Prestonfield HOA Wiki

Open Questions — Master List

18 min read

About This Page

This page aggregates all unresolved Open Questions from across the wiki’s topic pages into a single reviewable list, organized by category. Each item links directly to the topic page where the full context is documented.

Maintenance: This page should be regenerated during lint runs, or any time a significant batch of open questions is added or resolved. To mark an item resolved: update the source topic page first (edit or remove the Open Question entry there), then remove it here. The source topic page is always the authority.

Governance & Legal Structure

  • amendment-process — Does the 75% Declaration amendment threshold apply to all 217 Lots, or only to owners who participate in a vote? “Owners of 75% of Lots” suggests all 215 must approve (217 is the highest lot number; 215 is the actual residential count per Supplement No. 1).
  • supplement-4-2010 — Supplement No. 4 was recorded with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds (Doc# 1031603005, Nov 12, 2010), while all other Prestonfield governing documents were recorded in DuPage County. Prestonfield is in West Chicago, DuPage County. This may be a filing error or may reflect a parcel on the county boundary. If recorded only in Cook County and not DuPage, there may be a chain-of-title issue for Outlot C. Additionally, the Unit 1A Subdivision (platted September 30, 2009) that contains Outlot C has no other presence in the wiki — its full purpose and plat details are unknown.
  • hoa-legal-structure — The initial registered agent (Deborah T. Haddad) is likely no longer current. A $1,231 CS&R corporate legal fee was invoiced in June 2025 — the specific matter is not identified in the board packet but may relate to a registered agent update or the board nomination form attorney review (approved April 2025 pending CS&R sign-off). If never updated with the Illinois Secretary of State, the HOA may have a compliance gap.
  • declarant-and-turnover — The precise Declarant turnover date is unknown — April 20, 2011 is the contractual deadline, but the actual transition date would be in minutes from 2005–2011.
  • voting-rights-and-membership — For Lots with multiple co-owners, the mechanism for designating which co-owner exercises the vote was not excerpted from the Declaration text.
  • voting-rights-and-membership / assessment-structure — The exceptions to the 75% litigation vote requirement (Declaration §7.02) are not enumerated in any ingested document.
  • amendment-process / legal-correspondence-attendance-removal-2025 — By-Laws amendment threshold: attorney Costello (CS&R) and the By-Laws’ own Article XII text both say 2/3 Director vote (no owner vote); a separate attorney retained by API says amending the By-Laws requires a 2/3 membership vote. Not reconciled. illinois-law-compliance-review found the Not For Profit Corporation Act’s default rule supports Costello’s reading — API counsel’s claim appears weaker-grounded than the director-removal conflict, which was resolved in API counsel’s favor (per user, Oct 2026).

