Liz's UNOFFICIAL Notes from 10/6/12 Board Meeting: Part 2

To contact us Click HERE
Liz's Personal Notes - UNOFFICIAL: 10/6/12 (Part 2)RESERVE STUDY: (Wilson/Barth)In 2010 the FPLOA signed a 3-year contract with Assn. Reserves. An on site Reserve Study was done in 2010 with an update in 2011 and 2012. However, the FPLOA never scheduled an update in 2011 and the contract became void. Therefore no Reserve Study had/has been scheduled for 2012. Because of our failure to meet the terms of our original contract, we just found out this week they will not offer us the discounted “loyalty” agreement ($ 7050.00 for 3-years) and we will only be able to receive a one-year contract for this year’s Reserve Study ($ 4810.00 per year). Previously this board had voted, unanimously, to use this company to provide our Reserve Study and we had already sent a check for $3525.00. The Reserve Study is required. We have a policy and it’s Colorado Law. Because of the delay in contacting the Reserve Specialist we may not be able to compete the Reserve Study until early next year. AUDIT: (Barth)The previous board signed a contract with Martinez and Associates to complete the Audit for this 2012. They did the 2011 audit. Last year the audit cost about $10,000 because she had to re-build our budget from about June through Sept. We got a good audit. This year her quote is for $5500 and she’ll come in at the end of Dec or the first of Jan. The law says we are supposed to have the audit complete within 90 days so we are trying to get her to squeeze it in. We are happy with her – knowledgeable and a CPA.Are there any questions?  Hopefully, we’ll have a Reserve Study she can look at.ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSFER FEE: (Barth)This is a $200.00 Transfer Fee that is collected when someone buys property here in the Park. Unless you use a title company to close, it can become a problem to collect. There’s a new law in 2011 (SB 11-234) which addresses Transfer Fees on Real Property in Colorado. There is nothing in our CCRs that talk about the collection of a “transfer fee” and to be legitimate, that fee would have to have been recorded in our covenants prior to the passing of the new law. Management companies can charge “transfer fees” but it is not in our covenants and it was never voted in by our members. We need to eliminate this fee.  We can charge fees for other things – like gate cards and making copies, etc.I am making a motion today that we rescind the $200.00 Transfer Fee --as it’s written on the books, as of 2006 -- and make it retro-active to Oct. 1, 2012. So, if anyone has purchased or sold property since Oct.1, they cannot be charged a “transfer fee”.  Is there a second?I second (Waters). Is there any discussion? (Barth)What was the purpose? (Waters). It was legal when it was enacted because we were using a management company and the law was not place at that time.  The board, at the time, voted unanimously because we had no reserves and we needed the money. There were 200 lots sold that year and it was a general purpose way to receive revenue – for roads or whatever. (Barth)So it will not be retro-active? (Waters)My recommendation is just since October 1. (Barth)Audience: At the time it was put in place, reserves were down and roads were in disrepair and we needed to raise some money. I don’t think anyone had a problem with it at that time. But now that we’ve corrected that over a period of years, I don’t think we can justify it. (M. Schrotenboer)We can do one other thing. We can charge for a “status letter” -- usually between $15-50.00 and we have a right to do that. It’s a smart thing to do because, when someone buys a lot, they might find out they have $1000.00 in back fees or something like that.Audience: To require funds just because we need the money is questionable.There was board action on it and the charge (transfer fee) was legitimate at the time. (Barth)Let’s take a vote. The board vote was unanimous.MANAGER’S REPORT: (S. Colvin)About 65% of the landowner’s have paid their assessments. Payments are still coming in at the rate of about 50 per day. Recommends getting rid of the little (“lizard”) truck. It doesn’t have any power and it burns more oil than gas. It’s not economical. Motion made to sell the “lizard” -- as an asset of the corporation and disclose the known defects. (Waters).Bunn seconded. No discussion. Motion passed unanimously.Recommended a cover be constructed over the back porch of the Admin. Building as protection from the weather and railings installed on the stairs and the back entrance for a cost of $1500.00Waters made the motion and Barth seconded. Audience: There were volunteers in line to put the railings on before the board took over. (G.Nickle)There was no discussion from the audience and the motion passed unanimously.Audience: Be sure the roof is constructed where the snow does not slide onto the porch like at the Center. It makes the steps really slippery. (B. Moss)COMMITTEE REPORTS:All the committee chairpersons were asked to submit their year-end reports in writing so they are in the packets to read to save time. At the end of the meeting, questions can be asked about the reports. (Barth)
NEW BUSINESS:APPOINTMENT OF NEW BOARD MEMBER:D. Roper resigned in August which created a position that needs to be filled until July 6 of next year – about 10 months. Three names were submitted. The four candidates from the election were contacted and one responded – M. Mercier. K. Smith and D. Atkins (current FPLOA secretary) were the other two. Qualifications of the candidates were reviewed. There is no FPLOA process that specifies how someone is appointed.  The attorney advised that we “shall” appoint a replacement by today.  