Minnesota Community Living - November/December 2008
From The President By Mark Schoenfelder
LAC Update By John R. Dorgan, Legislative Action Committee Chair
Managing a Catastrophic Event in Your Community
How Secure Are Your Deposits? By Julie Stewart, Prosperan Bank
CAI-MN Member News
From the President
I would like to thank the committee members for all of their hard work. It is incredible to see the amount of growth taking place at CAI-MN. Jon Edin of Levin and Stein and the Education Committee have continued to do an excellent job by continuing to grow the managers luncheons, Vision Awards and the upcoming Vendor Appreciation event. The golf event was a huge success and all golf and sponsor spots will be filled next year. The Legislative Action committee, led by John Dorgan, continues to be very active. Mark Johnson of Arcstone was excited to announce that the previous issue of Minnesota Community Living was the largest ever in CAI’s history.
One of the most exciting committees is the Membership committee. We reached out to Mike Laukka of Laukka Management to chair this committee and he has brought new energy and vision to the committee. They set lofty goals of 200 new members and sponsors. Mr. Laukka and the committee then challenged several of the management companies to recruit 10 business partners each. The committee felt that if a vendor is committed to the industry, he or she should participate in CAI. Mark Gittleman of Gittleman Management has reported that his primary vendors have been very receptive to becoming CAI Vendor Sponsors. Currently, he has eight new vendor sponsors signed up. We will publish the results of the contest in the next issue.
We can all help in the effort to recruit new members for CAI-MN. New members bring new ideas and new energy. Board members should expect their managers and vendors to commit to the industry and be CAI-MN members. Homeowner associations receive the benefit of the board members’ time, and should give them the resources of CAI to help them serve the homeowners well. The dollars at stake are huge and the costs are tiny.
In the upcoming months, CAI-MN will extend the recruiting effort to the individual homeowner associations. We will need volunteers to help with the effort to attract new association board members. Our Homeowner Training Track (HOTT) led by Sara Lassilla of Jellinek, Metz, McDonald Ltd and Linda Wilkins of Cornerstone Management is putting together a quarterly CAI-MN program for the HOAs that will begin after the New Year.
Legislative Action Committee Update
How many of you saw the word “LAC” in the above headline and wondered if this article was going to discuss the pollution level in some French lake? Well, please keep reading; you are exactly the type of person this article has been written for – someone who is interested in CAI but who may not be familiar with the legislative initiatives that CAI has been pursuing. Hopefully, after reading this article you will have a better understanding of those initiatives, as well as some valuable insight into the varied ways that CAI is attempting to improve community living.
The acronym, “LAC,” refers to the Minnesota CAI Legislative Action Committee, which has just finished a busy, successful year and is looking forward to even greater success in the upcoming months! The LAC is the CAI committee that has as its mission the task of attempting to improve the laws governing community associations (also known as common interest communities or “CICs”). Such improvements are accomplished, for the most part, through the committee’s efforts to amend existing statutes that affect CICs. Other ways in which the LAC seeks to accomplish its mission are through direct contacts with state legislators – contacts that will hopefully be both immediately informative and also provide the specific legislators with people and resources they can look to in the future in matters which might affect CICs. Additionally, with the assistance of the national office of CAI, the LAC “tracks” legislation that might in some way affect CICs. In appropriate circumstances the LAC, will notify specific legislators of the LAC’s positions related to such legislation.
The LAC is comprised of 10 to 12 CAI members representing the various CAI membership categories – homeowners, managers, business associates, etc. (The committee membership number is not exact, as we are still looking for one or two new homeowner members to add to this year’s committee roster.) The LAC meets once a month – currently the second Wednesday of the month and generally from 7:30-9:30 a.m. – at the CAI-MN offices in St. Paul. The LAC’s “initiatives” are generally derived from ideas generated by committee members themselves – or by outside persons or other sources who have run into problems dealing with some statute-related CIC issues. For example, one LAC member’s association has encountered a problem trying to convert some parking space “units” that are owned by the association into “common area” parking spaces. Unfortunately, the applicable statute (the Minnesota Common Interest Ownership Act – hereinafter referred to as “MCIOA”) currently requires 100% approval of the association’s members before the units can be converted into common area, since such a conversion would result in a reallocation of ownership interests in the common area. As many of you may be aware, it is almost impossible to obtain 100% membership approval for anything, so the parking space units owned by that association have not yet been converted into common areas. However, a LAC subcommittee that was looking into the matter has proposed an amendment to MCIOA that we believe will solve the problem – without the necessity of 100% approval – and we are hoping the amendment will be adopted by the Minnesota Legislature in the upcoming legislative session.