Board Operations

  • board-elections-and-terms — The 2023 election re-applied the initial staggered term structure (3 two-year + 2 one-year). By-Laws §5.04 specifies 2-year terms for all post-initial elections. Whether the informal re-stagger is valid has not been addressed.
  • board-elections-and-terms / officer-roles — Shailesh Rajput resigned a 2-year seat; the July 2023 minutes recorded Mark Hanley’s vacancy appointment as 1-year. A vacancy appointee should serve the remainder of the prior director’s term — this may be a minutes error or discretionary Board decision.
  • board-elections-and-terms — Nomination attendance rule — legal confirmation pending. The rule requiring board candidates to have attended 2 meetings in the 12 months prior to election passed by board vote on July 16, 2026, but API still needs to confirm it is legally valid, whether it requires an R&R update, and whether homeowner notification is required before it takes effect.
  • board-elections-and-terms — By-Laws §5.11 Board-only removal now conflicts with the Board’s own legal conclusion. Per the user, a later legal review found the Board cannot remove a Director without a homeowner vote (so the July 2026 Sharma removal was non-binding and he remains on the Board), but the §5.11 text still says otherwise. Whether the By-Laws will be amended to match, and whether a homeowner vote on removal will ever be pursued, is not recorded.
  • illinois-law-compliance-review — Does CICAA (765 ILCS 160) apply to Prestonfield at all? The Common Interest Community Association Act’s small-association exemption (765 ILCS 160/1-75(a)) excuses associations with ≤$100,000 in annual budgeted assessments unless they’ve opted in. Prestonfield’s ~$75,820 assessment budget is under that line, but whether reserve contributions count toward the figure, and whether the Board has ever opted in, is unconfirmed. This gates three of the findings below.
  • illinois-law-compliance-review / board-elections-and-terms — Election-cycle compliance under CICAA. 765 ILCS 160/1-25(a) requires a board election at least every 24 months. Prestonfield’s last valid election was July 20, 2023 — over three years ago after four consecutive quorum failures. Whether the Bylaws’ indefinite-carryover practice remains valid under CICAA (contingent on the applicability question above) is unresolved.
  • illinois-law-compliance-review / board-elections-and-terms — Vacancy-fill mechanism mismatch. CICAA (765 ILCS 160/1-25(e)) requires a 2/3 vote of remaining board members and limits an appointment to lasting only until the next annual meeting; By-Laws §5.11 requires only a majority vote and a full-term appointment. No vacancy currently exists (the July 2026 Sharma removal was later found non-binding), but the mismatch would apply to any future vacancy appointment.
  • illinois-law-compliance-review — Proxy-vs-ballot characterization of Prestonfield’s election mechanism. User-confirmed (2026-08-19): elections use an API-distributed “proxy ballot form” with candidate names, homeowners self-select and return it, no proxy-holder named. This functions like an association-issued ballot (CICAA §1-25(h-5)(3), permitted) but is legally structured as a Bylaws Art. 4.01 proxy (CICAA §1-25(i), barred for board candidates). Unresolved whether substance or form controls. Same mechanism elected the current Board (July 20, 2023) — a finding of non-compliance could reach that election’s legitimacy, not just a single Board action.
  • meeting-procedures — “Conspicuously on the Premises” (By-Laws §5.06), required for Board meeting notices, is undefined. The subdivision has no clubhouse or community board; posting location in practice is unknown.
  • meeting-procedures — Whether owners actually receive 10-day written notice of annual meetings by mail (By-Laws §4.03/4.05) or whether the HOA relies on other channels is not documented.
  • officer-roles — The By-Laws allow “one or more” Vice Presidents but do not define distinct duties for multiple VPs.

