           |
Blue Lake Owner’s Association
Board Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2008
Attendance: Missen Brucker, Scott Wirkler, Cheryl Bach, Susie Atwood, Vince Shimp, Bruce Pearson, Kelly McKenney.
Also: Jodi Smith, Jack Musser (DCC committee members,) Gina Shaw, Joe Meade and several homeowners: Curtis Schwab, Nathan Nelson, Tara OBradovich, Arnold Forster, Chad Jewell, Brian Keleher, Jodi Smith, Keith Johnson, Jerry Burnaman, and Bob Giacinto.
Meeting called to order at 6:37
OLD BUSINESS:
Variance Request: Nate Nelson and Tara OBradovich (10 Buckskin Drive): Nate presented more information regarding putting his request to put an off-site manufactured home on his lot in Filing 5. The following spoke in support of his plans
Brian Keleher (191 Black Bear) spoke about his denial for an off-site built home, and he would be okay with the board approving Nate’s request. He’s not yet built on his lot.
Previously the DCC approved an off-site built home on Eagle’s Nest Court, which is in filing 4. Jack explained that his understanding of the DCCs is that there is no restriction for of-sight built homes in Filing 4, but there is in Filing 5.
John Richards (45 Eagle’s Nest Ct.) offered his support for this variance.
Keith Johnson (295 Badger Rd.) spoke of the changes in manufactured homes and that he feels the board should look at the specific design of Nate’s request.
Arnold Forster (255 Goose) agrees with Keith that the approval should be based on the final product.
Curtis Schwab (15 Buckskin Ct.) agrees with the above, as does Chad Jewell (26 Buckskin Dr.)
Vince explained the hesitation of the board at last month’s meeting. Jack Musser spoke about the history of Filing 5 as he knows it. There were changes to the DCCs in 1998 after 2 homes were built without garages, and that the verbiage “stick built” was added. John Richards, who was on the DCC Committee during those changes, added that the intent was to tighten up the overall quality of the homes to protect property values.
Jodi Smith agreed with Jack that the guild line is in place for a reason and that changing the rules for one person does set a potentially dangerous precedent. Future DCC committees and boards who may have self-interest might grant variances that don’t protect the integrity of the neighborhood. There were comments about the reduced impact to neighbors from noise and traffic as a benefit to off-site built homes.
Jack stated that he feels he can only work within the structure of the rules, but if the home proposed was coming in as a conventional construction, he doesn’t, at first glance, see anything that would cause him to deny approval.
Kelly moved that Nathan Nelson and Tara Obradovich be granted a variance for their application to build a house on the property located at 10 Buckskin Drive from the DCC guideline that requires houses build in filing V to be "on site" built; the remainder of the DCC guidelines and processes will be in effect and will apply to the remainder of the applicants' application to build a house on that property. Cheryl seconded. Discussion followed. Motion carries with 6 votes.
Susie asked about creating guidelines for the future. Jodi said that this is a necessary step. Jodi’s asking that the wording “on-site” be removed for our documents. There was discussion on how the rule might be amended for future purposes. Kelly likes the idea of keeping the need for a variance request on an individual basis. Cheryl commented that the intent of the rule was to protect property values. She mentioned some of the other HOAs that have very restrictive rules where these homes have been approved.
Missen stated that the building code requirements would still be the same. It was decided that Filing 5 will require individual variances to the “on-sight” build requirement.
There was discussion concerning the eventuality of homes in filings 1,2, and 4 being purchased and torn down. Those filings allow for modular homes and are probably not large enough for garages, etc. Susie asked the DCC committee if they could put together a list of suggested requirements for off-site built homes to meet the future demand.
DCC: There was discussion about exterior finishes and that HOs in the past had to get approval for changes of colors, roofing materials, etc.
Weed spraying: Joe Meade is meeting with people from several companies to get bids. Cheryl asked if we could offer HOs a deal with the same sprayer. Joe will discuss this with the companies as he meets with them. Joe was also asked to inquire about what actions HOs will need to take to protect their animals during the spraying so that we can get that information out to the HOs ahead of time. Missen suggested that we work collectively with Dakotas to coordinate timing of spraying for thistle.
Gina was asked to contact Dakotas.
Gina was asked to draft a letter to be sent to vacant lot owners regarding weed spraying.
Gina was asked to put in the Bugle prior notice of spraying dates.
Sidewalk issue: Gina will meet with Missen and her brother, Hans, next Friday to walk around the areas for the proposed sidewalk additions. Further discussion tabled to next meeting.