If I came in third, I would want the board to ask me but it doesn’t mean they have to do that. (Barth)Waters made a motion to appoint M. Mercier to the board to complete the term of D. Roper.Barth seconded the motion.Audience: D. Corder, B. Moss, D. Armstrong, J. Fix, C. Roper, C. Taylor-Dunn and D. Marcella all spoke in support of M. Mercier.I would also like us to consider someone else who is full time. K. Smith is also full time. I’d like to see somebody who doesn’t have a history, with a fresh perspective, a new face. There is definitely a difference in philosophy between the former board and this board, in general, and I would like to find /train new leadership who can look for new ways to put us together rather than separate us. I think we ought to consider K. Smith and D. Atkins is doing a great job, as secretary, so I don’t want to lose her. (Wilson)Audience (Directed at Wilson): Do you have property here? (“I do”– Wilson) But you don’t have a residence here. (C. Taylor-Dunn)No, I don’t. I represent the people who don’t have residences up here. (Wilson)Audience: You represent all of the people here. (D. Armstrong)I represent that particular perspective. (Wilson)Audience: I serve on two other boards where people have resigned and, if there’s not something in the bylaws, protocol is usually that the next-voted normally takes the temporary position. It’s logical. As far as a “fresh perspective”, M. Mercier would be open to what the board wants to do. We’ve owned property since the 70’s and there have always been a lot of factions. (D. Marcella) Audience: You need to represent all the members. (D. Corder) -- <Clapping> The people outside the Park don’t have a voice. There are 2600+ members and if they don’t live here or have a residence here --in October-- it’s pretty hard for them to show up and fill up a room. So I think it’s important that there is somebody in the room that might have a different perspective than everybody who does live here or have a residence here. It’s a perspective that needs to be represented here, as well, because there are a lot more of them than there are of you. (Wilson)Audience: People who don’t have a residence here are not necessarily speaking for me because they don’t always know what’s going on. They aren’t here in the wintertime and to hear all that goes on and they can form an opinion based on what they’re being told and not what they are actually seeing. As a board member, you need to be representing all of us -- not just the people that are not residents here. (D. Marcella) -- <Clapping>Audience: With your statement what you are implying is that the other three people up there aren’t representing all of the people and they are. I’ve heard them and I think that you ought to represent all the people and you shouldn’t be making single statements like that. (R. Godfrey) -- <Clapping>One more time… my job is to represent everybody – not just the people that are in this room. And since most of the people that own property are not in this room, I think their interests should also have a voice and I’m their voice. (Wilson)Audience: We need to recognize that the general membership does have the power here. We can clap and disrespect L. Wilson. But the people here that think the non-residents don’t have a concern about Forbes Park are wrong. They do. They have the controlling vote. They need to have SKYPE or something available where they can be watching this and become a part of things. Right now they feel disconnected and they have voted other people out because they don’t understand what’s going on. (M. Schroetenboer)I agree with you. But I also know, if we ran another election, M. Mercier would most likely win that election. She won over 300 votes and they were not all from people that live here. (Barth)Audience: This is the second time I’ve been in the blog and I don’t appreciate it. That’s what’s divided this whole community and that’s what got some of these members elected because false statements were made on that blog and people don’t have to own up to them. They get real close to defamation of character and I want it to stop and I want it stopped now. (D. Corder)(Barth) I’m going to take a vote. All those in favor of appointing M. Mercier to be on the board…Aye (Waters), Aye (Barth), Opposed (Bunn), Opposed (Wilson)So, under parliamentary procedure, that motion has died because of a tie.What I would like to do, if it’s okay with the board, is to table. It’s a dead motion and I would like to discuss further it in executive session and invite M. Mercier and K. Smith to address the board. We can come out of that and make a decision. We will change this. The election bylaws will have a procedure next year. B. Reid asked G. Fix and he declined and they appointed M. Herring. Audience: How are you going to put that in executive session – under what means? (B. Moss) It’s because we will be talking about personalities and sensitive information. We can’t vote but we can discuss. (Barth)Audience: So nobody else except the board is going to be involved and you’re not going to take audience recommendations or membership input. (B. Moss)We just did. We’ll discuss any sensitive information. Then we can come out and bring it up again. (Barth)   CODE OF ETHICS:The Community Associations Institute recommends that boards of directors operate under a Code of Ethics and they actually have one they have already put together. I would like to recommend that, like the Conflict of Interest Policy, we adopt a Code of Ethics that we sign on to when we become board members. (Wilson)We had one last year (Waters, Bunn)We’ll re-institute that and look at it. (Barth) TOTAL FIRE BAN:Barth made a motion to rescind the year-round, total fire ban and for the FPLOA to follow County guidelines.  Bunn seconded.Audience: What does it mean? (R. Godfrey) Audience: Covenants say “no open fires”.  A grate is okay. Fires need a spark arrestor. The fire ban was put in Jan. 2011 because it was crispy critters out here. It was put it in before the county because we couldn’t wait anymore. You could still have a camp stove. Even L. Wilson would agree that, if we had 15,000 acres of burnt land, it wouldn’t be worth anything and would be bad for all the members – not just the people that live here. (B. Moss)(Barth) I want to follow the county guidelines and we can’t even have a campfire if we have a total fire ban. Audience: We’re going to put it back the way the covenants say. (B. Moss)Call for the vote. (Barth). Barth-AYE, Bunn-AYE, Wilson-AYE, Waters- NO. Motion carried 3-1.