Finance & Assessments

  • assessment-structure — 215 vs. 216 unit count discrepancy: supplement-1-2006 confirms 215 is the correct residential lot count (Lots 55 and 56 were never platted; highest lot number 217 overstates by 2). The API Management Agreement (September 2020) figure of 216 remains unexplained — likely a drafting error, but not documented in any ingested source.
  • assessment-collection-policy — The July 2022 board policy added a $25/month flat late fee on top of 18% annual interest. Whether this supersedes or supplements the R&R Section 10 “$25 documentation service fee after 90 days” is not stated.
  • assessment-collection-policy — Approved Collections Policy answers vs. existing policy (approved Oct 1, 2026). The Board approved the questionnaire as shown in the packet (minutes: “see comments from Costello”). The approved answers give a flat $25 late fee with the percentage blank and attorney turnover at 90 days, while existing policy is 18% interest from day 30 (Declaration §7.03) plus a $25 monthly late fee (July 2022), and the API agreement allows referral at 60 days. Whether the final policy keeps the 18% interest, whether $25 is one-time or monthly, how the “per Board approval” items (payment-plan length, payment application, fee waivers) will be defined, and whether “annually” matches billing practice are not stated. Next: the proposed resolution was mailed to homeowners October 23, 2026 and is to be adopted at the Board’s Zoom meeting on November 23, 2026 (before 1/1/2027). The resolution fixes the payment-plan window (6 months) and payment application (oldest first) but omits the 18% interest, the $25 monthly fee and the March 31 forgiveness, and is silent on fee waivers; it applies only to accounts turned over to counsel after adoption.
  • assessment-collection-policy / meeting-procedures — Does the November 23, 2026 Board meeting (open to homeowners) satisfy the attorney’s “separate owners’ meeting” requirement? The notice’s subject line says “Owners Meeting,” its body says “Board of Directors” meeting; the user reads it as a Board meeting homeowners are invited to. Counsel’s confirmation and the mailing date are not recorded.
  • violations-and-fines — Hearing requests: no ruling recorded. All five hearing requests went unattended on Oct 1, 2026; one fine was dropped (homeowner had fixed the issues), but the minutes record no ruling for the other four and do not say whether the no-shows mean the right to a hearing is waived. At least three of the five appear to have been signed after the 10-day window printed on the notices; the wiki’s summary of R&Rs Section 9 records no such deadline, and the notices’ separate $25 fee has no documented authority.
  • hoa-annual-finances / reserve-study-findings — How the July 2026 $50,000 CD (#9286) is treated. It was funded from Operating but now sits in the balance-sheet “Total Reserves” subtotal ($319,830.48 at August 31, 2026), so that subtotal no longer matches the reserve study’s $270,800 starting point. Whether the Board treats it as reserve or operating cash is not recorded.
  • minutes-2026-10-01 — The Oct 1, 2026 minutes record no motion approving the August financials, the Homeowner ACC List or the revised reserve study, and no management report. It is unclear whether those items were skipped or simply omitted from summary-level minutes.
  • assessment-collection-policy / costello-sury-rooney — [Address redacted] settlement agreement: sent to owner’s attorney 4/17/2025; no further movement as of December 2025 CS&R letter. Terms of the settlement offer are not disclosed in any ingested source.
  • assessment-collection-policy / costello-sury-rooney — [Address redacted]: Motion to Reinstate 10/23/2025 — owner did not appear — eviction order entered $4,196.48. Order of possession expired December 22, 2025 — HOA eligible to place with sheriff. CS&R requested ledger 12/2/2025. Status after December 22, 2025 not confirmed in any ingested source.
  • assessment-collection-policy / costello-sury-rooney — Collection accounts (Aug–Dec 2025 batch): [Address redacted] — suit filed 9/19; court 10/23 (not served, continued); court 12/9/2025 — outcome not confirmed. [Address redacted] — suit filed 11/20/2025; court 12/15/2025 — outcome not confirmed. [Address redacted] — suit filed 10/31/2025; court 12/18/2025 — outcome not confirmed. [Address redacted] — suit filed 10/31/2025; court 12/18/2025 — outcome not confirmed. Status of [Address redacted], [Address redacted], [Address redacted], [Address redacted] after December 2025 court dates not confirmed in any ingested source.
  • assessment-collection-policy / costello-sury-rooney — [Address redacted]: Eviction order entered 7/10/2025 for $3,866.32. Order of possession expired 10/10/2025. CS&R November 2025 letter repeats history through 10/10 with no post-expiry update. [Address redacted] absent from CS&R December 2025 letter entirely — suggests either account was resolved/paid, eviction was placed with the sheriff, or CS&R removed from active reporting. Status unconfirmed.
  • violations-and-fines — The R&Rs do not specify what happens if a violation fine goes unpaid past the 30-day deadline — the Section 10 collection policy likely applies but is not cross-referenced.
  • owner-financial-rights — “Proper purpose” for owner record inspection (By-Laws Art. X) is not defined; “reasonable time” for inspection is also not defined.
  • owner-financial-rights — The HOA’s fiscal year end date is not fixed in the By-Laws — changeable by 2/3 Board vote. Current fiscal year end is unknown without meeting minutes.

Reserve Fund

  • reserve-study-findings — The 2027 reserve contribution is proposed but not adopted. The Board voted Oct 1, 2026 to keep the total assessment at $352.65/unit; the budget mailed to homeowners on Oct 23, 2026 proposes $2,000 reserve (matching the revised study) and $74,173 assessments, with adoption expected at the Nov 23, 2026 Zoom meeting.
  • hoa-annual-finances — 2027 budget fence funding and cost-share lines. The proposed budget carries fence at $100 and no reserve expenditures although the Board approved a $6,390 split-rail replacement on Oct 1 (the study schedules it for 2027), and the draft’s $3,809.40 landscape cost-share expense line is now blank. How the fence is funded and where the cost-share expense went is not shown.
  • reserve-study-findings — Reserve Advisors recommends periodic pond bathymetric surveys by a local engineer because sediment volumes are assumed. No engagement or budget is recorded.
  • reserve-study-findings / cost-share-arrangement — The study uses a 45% HOA share of North pond sediment removal (about $121,412 inflated, 2037) versus 45.58% in the cost-share formula, and whether commercial parties will fund their share is unconfirmed.
  • reserve-study-findings — Whether a completed study exempts the HOA from the proposed Illinois 15% reserve minimum, and on what conditions, is not verified against the bill text.
  • reserve-study-findings — The study places the 300 LF split-rail at the north perimeter of the pond area, while the July 2026 packet described the bid scope around the central basin. Whether these are the same fence is unconfirmed. The Oct 1, 2026 bids (260 LF, behind three lots) add further variation — see Fences below.