In matters involving amendments to MCIOA, as exemplified above, the LAC is directly involved with the MCIOA Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association Real Property Section. The MCIOA Committee’s focus – as its name would suggest – is on proposing amendments to MCIOA that will be submitted to the legislature as part of the entire Real Property Section bill that is generally submitted in time for each legislative session. The LAC therefore works closely with the MCIOA Committee – both to assist the committee with its workload and also to propose amendments that may not even have been on the committee’s “To Do” list. This collaborative arrangement with the MCIOA Committee allows the LAC to avoid the duplication of effort which might otherwise result if the LAC independently sought to affect changes to MCIOA. The LAC also works closely with the Minnesota Multi-Housing Association (MMHA) on various issues relating to CICs.
In matters that do not involve MCIOA, the LAC might work independently – or with another organization such as the MMHA – to propose to the legislature appropriate statutory amendments befitting the LAC’s mission. For example, the LAC has been looking at some provisions of the Minnesota statutes relating to mortgage foreclosures – especially the recent amendments to those statutes – and is working on proposed amendments that, if adopted, would avoid the additional burdens on associations which arguably are created by those statutes.
Here are just a few more of the issues, initiatives, amendments, etc., that the LAC is currently working on or has recently completed:
Creating a Statewide Directory of CICs
The State of Minnesota currently has no directory or other data base which separately lists the thousands of CICs in this state. Although most community associations are non-profit corporations, they may also be “for profit” corporations. Moreover, it is impossible to determine from the non-profit corporation data base all of the non-profit corporations which are CIC associations. The LAC is therefore working to develop a separate statewide CIC association data base.
Amending the Statutory “Replacement Reserve” Requirements
Although MCIOA requires CIC associations to maintain “adequate” replacement reserves, the statute doesn’t define what “adequate” means. As a result, many associations’ replacement reserve accounts are severely underfunded – with that fact, in many cases, not becoming evident until “large budget” items (roof, siding, etc.) have to be replaced. The LAC is working on amendments to MCIOA that will make the statutory replacement reserve language clearer – and hopefully allow CIC associations to avoid the “shock” they might otherwise encounter when their replacement reserve account funds have to be spent. The LAC is also considering a “reserve study” requirement in MCIOA which would require CIC associations to review their replacement reserve funding levels on a consistent basis and better prepare for the times when replacement funds will be needed.
Allowing Associations to Avoid Assessment Increase Limitations
Many CIC governing documents – usually declarations – contain provisions which limit the amounts by which annual assessments may be increased each year. Such limitations are usually expressed in terms of percentages (i.e., “no more than 5% per year”) or specific amounts (i.e., “no more than $15 per month”). While such limitations might have been great selling points for developers (“Your assessments are GUARANTEED to remain low!”), they didn’t and don’t address the reality of price increases in real-life, day-to-day association operations. The LAC is looking at amending MCIOA to allow associations to avoid such assessment increase limitations.
Allowing Associations to Avoid Being “Hamstrung” by Certain Voting Percentage Requirements in their Governing Documents
This is a hot topic that covers various types of problems associations have encountered in trying to manage their associations. Many CIC declarations and/or bylaws require extremely high percentages of membership approval – some as high as 100% – for any amendment to those documents. Many declarations and/or bylaws also require as much as 100% mortgagee approval before an amendment can be passed. As mentioned earlier in this article, such onerous voting percentage requirements severely hamstring associations which may only be trying to modernize their governing documents but are prevented from doing so by their own unreasonable voting percentage requirements. The LAC is looking at how to amend MCIOA in a way that would allow associations to avoid such severe requirements but also maintain the “spirit” or intent behind them.
There are a number of other issues the LAC has addressed or is currently involved with – from problems related to utility shut-offs in individual units to matters involving the “greening” of America and how associations will need to deal with energy conservation issues. Solar power, wind power and energy planning are topics the LAC has addressed – and will continue to deal with. It is certainly no exaggeration to say that the LAC is one of CAI Minnesota’s most active and vibrant committees – and that the LAC is looking forward to addressing whatever other issues might be of interest to Minnesota’s community associations!