Liz's UNOFFICIAL Notes: from 10/6/12 Board Meeting - Part 3 of 3

To contact us Click HERE
Liz's UNOFFICIAL Notes: Board Meeting 10/6/12 - Part 3 of 3YEAR-END FINANCIAL REPORT: (Wilson)** I read a written report that I will provide to any of you who wants one if you send an e-mail request to forbesparkfriends@gmail.comThe board has never voted to allocate reserves based on our Audit report and there are things that can be moved around, for example, the picnic area down by Wagon Creek. It’s slated for $17K in reserves to re-build the pavilion but the board might decide to move that money into something we’re paying for like the grader. (Barth)A lot of the reserve work we’ve been doing is not coming out of the reserve, it’s been coming out of the operating side –repair work with culverts and berms. Properly we should be putting money in reserves and taking it out of that but we’ve been taking it out of the operating side so we didn’t need to replenish it in reserves. Maybe I’m wrong. (Waters)The $215,500 for reserves in the budget this year needs to go immediately into reserves and the landowners need to see it. Right now if you look at our accounting reports you can’t tell what’s in reserves and you can’t tell if spending came out of operating or reserves. We are addressing this and the Auditor will get after us if we don’t separate out our reserves and pay attention. Our bylaws state a super-majority of the board must vote to spend money out of reserves – four out of five directors. Unfortunately, a lot of the reserve money last year was depleted, bank accounts were closed and I can’t find a board vote that Okayed reserve money to be spent on the Admin. Building. There was $94,000 in reserves at the beginning of Oct, 2011. That bank account was closed by December and there is no vote as to where that money went. It showed up again later on in “Roads” but the board would have had to move that money into “Roads”. The paperwork and process was overlooked. (Barth) So…money was moved out of reserves to pay for the Admin. Building which totaled…. (Bunn)By the time you add in all the costs associated with the Admin. Building like the parking lot (about $5,000), the septic was dug (and that ended up in the Roads budget), and I don’t know how much the well was but the final cost is closer to $150,000. (Barth)We were told that money was not taken out of reserves for the building. (Bunn)We’ll have full accounting of it because we have 12 bank statements and we have copies of checks that were written to Pro-Shed and RMS and the numbers will speak for themselves. The landowners need to know this. It will be in the year-end report. It will be in the Audit Report and hopefully, going forward, the board will take these votes and make them public -- that money is being taken out of reserves for whatever reason.Where are the three CDs we are supposed to have – the actual certificates? (Bunn)Unfortunately, those CDs were not kept at the bank/s -- which is an option -- to keep them locked up at the bank. I don’t know why those were physically issued to Forbes Park but the certificates themselves are not in the records. Barth, Bunn and Colvin have all looked for them. It took a bank president’s sign-off to reissue the CDs. It became an issue. The only we could find is a statement by the former president saying that they were locked up in a safe at his home. We have the money. The money is not missing. It’s just the physical paper that said we owned it that is missing. (Barth)Audience: Are you saying that G. Fix did not turn over the CDs when he turned over his paperwork? (S. Roberts)Correct. And S. Colvin signed off on his papers and there’s nothing that says the CDs were physically there.  We don’t have a problem re-issuing them… (Barth)Have you asked him to return them? (Wilson) He said they were in the folders. He came in the office and looked through them and they weren’t there. I’m not making an accusation. I’m making a statement. We had them re-issued at the bank. (Barth)They were misplaced. (Waters)2013 BUDGET:There are some math errors in the budget. It doesn’t change anything that was voted on. Our assessments are the same. It’s just an accounting.  The top items – when you total your income and you total your expenses, they are supposed to add up. The top line “Repair and Replacement Fund” was originally $215,515.86 but, if you go to the bottom, it says $215,500. So it’s off by $15.86 so that has been adjusted. In the operating, if you total all of our expenses, we were off by $ 400.00 so I put in an unallocated line with $400.00 -- which was probably meant to be put into something, but it wasn’t. I’m making a motion to just clean up the math errors and have the 2013 Budget replaced on the website so everybody can see how the numbers add up. (Barth)Second (Waters). Is there any discussion?? (Barth)Audience: Regardless of how you do the formal accounting, if you could place a summary online that everyone can understand -- in layman’s terms-- so we can all see what things actually cost and can know what’s going on. (M. Schroetenboer)We can do that on big-ticket items. We can do a monthly report in addition to what the accountant gives us. L. Wilson can add some notes, on a monthly basis, and we can make an icon on our website if people are interested. I don’t know, down to the dollar, what we spent on the Admin. Building. When we get our Audit Report, we will know because it will move over to the asset side and we’ll depreciate it and budget for it in our reserves. (Barth)Let’s vote on cleaning up the math errors in our budget. (Barth). The vote was unanimous.NEW TILE IN CENTER:The previous ECC brought an estimate of around $2500.00 for the labor to remove the carpet and put in tile. With the materials, we figure it will cost about $5,000 total to replace the floor. So I make a motion that we take the money out of reserves and spend about $5000.00. It can go out for bid…whatever we want to do. Do I have a second? (Barth). I’ll second. (Waters)Is there any discussion on the floor? Do