Homeowner’s comments:
Robert Giacinto asked that we put something in the Bugle about cleaning up dog poop. Gina to was asked to use strong verbiage when writing the article for the Bugle, and to talk to Dakota HOA about this issue. Scott requested another poop station along the trail at the bottom of the hill by the pond. Missen suggested one near the gazebo. Gina is to ask Joe Meade to look into the cost of these additions.
New Business:
Treasurer selection: Susie explained the duties. Missen offered to take on this responsibility. Kelly nominated Missen; Scott seconded. Passed unanimously.
Dalby Wendland: Brian Smith reviewed their engagement letter dated Dec. 7, 2007 regarding preparing the year end financials. He verified that the proposal is competitive. DW is proposing $5400 for a year end financial review. The charge for preparing the HOA income tax would be an additional $1,000. Brian has offered to do our taxes gratis. Kelly made a motion to approve $5500 for the year end financial review which covers any additional charges that may arise. Missen seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Susie is also negotiating a reduction in bookkeeping services in order to save the HOA money. Gina will take over duties previously performed by DW.
Auto Payment Account: Gina brought to the Board’s attention that our ACH account is over the $5000 limit with the dues increase. It was approved to increase the limit to $12000 monthly. Susie is to contact the bank. Gina will look into adding storage rent to those interested it paying this way.
Attorney response to board questions: Hindman Sanchez, the association’s attorney, confirmed that the vote to increase assessments was valid, and that proxies assigned to BLHOA were validly voted at the meeting. Cheryl offered to write an article for the Bugle addressing questions surrounding the proxies and the vote.
Hindman Sanchez sent a proposal which would consolidate and update our governing documents as the current documents are contradictory, confusing and not current with the new HOA laws. Susie suggested that we consider the proposal at budget time for possible inclusion in next year’s expenditures.
Hindman Sanchez also sent a proposal to create policies which would make the HOA compliant with state senate bills 100 and 89. Kelly suggested that Gina search both the state website and other HOA websites in order to copy policies already formulated.
Letter from Hindman Sanchez dated Dec. 27th was reviewed.
Preschool Progress: Vince talked about the meeting he and Susie had with the attorney, Garrett Brandt. The attorney said that we have the control over the property which the dirt pile is on. There was discussion about how to dictate how the second playground moves along. Keith Johnson suggested that the non approval of the rock retaining wall material is possibly our out. It is a change to the approved plan and therefore opens up negotiations. Kelly suggested that we ask Michelle to come to the next meeting to negotiate the next step.
Susie will draft a letter with Keith by Monday stating the concerns of the Board and asking for all details regarding the construction including a timetable. Keith asked about Builder’s Risk policy on the building. Gina will talk to our agent about all the “what ifs.”
Attorney (Garret Brandt) School District Contract: Vince talked about Garrett Brandt’s findings regarding the HOA’s contract with the School District for the soccer field. We can not terminate the contract. Eagle County owns the property. School can claim it at anytime. We do not have a obligation to maintain the property but can let it go brown. Brandt suggested we ask the recreation districts and/or county for grant money to cover our cost of maintaining it. Gina will work with Joe and Cheryl to produce a cost analysis by next month. Gina was asked to check the RFSD website monthly to see if they are discussing the site.
Sidewalk snow removal: Garrett Brandt was asked about our liability if we choose not to enforce. Brandt is looking into it. Gina - Bugle addition “as a neighborly favor and for safety purposes, please remove snow.”
Insurance Audit: Gina reported the findings of our recent insurance audit.
Gina found in her preparations for the audit that our office has not kept sub-contractor proof of insurance on file. This obviously needs to be remedied. Keith suggested that in the future we secure proof when getting bids, and withhold payment until current proof of worker’s comp. and liability coverage is in our file.
The auditor noted that we were not carrying adequate liability coverage for sub-contractors. Gina will pursue this issue.
The auditor mentioned that if we ever use a temp agency, their liability coverage would not extend to us.
Policy for making copies: Kelly made a motion to make it policy to charge 10 cents per copy. Bruce seconded. 5 votes to pass.
Irrigation Ditch: The December 2004 Bugle mentioned that the HOA’s water attorney suggested that an engineer survey and maintenance review of our ditches should be conducted. Susie asked if this review ever happened. Kelly said she did not understand what was being suggested , but that our water rights attorney is generally very on top of the associations requirements and that he would have mentioned anything he felt that needed to be done in their conversations. However, Kelly will touch base with the attorney to see what he was referring to.
Personnel meeting set for next Tuesday 15th at 6:00.
Arborist: Gina asked if she should contact the arborist to continue the process that was started last spring. The board asked her to look into the cost, optimum timing, and what the long term recommendations were. Gina will add something to the Bugle making it possible for homeowners to have their trees sprayed at the same time.
Adjourned at 10:05.
|
|