Managing a Catastrophic Event in Your Community
Editor’s Note: This article was written in colloboration by three authors and was written in reflection of the events of the tornoado that ripped through the Hugo, MN, Association of Water’s Edge on May 25, 2008. The authors are: Don C. Huizenga, General Contractor, National Commercial Manager, American Building Contractors, Inc.; Nicole Wilkes, Senior Community Manager, Community Development, Inc.; and Adam W. Heaton, Homeowner, Attorney & President, Heaton & Associates.
No one can be fully prepared for a weather-related catastrophic event. As hard as we try, Mother Nature will not allow us to predict or prepare for what she has in store. We are at her mercy. It may appear as though we are experiencing more catastrophic weather than at any other time, but in reality there simply is more developed land to be destroyed by these weather systems today than in the past. In Minnesota, communities have spread throughout the metro area like a California wildfire. Where there was once a cornfield now exist more than one thousand new homes. Had a tornado landed in some of these areas five years ago, it wouldn’t have been more than a blip on the news. But now that people live in that cornfield, we run the risk of heavy property damage and possible loss of life. It is something we cannot control, but we can definitely educate and prepare.
A disaster in a townhome or condo community exposes an entirely new set of problems for people. In a neighborhood of single-family homes, for instance, homeowners are responsible for only themselves. They have their own homes, they have different insurance companies, and they must rely on their own intuition in dealing with the event. In a townhome, planned community, or condominium community, the residents rely on others to handle the aftermath. In this case, there are the homeowners, the board of directors of the association, the management company, the insurance company, and the contractor. When the weather strikes an association, most of these people are already in place, ready to do what is needed to start the emergency repairs, field calls, and handle individual issues. The single-family homeowner must handle all of these decisions themselves.
Once the storm has passed and the damage done, homeowners will have a wide variety of expectations. There are so many different personalities involved here that it is impossible to pinpoint what everyone expects; however, these many personalities can each be associated with one of three basic categories which we refer to as the 10-80-10 personalities. Generally speaking, 10 percent of the people will not have any significant expectations. They could really care less about anything that has happened or what will happen. Most homeowners, approximately 80 percent, will have what many would consider as normal expectations. They want their emergency repairs taken care of right away and they are willing to do it themselves if necessary. They are patient, they are helpful, and they know that the most important thing they can do is help their neighbors first and worry about their issues second.
The remaining 10 percent of the homeowners tend to be those with the highest expectations. They typically expect their issues to be handled immediately. They demand that everything be perfect and they expect someone else will do it. They come across to others as if they believe their problems are the most important ones on the block. They frequently call or write the board or management company to demand immediate action and can be the hardest to work with as compared to the other homeowners. These homeowners may simply not understand all that is involved in handling and managing the aftermath; they may have no idea what the board of directors, the management company personnel, or the general contractor must go through in order to return their home to its pre-disaster condition. As a result, their expectations will be significantly different from reality until someone has the opportunity to patiently explain the many challenging factors involved in returning their home to its previous condition. …Or, the homeowner could simply not care; either way, these homeowners are the most challenging.
The board of directors as a whole typically will just expect that the management company will stay on top of things. They want to make sure everyone is safe and that the emergency repairs are completed in a timely manner. They want to know that the management company they hired has a good handle on what is happening now and what will happen in the future. This can be a very trying time for board members, as most of them are just your average homeowner with their own personal matters to attend to while also volunteering their time to the association. They are thrown into a mix of chaos, anger, and frustration; but each of them will fall into one of the three groups described above. They have their own personalities and their own personal expectations. A catastrophe will reveal the true leadership abilities of a board of directors.
The management company and the general contractor have no significant expectations other than to be compensated for the services they provide. At this point in a disaster, they are the answer and action people. They are there to assist, quantify and identify damages, calm and reassure homeowners, and start the process of repairs. They have a daunting task… not so much because of the damage and destruction, as they are trained and prepared and experienced in handling such matters, but rather because they know they will need to deal with the 10-80-10 homeowners. This is common knowledge to most community management company employees and the general contractors with experience working with homeowners’ association. If the management company and general contractor employees are truly service-oriented, then you will see them work with the homeowners and have smiles on their faces the entire time.