we want tile, carpet, corkboard? (Barth)Audience: What’s that going to do to the acoustics in here? (??)Loud. (Wilson)We only got a quote on ripping up the carpet and putting in tile. We didn’t get a quote on what kind of tile. I don’t want it to exceed $ 5000 so that will probably drive some of it. This is just one estimate. This is just to get it on the table. We might not have it for awhile and we can have other bids.Let’s vote. (Barth). The vote was unanimous.POLICY #4 (Bunn)Basically, anybody can ask for any kind of records that are in the office. There are some records that this does not apply to. But if it applies to purchasing equipment, contracts for services…you should be able to get any of that. This is an association and you should be able to know what you’re paying for. There’s a new bill coming out Jan 1 and you can just about anything you want with a few exceptions -- the same five restrictions as are already listed on the Policy we have now (read them from the policy). …And trade secrets (Waters)These are the ones that are listed in CCIOA. (Wilson)This is one of the statutes – an opinion we have from Motz. (Waters)I don’t think we have any trade secrets. (Wilson)The individual privacy addresses that because some contractors actually have their trade secrets in their contract. (Barth)And the reason for that is they don’t want their competition to know what they are charging – so they stay competitive. The only way around that is to go to them and ask if you can divulge it. (Waters)Mr. Motz suggested that you talk with the contractors on existing bids and contracts and that can get white-out so that a landowner can come and look. I do believe we have to disclose how much we are paying for the contract because it’s our money that is paying for those contracts. The landowner request that is on file now is a little difficult to get through because it says that, if you get a record, you have to destroy it within 30 days. I’d like to see this re-written between now and Jan 1 and we’ll have to follow that law. (Barth)I don’t think we need to make a motion. We just need owners to fill out a form and give us 5 days notice. You can’t have originals. You’ll have to pay for copies if you want them. (Bunn)The only real change is that you used to have to give a “proper purpose” to receive the records. What changes in HB1237 is that you no longer have to provide a “proper purpose”. You just need to give us notice so we can be prepared, get them ready, and make an appointment… (Wilson)Hopefully, we can get a lot of this available in electronic means of providing that information so that 2600 landowners that can’t come into the office or fill out forms can get what they need and that we can provide as long as the sensitive stuff has been taken out. Maybe we can put them on the website. (Barth)
POLICY # 7 - REVISION:We have to change this based on usurious laws in Colorado. The law says that you cannot charge more than 45% of the account balance when you go into collection on delinquent accounts. We can change the procedure so that we can have this in effect by Dec 1. Interest is in our covenants at 10% per annum.My motion is that the procedure for collecting delinquent accounts be revised to comply with the Colorado Laws including the 10% per annum which is required under Article VI in the FPLOA covenants.  On Dec 1, the first notice delinquency of $15.00 (late fee) and a payment plan should be offered as an option in the letter that goes to the landowner. Jan 1, the second notice goes out with a late fee of $20.00. Feb 1, a third notice goes out with a late fee of $25.00. And then on March 1 notice, the landowner will receive a certified letter with return receipt (so we know it’s been received) in which there will be notice that, according to our covenants, we can file a lien and we can also refer to legal counsel. It doesn’t mean we have to do these things at that point but we can. I need a second. (Barth)I second (Bunn). Is there any discussion on that? (Barth) Motion passed unanimously.BUGLER IN NOVEMBER: (Barth)I’d like to see the Bugler published by the end of November. There are laws that we have to get out in the Bugler – like the budget. D. Barrett wants to do it again and she does a great job. We’ll put out a mass e-mail for people to put some other things in it so it isn’t all business. We do have a budget for the Bugler.REINSTATE FINANCE COMMITTEE WITH NEW CHARTER: (Bunn)We used to have a Finance committee and it got changed but I think we need to put it back in effect. We need a group of people doing our budget, watching our money and making sure the board is doing what we’re supposed to be doing. I’ve asked B. Reid to chair this committee and J. Franke will help. We’d like to stay on track and have internal controls. (Bunn)In the charter I would like to see them report to the Treasurer and not to the President as our bylaws say. The bylaws now say they work with the president.  (Barth)Is that a motion? (Barth)  Yes (Skip). Is there any discussion? No? Then let’s vote. (Barth)Motion passed unanimously.Landowner Surveys: (Wilson)It’s been a while since an owner survey was done. I think it was 2005. I’d like to see folks suggesting ideas for what they would like to ask in a survey. Some people aren’t happy with the covenants or they feel like they need to be clarified. We have some historical data but maybe some things have changed -- or maybe they haven’t. But I think we need to find out what things people support and what they want to pay for. A survey is not a mandate. It’s just feedback. It may not be everybody but it would be more broad-based input. The more people we can involve the better chance we will have to make good decisions which are supported by more people. I’d like to see us put together a committee. Perhaps we could set up an e-mail address to collect ideas for survey questions. We could include a survey in mailings we already are sending rather than incurring extra expense. I would like to see us mail it with election materials so they