Vendor Contracts

  • hey-and-associates — The July 2018 minutes reference a prior wetlands management company replaced due to poor performance. Hey & Associates was already active by April 2018. The name of the prior vendor is not recorded in any ingested source.
  • hey-and-associates — Contact name prior to Matt Bucher (who took over as Environmental Services Manager by April 2023) is not recorded in any ingested source.
  • vendor-contracts — Yellowstone Landscape’s 2026 mulching contract status is unknown — no ingested source confirms whether their contract was renewed for the 2026 season.
  • vendor-contracts / hey-and-associates — Hey & Associates 2026–2028 renewal: Three proposals submitted August 2025 (total $37,800 for all basins including prescribed burns). Competing Pizzo & Associates proposals also presented (~$140,327 total — much broader North basin scope). No vendor selection recorded as of October 2025 board packet. The July 2026 contract log shows $15,500/year for 2026/2027/2028 ($46,500 total) — does not match any single August 2025 proposal’s 3-year total or the combined $37,800 figure. The Oct 1, 2026 contract log repeats $15,500/yr, and only $421.40 was booked YTD to Lake/Pond-Dam Maintenance through August 31, 2026. Unresolved.
  • vendor-contracts — State Farm 2025–2026: discrepancy between sources — October 2025 management report contract log shows $3,766; January 2026 management report contract log shows $3,268. Reason for difference not explained (actual billed vs. estimated, or policy adjustment). State Farm renewed 8/15/2026 at $3,864 per the July 2026 contract log — the underlying 2025–2026 discrepancy remains unresolved.
  • vendor-contracts — Tigris (pond aeration/treatment) contract termination date unconfirmed — board solicited competing bids from EAM and Tigris Aquatic Services in April 2025; no vendor selection or formal termination recorded in board packet. Decision expected to appear in subsequent minutes.
  • vendor-contracts — The May 2023 Fisher Burton tree removal proposal ($2,565) status remains unresolved. The July 2025 LCM tree removal bid ($2,045) covers 3 dead/dying trees plus soil/seed for 9 previously-removed sites — suggesting at least some 2023 trees were not yet removed. Whether LCM or Fisher Burton was selected for the July 2025 tree removal is not confirmed in any ingested source.
  • vendor-contracts / costello-sury-rooney — KSN to CS&R attorney transition date is unknown — no ingested source records when the switch occurred. KSN was confirmed active through at least July 2020 at $375/month retainer.
  • fisher-burton — The revised (narrower) Alan Horticulture Turf Care Program pricing, reflecting the Board’s July 16, 2026 decision to drop grub control and aeration and keep only weed control and fertilization, has not yet been ingested; the Oct 1, 2026 packet contains no revised proposal or approval.

Fences

  • fence-regulations / fence-specifications — Side-yard fence location: Both exceptions are now formally published in the Summer 2026 newsletter: (a) side-entry garage door exception (any position on garage), and (b) neighboring fence alignment exception. Neither has yet been codified in the R&Rs. Expected in forthcoming R&R update (per May 7, 2026 Board decision).
  • fence-regulations / vendor-contracts / classic-fence — Split-rail replacement (Classic Fence, $6,390, approved Oct 1, 2026): scope and funding. Classic’s bid shows 260 LF (with a stray “340’” in the job description) and sets posts dry; the Board added that Classic must remove the old fence and its concrete footings and install no footings. Whether that changes the price, which parcels the work covers (the bids and earlier packets describe the area differently), and the funding source (no fence expense in the draft 2027 budget; the reserve study schedules it for 2027 at $7,748) are not stated.
  • fence-regulations — Rt. 59 fence repair ($1,980, Peerless; contract signed 9/18/2026) — completion and claim status. Completion date, balance payment and building permit are not recorded. The July 2026 minutes say a car is the likely cause and police suggested a report; whether a report was filed or an insurance claim made is not recorded (a 2024 repair near the same entry monument was partly recovered through insurance).

Property Rules & Homeowner Guidance

  • solar-panel-installations — The November 2022 Board policy direction that routine solar installations need not require Board approval was never formalized as a motion or R&R amendment. There is a gap between the written R&Rs (A&A required for all exterior alterations) and the Board’s stated intent.
  • solar-panel-installations — Whether “appropriate city building permits” is the sole condition for the Board’s prohibition on blocking solar, or whether additional requirements apply (placement, street visibility, etc.), is not stated.
  • violations-and-fines — “Immediate fine” for A&A violations (R&Rs §3.4/3.5) — unclear whether this bypasses the standard written warning step in Section 9 or simply means the first fine is issued without a warning period.
  • alterations-and-additions-process — The city approval process for landscaping or grading changes (required in addition to HOA A&A approval) is not described in the R&Rs.
  • swimming-pool-regulations — “Above-ground pool” is not defined — whether a semi-inground or partially buried pool is considered above-ground is unclear.
  • property-use-restrictions — The source document prohibiting sheds has not been identified. The Board cited “2/3 of homeowners” to change the rule — inconsistent with all known amendment thresholds (By-Laws: 2/3 of Directors; Declaration: 75% of owners; R&Rs: Board vote alone).
  • nuisance-rules — Whether the Board can fine for nuisance violations independently of law enforcement involvement is unclear. R&Rs direct complaints to law enforcement; Declaration §8.06 does not require it before HOA action.