After a large disaster strikes, as in a hurricane or a tornado, the first people that the homeowners, the management company, and the general contractor must deal with will be the local government authorities: the first responders (police and fire departments). For homeowners, this can be a touchy issue. The local rescue folks do need to do their jobs and protect the public, but at the same time, we live in a free country that allows us to be responsible for ourselves and our property. Law enforcement may cordon off an area and not allow residents to return to the property…for their own good. At the end of the day, that is what we pay them to do. But should a homeowner, who has his own common sense and his own sense of self-responsibility, be able to access his property? There is not one simple answer; instead, it depends. It depends on the particular facts as they are applied to certain laws. Frequently in these natural disaster situations, when the local government responds in an organized fashion, a “state of emergency” will be officially declared.
During a properly initiated state of emergency, certain civil liberties and civil rights may be suspended; for example, (i) private property owners may be lawfully restricted from freely accessing their private property, (ii) a curfew may be imposed such that even when one is within the confines of their private property they are forced to remain indoors after dusk and before dawn, or (iii) law enforcement may be granted the temporary authority to operate in a manner that would otherwise be in violation of the protections afforded under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Imagine, if you will, how a homeowner who is already struggling with having their home and life traumatically affected by the very recent natural disaster might feel when, despite the best intentions of the local government and law enforcement personnel, the homeowner is also expected, without any hesitation, to acquiesce to the suspension of certain personal freedoms that are by all accounts second nature and ingrained within one’s cognitive being.
The question contemplated above is a tough one, with compelling arguments available for either answer. Many would take the position that in the end, the individual rights and freedoms of the citizenry trump government authority…but others don’t always see it that way, especially many members of law enforcement whose training emphasizes exerting authority, whether it exists or not, over compassion and common sense.
As for the management company and general contractor, despite having a legitimate reason for accessing the properties affected by the disastrous event, they will very likely be required to obtain some sort of permit from the local government in order to be granted access to the neighborhood to begin emergency repairs. Most city officials have the best of intentions and want to make sure that contractors entering the area are both documented and identified. This is a good policy, as many single-family homeowners are desperate to find someone to help them with boarding up their homes and construction tradesmen while circling like vultures and eyeing all of the possible work available. Fortunately, this is not the case for homeowner associations because most management companies will already have a qualified and trustworthy contractor ready to begin securing the damaged homes.
Not long after the management company and general contractor have been granted access, the insurance company adjusters will begin to arrive. Most exterior shells of a townhome or condominium unit are protected under a “master” insurance policy which complements the homeowner’s insurance policy (known as the “HO6” policy). The premium for the master insurance policy is paid out of the funds managed by the homeowners association and derived from the association assessments, commonly referred to as dues. The premium for the HO6 policy, on the other hand, is paid by each individual homeowner. Generally speaking, the master policy covers claims arising from damage to the building structure and exterior portions of the townhomes and condominium units, whereas the HO6 policy covers the interior contents of the home. As with all forms of insurance, each policy must be read carefully to fully understand and appreciate the many nuances of the coverage and the exclusions or exceptions to the coverage.
In most catastrophe claims, the master policy is the one most used. The emergency repairs that are completed by the general contractor are covered by the insurance company without question as those temporary repairs will mitigate additional damage by ensuring the units are protected from the elements until full and final repairs can be completed. The next task is to itemize the damages to each unit or building, and to issue payments based on that itemization. Of course, the most important thing for homeowners is that all of their damage gets repaired. The most important thing for the management company is that the insurance company makes timely payments and accurately itemizes needed repairs so that the general contractor can move quickly to restore the property. The most important thing for the general contractor is that the insurance adjusters measure and itemize the damage correctly and that they know they will fairly compensated for their work.
The insurance company has a very specific responsibility after a catastrophe. It is responsible for making sure that all of the damage that occurred is covered under the policy and that the correct repairs are made. This is a daunting task. The insurance company must itemize all of the damage to the property, piece by piece. Each linear foot of gutter must be measured, each broken window counted, each square foot of roofing written down, and every broken light fixture accounted for. When the properties are large, 200 units or more, this task can take weeks. The units must be itemized in order for the contractor to know what is being paid to be replaced.