could use the pre-paid envelope.I don’t think we can include it in election materials. They have to be anonymous. (Barth)The survey doesn’t have to have a name on it. It could be anonymous. (Wilson)I’d like to see it go out with assessments. (Barth)We’ve got the option to use the website for surveys also. What do you want to do? (Barth)I’d like to set up a separate board e-mail and start collecting ideas for survey questions. (Wilson)Would it be better to have it sent to the manager? (Waters) I ran on this and this is something I’d like to be in charge. I’d like to collect them – not culling them but collecting them and present them to the board. (Wilson)Talk with Jim Homer and see about setting this up. (Barth)Can I make a motion that I be allowed to do this? (Wilson) Second (Barth). Motion passed unanimously.ESTABLISH BOARD MEETING SCHEDULEOur bylaws only require two a year. I think we have to have a meeting in the spring because we’re talking election and we may be looking at election policy –candidates & timeline.  Right now I don’t see any need for a January board meeting. The dates I had are: Feb 23, April 27, July 27 and Oct 12 and the Annual meeting Saturday, July 6. I would like to get it on the calendar and in the Bugler. If we have it in February we’re getting close enough to talk about the election. That’s my preference. We can have some more discussion on that and we’ll get it out in the November Bugler so landowners can plan.Comments from the Audience:Audience: Something I’m concerned about and that we’re not talking about is… are we going to have 10% increases in assessments for the next five years or ten years? A lot of associations say “we want this” and “we want that” but we can’t keep doing that. We have an aging population that is on Social Security, 401s and whatever else.  In B. Reid’s time it was 5%. In my time it was 7%. We need to look at all the stuff we are buying and look into the future to see what we really need. Do we need 7%, 5%? Could we go one year at 0%? (M. Herring)That’ why we need a reserve study to help us budget for the future. We now have hard assets we have to save for – maintain, repair and replace. A lot of budget now is going to be driven by hard assets. (Wilson)I would recommend we have an auditor come in and do a forensic audit and I would like to know who signed off that we were a cattle and farm community. (M. Herring)G. Fix (Bunn)We’re taxed as residential – not agricultural. We had our lawyer, auditor and accountant advise us that we not sign off on that. We have to rely on the advice of professionals. (Barth)I’d like to emphasize that the majority does not always protect the rights of everybody. I agree with feedback but I want the board to do what is right. The people who are just landowners have the option of living here year-round. I bet if they did they would change their perspective somewhat. The rights we have been given upon purchasing our land need to be protected regardless of whether the majority agrees. (D. Armstrong)Absolutely. ..the board  has a fiduciary responsibility – of care and of loyalty. We also have to enforce and follow all of our governing documents. The ones that we can change, we should change because we have to follow the laws that trump those. (Barth)The only democracy we have here is when we vote. Then it is no longer a democracy and it is up to the board to make decisions and if we don’t like those decisions, then we vote you out. (D. Armstrong)The Guide to Building in the park shows it was submitted 3/6/2012. Has the board seen that and approved it? Because it seems to me there are some statements in there that look to conflict with Colorado Law and the Covenants and I’d like to see it rescinded. It says on the first page it was done by the ECC. And it’s on the webpage. It implies the board is supporting it. (R. Godfrey)I did not see a board vote and it might not even apply.  (Barth)Unfortunately the ECC is the most powerful committee here. The do what they want and don’t even report to us is my understanding. (Waters).We can replace them (Barth)We can replace them but they’re pretty well independent.We’ll make sure that comes off the website because it was not voted on. (Barth) Unless someone can show me the vote where it was approved it’s coming off the website.I think it was postponed for more study. (B. Moss)Then it should never have been put on the website. (Barth)The other option I would like to see on the other side of the firewall is all of the documents – not just the covenants whether they change or not.  (Barth)It is CCIOA law that sellers have to reveal all that to a potential buyer.  The onus is on the seller. The association is not responsible for doing that. The association is responsible for making the information available but we’re not responsible for revealing it to a potential buyer. (Wilson)Audience: We were provided with the covenants but we were not provided with the policies and the bylaws. How were we to know that some of the policies and bylaws were in conflict with the covenants? We read the covenants. We feel like everyone should be able to see all of this before they buy property. (D. Armstrong)At the last workshop I think we decided that we needed to receive a legal opinion from Mr. Motz about this and that still needs to be on his list. (Wilson)Audience: Are we going to move Forbes Park sales somewhere other than sharing it with the owners? I spent 2 ½ hours looking at property and they thought we would be willing to offer owner-financing like some of the owner’s do.   (B. Moss)It should be separated on the website (Barth). I agree (S. Bunn)I’d like to see them go back to open bids like we did in the past where we start with a good price and take the bids and have a closing sale and we got some money on that. It’s something to talk about with the Real Estate Committee. Okay. Is there a motion to Adjourn? (Barth)Motion to Adjourn (Bunn)Announcement: Thank you to the Rappers for the donation of the power saw to help with Fire Mitigation. (S. Colvin) <clapping>

