dues support old Jonathan,” she said. “We don’t see any of it. I don’t see any purpose of being in Jonathan.”

Felt’s neighbor, Thomas Vanspeybroeck, disagreed. “They do stuff for all of us,” he said. “You can’t see that from an armchair. You have to get out, experience it.

“I was given a handbook, educated as a homeowner,” he continued. “I knew I would belong to two associations.”

Winston Landphier, who lives in Autumn Woods, said that he didn’t “see any value” in the association, adding that he had yet to talk to anyone in his neighborhood that wanted to be a part of the association.

Advertisement. Article continues below.

But almost immediately, his statements were contradicted by Autumn Woods residents Sandy Rosco and Kay Rothe.

“We support the Jonathan Association in Autumn Woods,” said Rosco.

 Former executive director and long-time resident Gayle Kincannon admitted to being confounded by the board’s actions. “I regret to be here because it seems that the Jonathan Association has become an enemy of the people it was supposed to serve,” she said.

Some residents pleaded with the board to make it easier to withdraw their neighborhoods from the association (Krass said the declarations on the land make that virtually impossible) while others worried about the cost of trying to create new associations if their neighborhoods were determined to have been added improperly.

Money became a key issue as the evening waned. Board President Tom Davis divulged that more than $51,000 had already been spent on legal counsel regarding the annexations.

“How much of the treasury will go toward this project?” asked Eitel Circle resident Todd Perschmann. “Who will pay the attorneys if there isn’t enough money?”

Residents also asked what could happen to those original neighborhoods if newer neighborhoods were allowed out of the association.

“Be careful what you ask for,” said Marsh Halberg, Jonathan resident and former legal counsel for the association. “You should be concerned about what would happen if this succeeds.

“Forty percent of the association cannot support the whole,” he continued. “It will implode.”

Halberg asked the board if there had been discussion of funding an opposing view. When he was told that the board had not entertained any such discussion, he invited members of the audience to have that discussion following the meeting.

During that gathering, which about 50 residents stuck around for, Halberg told residents that “opposing litigation was already in process” and warned them that they would be asked to help contribute funds to it.



The next Jonathan...

Back to page top

The next Jonathan Association Board of Directors meeting will be held Tuesday, October 9 at 6:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers, One City Hall Plaza.

(Mollee Francisco is a staff writer for the Chaska Herald. She can be reached at mfrancisco@swpub.com.)


Submitted by Mollee Francisco on October 5, 2007 - 10:27am.

The actual meeting will...

Back to page top

The actual meeting will start at 7 p.m. according to the Jonathan Association Web site. There will be a half hour workshop on the 2008 budget at 6:30 p.m.
Here is the agenda for tonight's meeting: http://www.jonathaninchaska.com/docs/2007/agendas/Agenda%2010-09-07.pdf

(Mollee Francisco is a staff writer for the Chaska Herald. She can be reached at mfrancisco@swpub.com.)


Submitted by Mollee Francisco on October 9, 2007 - 11:17am.

Has anyone else watched the...

Back to page top

Has anyone else watched the replay of the Jonathan Meeting yet? If not, go to the City of Chaska's Video-on-Demand service and take a look (http://www.chaskacommunitycenter.com/vod/jon10-2-07.htm).

I guess what's really bothering me, now that I can look back at the proceedings, is that the attorneys would not answer a very, very simple question, posed by a number of Jonathan residents: How much is all this going to cost?

The attorneys had done very little due diligence in this process. Here are some examples, brought up by our neighbors during the meeting:
* The attorneys had failed to contact ANYONE from the original developer, the Jonathan Development Corporation, even though such people are still alive and well in Minnesota.
* The attorneys misleadingly called the Aeon Homes (formerly Central Community Housing Trust) project on the corner of Hundertmark and Clover Ridge Drive a "neighborhood," when, in fact, it is a retail and apartment complex.
* The attorneys had not spoken to former Executive Directors of the Jonathan Association, including Gayle Kincannon.
* The attorneys had not spoken with the former legal counsel to the Association, Marsh Hallberg.

I was also frustrated by the representatives of the townhome complexes. These representatives said time and time again that they are being "double charged," and that they don't use the Jonathan amenities. This requires two answers:

First, townhome associations do not just pay for the upkeep of common property. For their monthly sub-association dues, townhome owners receive:

* all of their exterior landscaping, including lawn mowing, tree maintenance, and bush trimming
* all of their snow removal, from their sidewalks and driveways
* an escrow account to be used to replace and repair exterior portions of their homes, including roofs, siding, personal walkways, and shared sidewalks.