They also determine what is storm damage and what is just “damage.” There is a difference. For instance, a column may have small chips in the painted surface caused by flying debris from a passing lawn mower. Assume that hail came out of the north and west, yet the column is on the south side of the unit, protected by the building; is the insurance company obligated to paint the column? Not likely. But, if the homeowner had never noticed the chips on the column before, then he will most likely insist that the “damage” was caused by the storm. The homeowner then complains to the general contractor that the column needs to be painted. The contractor looks through the scope of work and sees that the insurance company did not pay to paint the column, and since the column is not within the path of the storm, and the chips are inconsistent with hail damage, the contractor will be forced to tell the homeowner that the column will not be painted. That leads to a conflict that may only be avoided if the contractor simply decides to paint the column and cover the cost at its expense, or get the insurance adjuster back out to the unit to see if he can be persuaded to cover the cost to paint the column. The latter option is expensive and time consuming. The contractor must meet the adjuster back out on the property to inspect the damage and make a determination as to how the damage occurred, and then talk to the homeowner who will insist that the column was “never like that before the storm.” The insurance company may agree to cover the cost to paint the column, and if so, the contractor must then fill out the work order to have the painter come out and paint the column. The painter needs to drive to the unit and match the color of the column, drive to the paint store, pick up the color, return to the site and spend all of ten minutes painting the column. The insurance adjuster must go back to his office and retype the damage report to reflect a payment to paint the column. In the end, that payment will probably be about $25 dollars. This scenario plays out all of the time for the insurance company and the contractor. It is a lot of work and time to deal with an issue that, at the end of the day, is very small. The homeowner is happy, but much energy has been spent on a column that will continue to get chipped in the future.
Defining success for everyone involved is difficult at best. Homeowners just want their damage repaired quickly, efficiently, completely, and properly. The board of directors want as little conflict as possible; they do not want to hear from a number of individual homeowners, each with their own complaints to share. The management company wants all of the repairs completed with as few complaints from the homeowners as possible. The contractor wants to complete the repairs as quickly as possible, ensuring that quality materials and workmanship have been provided to the association, while earning a reasonable profit. The insurance company wants to close the file and have all of the homes brought back to pre-loss condition in order to maintain a full and effective policy in the future. Completing these goals takes a lot of cooperation and coordination. All parties must come together in an effort to reach that goal. If one group is unreasonable or over-demanding, the overall balance of cooperation will be affected – resulting in one or more of the others receiving less than their respective fair share in the rewards from the endeavor.
Without question, emotions run high after a weather-related catastrophe. The contractor and the insurance adjusters are the most immune from these emotions as they have no personal connection to the site of the damage. They are there to do a job. Many times, the contractors will become “attached” to a property or a project, especially when they are there for long periods of time and have a chance to interact with the homeowners and managers. It is normal for individuals on a construction crew, as in project managers or service techs, to want to do a higher-than-average job for the homeowners because they can “feel their pain”…and they witness the frustration of the homeowners which motivates them even more. The same holds true for the management company and the board. People tend to come together in times of crisis and need. There is a deeper meaning to the job once you realize the effect that the disaster has on a community. You see people who are frustrated, upset, angry, and afraid. You want to help them. You want to do what you can to ease their pain.
In the end everyone calms down, repairs are made, and people continue with their lives. It takes longer for some people than others, but eventually it happens. There are many things and many people that must come together after a catastrophe, but the most important element needed for success is trust. Homeowners must trust that the management company has hired the right contractor for the repairs. The homeowners and board of directors must trust that the insurance company is looking out for their best interest. The homeowners must trust that the management company is doing its job. The home-owners must trust that the contractors are doing the work correctly. And most of all, the home-owners must trust each other. They must trust in the knowledge and the idea that they are all looking out for each other. At the end of the day, that is what defines a community.
How Secure Are Your Deposits?
On October 3, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which temporarily raises the basic limit on federal deposit insurance coverage from $100,000 to $250,000 per depositor. The temporary increase in deposit insurance coverage became effective upon the President’s signature. The legislation provides that the basic deposit insurance limit will return to $100,000 after December 31, 2009.
Why The Increase?
The increase in federal deposit insurance coverage was written into law due to the current economic challenges occurring within the United States Economy, centering on a financial crisis and customer fears spurring bank runs across the country.