Notes from Today's RAC Meeting : 11/5/12

To contact us Click HERE



The notes, shown below, may help answer some questions related to road equipment:
The figures, shown below, were presented to the committee and the landowners present at today's meeting. Figures are based on the vendor's estimates. However so far everything purchased has been more expensive than their estimates.
       Loader/plow- $275,154.00 -$68,000.00 down                                 48 months @ 0% interest                                  Payments $4315.71 per month                                 3 year extended warranty.                    Cost of Supplies  -                                  Winter Supplies-$11,200                                 Sales tax/reg.-  $10,713 (estimated)                                  Insurance-         $ 6,900 (estimated)                                 Chains-             $12,144                                 ** PM contract-  $11,304                                                                   ** PM (preventative maintenance contract will likely be postponed)
     Grader and Wing- $217,900.00 - $20,000. down,                                  36 months @ 3.9% interest                                 Payments $5,726.25 per month                                No warranty bought used-as is.                Cost of Supplies -                                PM contract:       $13,640                                Chains:               $10,992                                 Winter supplies:  $11,346                               Insurance:            $  3,576                                Sales Tax/Reg     $10,713 

NMHSC Raffle, 6/16--> 'The Homeschooling Handbook'

To contact us Click HERE

by Mary Griffith, Paperback, 1997, Printed by Prima Publishing ---Image of book is on main website www.NewMexicoHomeSchoolCommunity.com

This is a virtual raffle drawing for the book. The book is in excellent condition with some writing in the back near the group listings. It is older and some of the groups and links might be out of date but the general information itself is timeless for those that need a boost in the reasons why they are homeschooling and those new to homeschooling. Mary Griffith is a wonderful writer and has many books that all homeschoolers should read! Here is her website--the book in this raffle is the original edition http://www.marygriffith.net/Site/homeschooling.html

Entry is $3

You can enter more than once to increase your chances of winning!

You add more to donate to the NM Home School Community. Proceeds will go to support the efforts and future projects of the NM Home School Community.

Go to my website www.NewMexicoHomeSchoolCommunity.com or http://nmhomeschoolcommunity.blogspot.com/ and hit the Paypal donate button. Checks and cash also accepted, email me for details.

Please include 'The Homeschooling Handbook' Raffle in the paypal subject line and your name, email, address and phone number(s) for contact (this information will not be shared or viewed except by myself)


Entries must be received by Friday, June 20 at midnight.

Virtual raffle drawing will take place on Saturday, June 21, 2008 and winner will be announced via email!

I will cover shipping. Or I will make arrangements to meet you in town if you live in the Albuquerque Area.

The raffle entries will vary in amount depending on the prize being offered.