It is simply incorrect to say that because a townhome owner pays sub-association dues to cover those costs, that they should somehow be exempt from paying dues to provide maintenance to the common property outside their windows.

Second, many of the townhome owners from the Traditions at Clover Ridge Townhome Association claim that they don't use the Jonathan common property. However, I see them several times a day running their dogs, off-leash, on the Jonathan common property next to my home. There are at least 7 townhome owners who are there DAILY, so claiming that they receive no benefit from their Jonathan Association dues is disingenuous, at best. Plus, some of them like to leave "presents" from their dogs for the kids who play football on that same piece of property.

Finally, I should point out what one of the Realtors mentioned during the meeting on Tuesday... If you're living in Jonathan, and are thinking of selling your house in the next few years, I wish you GOOD LUCK. Your Realtor is obligated by law to inform any potential buyers that there is pending litigation that can affect your property. Since the Jonathan Association Board of Directors continues to fail to provide property owners with any idea of what this legal action may cost, the chances that someone is going to buy your home are small - they don't know what they could be signing up for by buying your property. They'll go to Points West, or Chevalle, or somewhere where the Board of Directors isn't trying to tear apart the community.

Oh, and hiding the litigation from potential buyers wouldn't be smart, either. What happens if you don't mention this pending litigation to the potential buyer, and the Jonathan Association problems cause them to owe $15,000 to cover the costs of this legal action? The buyers can sue you for not disclosing material information about the property prior to the sale.

So, Jonathan neighbors, I urge you to take a good, hard look at the facts here. No matter what you WANT to believe, this is your money, your property value, and your community and the Jonathan Association Board of Directors is trying to take it all from you.

Think about how much you have to lose if this litigation succeeds, and how very little you can possibly gain.

-Katie Tierney
Traditions at Clover Ridge (Single-family)


Submitted by txaggie94 on October 7, 2007 - 1:48pm.

I saw most of the meeting on...

Back to page top

I saw most of the meeting on TV and was once again unimpressed with the majority of board. They provided little or no information to the lawyers for accurate research yet have spent a LOT of our money to fund their personal goal. They are definately not holding up their responsiblity to maintain our association. I agree with everything that Katie Tierney stated. Townhome owners should understand that the townhome fees are completely seperate from Jonathan fees.- they pay for completly diferent things. I orginally purchased in Jonathan a townhome - and understood the purpose of the seperate dues. I now own a single family home in the same area because I enjoyed Jonathan so much. As it now stands I wish I had gotten out of Jonathan - the board seems taking us into a deep well without any chance of a rope or pail to pull us out! They have destroyed the community that was once Jonathan - the clean up days of getting together with neighbors, picking up around our neighboorhood. The availablity to use the beach - without life guards there is no bathroom available for even picnics. The 4th of July party and bands..

I would like to see all that returned.

Lynn Zorn & John Zurn
Chaska & Jonathan Residents


Submitted by zzfamily on October 8, 2007 - 5:21pm.

I'm very angry at the fact...

Back to page top

I'm very angry at the fact that $51,000 has already been spent on legal fees. I think that money would have been better spent cleaning up Lake Grace and making it usable again. It's so frustrating to know that a few dissatisfied people can spend so much of the association's money and there seems to be nothing we can do about it.


Submitted by jennyjean4 on October 9, 2007 - 3:13pm.

It may be of interest to...

Back to page top

It may be of interest to note that as of today, February 28, 2008, there are still no minutes to this "Special Meeting" on the Jonathan website; nor were they discussed at the next Board Meeting.

One homeowner asked the board at the beginning of the Q & A session, "Is somebody taking minutes?" The response from the President, Tom Davis was, "We're being filmed". After some protest from audience members, the actual board Secretary (as we learned at the Annual Meeting in 2008), Cal Kuhlman responded, "Minutes are being taken as appropriate."

Here we are almost five (5) months later and there are no minutes. I guess the board and Mr. Kuhlman didn't deem what many consider the most important meeting in the history of the Association, "appropriate".

Maybe it was the fact that most of those who spoke didn't support the boards position to proceed with legal action. Or, was it as one homeowner said during the meeting, that the meeting was a charade because the board didn't care what the Membership wanted and they were going to continue to use the Association's money to serve their own needs?

For a board to continually say their method of communication to the Members was through the meeting minutes, the fact there are no minutes for this "Special Meeting" certainly raises questions.


Submitted by sfwug on February 28, 2008 - 9:57pm.

Advertising

Recent comments

Advertising

Who's new

  • J24A
  • Debbie Boe
  • Guest
  • lawsk
  • vinnydog

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 505 guests online.

Advertising