This temporary raising of the deposit insurance limits addresses public confidence issues and provides additional liquidity to banks.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which evolved during the “Great Depression,” was created by Congress in 1933 to restore public confidence in the nation’s banking system. During this time banks had become so illiquid, and depositors so terrified of losing their money, that check-writing ground to a halt. Most transactions that did occur were carried out in cash.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is an independent agency of the United States government that protects against the loss of insured deposits if an FDIC-insured bank or savings association fails. FDIC deposit insurance is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Since the FDIC was established, no depositor has ever lost a single penny of FDIC-insured funds.
Today the FDIC insures deposits at the nation’s 8,451 banks and savings associations and it promotes the safety and soundness of these institutions by identifying, monitoring and addressing the risks to which they are exposed. The FDIC receives no federal tax dollars but is funded by insured financial institutions through an assessment fee. As of June 30, 2008 the FDIC had roughly $45 billion in its deposit-insurance fund to cover $4.5 trillion of insured U.S. deposits. The FDIC monitors the balance in the deposit insurance fund, making sure there is enough money to cover failed bank deposits.
FDIC insurance covers funds in deposit accounts, including checking and savings accounts, money market deposit accounts and certificate of deposits (CDs). FDIC insurance does not, however, cover other financial products and services that insured banks may offer, such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds shares, life insurance policies, annuities or municipal securities.
There is no need for depositors to apply for FDIC insurance or even to request it. Coverage is automatic.
Actual coverage can be even greater than the new $250,000 limit, depending on how your accounts are titled, meaning whether the account is titled for an individual, joint, retirement account, or trust/POD account.
The example below shows just one possible combination of accounts for a married couple. For more information on titling of accounts ensuring all funds are fully insured refer to this FDIC website: http://www.fdic.gov/edie/.
What Happens on December 31, 2009?
The FDIC has requested that insured institutions inform depositors that the increase in coverage from $100,000 to $250,000 is temporary and effective only until December 31, 2009. This is particularly important when opening new accounts and certificates of deposit maturing after December 31, 2009. Between now and December 31, 2009 there could be other changes to FDIC insurance coverage we need to wait and see.
To answer the question how secure are your deposits? The most secure place for your money is in an FDIC insured financial institution. There your money is earning interest, it’s FDIC insured, and it’s accessible. If economic conditions continue to worsen, we may come to see more unprecedented steps as the U.S. government struggles to stem the sprawling financial crisis. Stay tuned.
CAI-MN Member News
Litehouse Management and Cornerstone Management Group Merge
The two companies announced that effective July 1, 2008, the two companies have merged. They are now situated in Burnsville at a new office location – 2960 Judicial Road, Suite 100.
Partners Dean Smith and Linda Wilkins, AMS, CMCA, ACCAM,
RPA, PCAM, bring more than 30 years of experience in management to the firm. Together, they now offer a new management idea with a goal to satisfy the needs of associations of all sizes.
Matthew J. Franken Joins Hellmuth & Johnson
The Eden Prairie law firm of Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC recently announced that attorney Matthew J. Franken has joined the firm. Franken concentrates his practice in real estate, commercial, and construction litigation. He assists clients in areas including commercial and real estate disputes, construction defects, insurance coverage, and environmental matters.
Licensed to practice law in the state and federal courts of Minnesota as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Franken is a member of the American Bar Association, the Hennepin County and Minnesota State Bar Associations, and the Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association.
CAI-MN Directory Correction
Mr. Sidney Sasser of Dartmouth Place homeowners was incorrectly listed as Ms. Sidney Sasser on page 21 of the 2008-2009 CAI-MN Chapter Directory. We apologize for the error.
CAI-MN Member Earns His PCAM
Tosh Tricas of Community Development, Inc. recently joined the elite group of Community Association Managers who have earned the Professional Community Association Manager (PCAM) designation from CAI. Tosh is one of less than 1,600 managers nationwide who have earned the highest level of professional recognition in the Community Association field.
Tosh Tricas, Director of Community Management for Community Development, Inc. helps oversee the Community Management division within Community Development. He has extensive experience in all aspects of the industry from concept to transition. Tosh believes that the need for real time information requires managers to be current with technology.
To earn the PCAM designation, Managers need five years of Community Association Management or related experience and complete more than 100 hours of course work. In addition, PCAM designees must fulfill continuing education and service requirements complete an exhaustive case study and adhere to a code of ethics.