If you have curriculum, books and/or educational related items that you would like to donate to be raffled off please contact me at NMHomeschoolCommunity@gmail.com

Blog: Facebook Says 'Yes' to Homeschoolers

To contact us Click HERE
http://spunkyhomeschool.blogspot.com/2008/06/facebook-says-yes-to-homeschoolers.html

Facebook Says 'Yes' to Homeschoolers
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The world would go on just fine if this announcement had never been made, but for 1000's of homeschool kids it has now become easier to join the popular social networking site, Facebook, without compromising the verification process or site security. From the Facebook Blog,

Back in September 2006, we decided to open up Facebook to everyone. Well, almost everyone.We realized Facebook would be most useful if more people were allowed
to join, but we also weren't willing to compromise the security of the site by removing all methods of verification, especially for high school students and minors. Unfortunately this meant that most homeschoolers weren't able to register. For security purposes, users under the age of 18 were required to affiliate with their current high school, but it was nearly impossible to extend this system to homeschooled users.

We've been working on ways to solve this—we want minors to use Facebook safely above all. Today, we're happy to announce that we've recently come up with a way for homeschoolers to join. We've created a new verification system—one that doesn't depend on being in a high school, but still provides the level of security we believe is required. So welcome, everyone, to Facebook.

Blog: Facebook Says 'Yes' to Homeschoolers

To contact us Click HERE
http://spunkyhomeschool.blogspot.com/2008/06/facebook-says-yes-to-homeschoolers.html

Facebook Says 'Yes' to Homeschoolers
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The world would go on just fine if this announcement had never been made, but for 1000's of homeschool kids it has now become easier to join the popular social networking site, Facebook, without compromising the verification process or site security. From the Facebook Blog,

Back in September 2006, we decided to open up Facebook to everyone. Well, almost everyone.We realized Facebook would be most useful if more people were allowed
to join, but we also weren't willing to compromise the security of the site by removing all methods of verification, especially for high school students and minors. Unfortunately this meant that most homeschoolers weren't able to register. For security purposes, users under the age of 18 were required to affiliate with their current high school, but it was nearly impossible to extend this system to homeschooled users.

We've been working on ways to solve this—we want minors to use Facebook safely above all. Today, we're happy to announce that we've recently come up with a way for homeschoolers to join. We've created a new verification system—one that doesn't depend on being in a high school, but still provides the level of security we believe is required. So welcome, everyone, to Facebook.