Community Areas & Cost Share

  • community-areas — HOA appears to own vacant lots — number, location, and legal status not documented in any ingested source. April 2025 minutes reference a SE corner property and potential development or sale.
  • cost-share-arrangement — McColister (also “McCollister”) — billed $5,158.42 in April 2021 (largest single party at the time) and named as paying in November 2022, but absent from the current cost-share spreadsheet. Given the amount, McColister likely held a large parcel — possibly now WPT Shingle Oak Drive LP. Parcel may have been sold or transferred. Status unknown.
  • cost-share-arrangement / kornerstone-llc — Kornerstone, LLC three-parcel split — Kornerstone holds three separate parcels. The April 2018 special use petition (Case PC 18-08) covers two PINs (01-33-101-022 and 01-33-101-018); the third parcel’s PIN and basis for the split remain undocumented.
  • cost-share-arrangement / kornerstone-llc — Ditch Witch / Kornerstone payment dispute — legal action was authorized in July 2021. Whether fully resolved is unknown.
  • cost-share-arrangement — Fire station retroactive billing — West Chicago Fire District confirmed on HOA property and added to cost-share billing in 2025. Whether prior years are owed retroactively is unknown.
  • cost-share-arrangement — McCollister 2021 charge not applied — the May 2023 board packet reveals that the 2021 cost share of $2,253.42 was never posted to McCollister’s account (API internal error). Whether this was subsequently billed and collected is unknown. Note: the April 2022 board packet showed a $2,253.42 “prepaid credit” in McCollister’s AR — relationship to this unbilled amount unclear.

Management Company Decision (API vs. Westward360)

  • management-company-comparison-2026 — Whether Westward360’s $19,020/year base fee includes the $700/year fidelity bond, or is additive (effective year-one cost $19,720 if additive).
  • management-company-comparison-2026 — What Westward360’s “$50/account/month” AR management fee actually means in practice — potentially the largest variable cost driver given Prestonfield’s active delinquencies.
  • management-company-comparison-2026 — Whether Westward360 has an annual escalation clause (not stated in the proposal, unlike API’s contractual 3.5%/year).
  • management-company-comparison-2026 — Westward360’s contract term length and termination provisions are absent from the proposal — a critical omission compared to API’s known 90-day without-cause terms.
  • management-company-comparison-2026 — Who would be Prestonfield’s dedicated Westward360 manager, and their current portfolio size; the named contact (Eric Staszczak) appears to be a sales/transition role.
  • management-company-comparison-2026 — Whether Westward360 has suburban single-family HOA references (its testimonials are condo associations only, a different profile from Prestonfield’s 215 single-family lots).
  • management-company-comparison-2026 — How Westward360 would handle transition of active collection cases and the CS&R attorney relationship if selected.
  • management-company-comparison-2026 — Westward360’s process for coordinating the ongoing reserve study and future capital spending (their proposal includes a $3,300 flat capital-coordination fee not present in API’s agreement).
  • management-company-comparison-2026 / vendor-contracts — API renewal (term ends 10/31/2026, self-renewing). The Oct 1, 2026 packet does not discuss Westward360 or a renewal decision, and the contract log gives no non-renewal notice window; the 90-day without-cause termination clause appears to be the exit route. The draft 2027 budget also carries management at $15,873 (flat) despite the 3.5% escalation clause — whether API agreed to hold the rate is unstated.

Dispute Resolution

  • dispute-resolution-process — Who bears the cost of AAA arbitration is not specified in the Declaration (split equally, loser pays, or other). AAA rules govern unless the Declaration specifies otherwise.
  • dispute-resolution-process — Whether the Declaration’s mediation/arbitration requirement applies to HOA-initiated enforcement actions (e.g., injunctive relief for ongoing violations) or only to owner-initiated disputes is unclear.

Graph View

Backlinks