Liz's UNOFFICIAL Notes from 10/6/12 Board Meeting: Part 1

To contact us Click HERE
Liz's UNOFFICIAL Notes: October 6, 2012Meeting was called to Order at 9:28 am by L. Barth, Chairman D. Atkins recorded the meeting for the minutes.Barth reminded those in attendance that we would be following parliamentary procedure and a hand-out was provided for reference – how motions are made and protocol for speaking.Board Members and Park Manager were introduced.Quorum was established (all 4 directors were present) and no additional agenda items were added. Bunn made the motion to approve the Minutes from the 9/1 Board Meeting -- Unanimous approval.Unfinished Business:       Committees: Some Committee volunteers have resigned and new volunteers have been appointed. o   J. Homer will serve as Communication Chair for 6-9 months and K. Miller was added on 9/10 via e-mail.o   On 9/15 (via e-mail) B. Vannerson was elected Chairman of the RAC, D. Crabtree as Co-Chair and L. Elfrink is Vice-Chair. Members to be: S. Bunn, J. Barth, D. Leininger, T. Moore and P. Skaris (as Technical Advisor)o   The ECC new members we appointed on 9/24 and they are: Jim Barth, Chairman (until 6/01/2013), Tim Walch and Ray Godfreyo   Laura made a motion to accept the resignations of S. Roberts, A. Vest and J. Nickle from ECC effective 9/4; C. Roper from Sec. of Communication effective 9/30. D. Crabtree was appointed as chairman of Fire Mitigation (could not find in records) so made it effective August 7.o   Bunn seconded the motion. Barth asked for questions from the audience. There were no questions and the vote to accept the resignations and appointments was unanimous.Treasurer Position: Barth made a motion that Liz Wilson be appointed as FPLOA Treasurer.  Bunn  seconded the motion. Barth asked for questions/comments from the audience. There were no questions and the vote was unanimous.Status of Purchase of Road Equipment:  The grader was purchased in May and is being operated. (Bunn) The purchase order for the loader was put out at the end of August but the financial part was not complete when the new board was seated.  Bunn made comments. Current RAC reported loader expenses this year will total $115,259.00 – 70% of their budget and other alternatives were described. Their final recommendation was to rent for $8659.00($51,950.00 for 6 months) with 100% going towards the purchase if we choose. It would allow to work past the budget crisis and would give us a trial period to see if it is the right equipment for our needs. The $20,000 we have already put down would go toward the rental.  Bunn made a motion that we go with a 6 month rental on the 644K front-end loader because it will save money and give us time to look at it and it’s the advice of the RAC.Question (Waters): What about the $40,000 for the RV Move and the $40,000 for the Capital. What about the $60,000 we were under the RAC budget in 2011-2012?Answer (Bunn): We have received additional expenses that we didn’t know about are showing up from last year. (Barth) The payment made in July for $25,000 was for work done in May and the next bill for $25,000 (grader work, loader work, belly-dump work…14 sheets) is from July and no payments were made in August so it is probably a legitimate bill. If true, this will come out of the $60,000 that was left in the road budget. The 2013 $10,000 budget for maintenance that was approved, we are already $17,000 over budget six days into the month because we had to sign a Prev. Maintenance Agreement that was not negotiated in May on the grader ($13,000) and we have $10,000 in supplies that are required to operate the machinery and another $10,000 is the estimate for six chains for the grader to get us through the winter. So we’re already eating up the $40,000 that was in the budget to move the RV Storage in the second week of the budget year.Wilson seconded the motion.       Questions and comments were solicited from the audience.o   Will a track vehicle (like the dozer) cause a problem with our roads? (D. Corder) o   Answer:  “No” (T. Moore)o   Bunn voted for the loader and lots of research was done before it was purchased. We need to add assets.(D .Roper)o   We will also be responsible for the loader maintenance, fuel, oil, insurance and chains (Barth)o   We have some supplies already (Waters)o   This piece of equipment isn’t the end all. We are going to need other pieces of equipment – backhoes, trucks and a dozer would be nice because some of the roads in the back of the park are going to have to be re-built. (D. Leininger) o   The grader and loader, added together, total about $550,000. A used JD 644G just sold at auction on 9/14 for $60,000 (Bunn) o   If this has been researched so long, why was such a large purchase not surveyed and decided on without membership approval? (M. Schrotenboer)o   Most of the members would not want to spend even $60,000 on year-round maintenance. If they ever became a fulltime resident they would change their tune. Things can go wrong with used equipment – extra expenses. The loader should be able to be used for something besides snow removal. (D. Armstrong)o   Owning versus renting should save about $90,000+ over three years. The equipment would be paid off in three years and that is when the real savings would take place – estimates between $150- 175,000 a year we would save. Plans were to keep the loader for 10 years. It has a bucket that comes with it and it has attachments that can be purchased. In 3 years, the two pieces of equipment should be worth close to $400,000 so we’d have an asset. You can never build an organization by spending and consuming and having nothing to show for it. We were totally dependent on one company. (Waters)o   In the winter, the machine that does the work is the loader. It is not the grader. The people that live in the back of the park, if we get snows like there were in April in May, it would be two weeks before they could get out if all we had was the grader. (D Roper)o   Another option that was not addressed was to stretch the payments from 3 years to 4 years. (Barth)o   If we rent the loader, it will cost another $20,000 more than a purchase. (P Waters)o   It will be used more than 5 months a year. We have trees growing into the edge of the roads and we rented equipment from RMS $90.00/hr just to take the tree stumps out. The loader will take care of that. (D. Crabtree)o   How many fully-trained experienced drivers do we have for this equipment? (K.Smith)o   We have at least two and probably two more. What concerns me more is an affidavit that was signed that stated were going to use this equipment for farming and ranching operation so we would not have to pay sales tax. This is not true and we’re going to have to pay a lot of sales tax. (Bunn)o   We wrote a check to the county for $9775.00 for taxes for the grader and a penalty of $1500 because we didn’t register by the end of June. (Barth)o   How much did we pay RMS for the use of the loader in the last three years? (B. Moss)o   Snow Removal was about $119,000 last year (Barth).o   It sounds like to me we’d be saving a ton of money if we bought the loader (B. Moss)o   I don’t think the question is whether or not we need a loader. I think the question is whether or not we can afford a loader right now. Based on the bills that are popping up, other expenses (like repairing Wagon Creek), increases in reserves to cover hard assets means we have to save more money. The question is if we can meet our financial obligations. (L.Wilson)Barth re-read the motion from Bunn, it’s been seconded. Call for a vote to rent as opposed to purchase the loader.  Result: Wilson- AYE, Bunn- AYE, Waters – NO, Barth –NO.Financing is not done. It’s not secured. John Deere may come back and say we don’t have the money and then it’s back to the drawing table.Purchase price of the grader was about $227,000 with tax. We are making payments of approx. $ 5800.00 per month, insurance is about $3500 and we’ll pay about $3,000 every year in ownership tax. The loader is more. (Barth)The loader is $275,000 without tax. Payments are$ 7393.00 per month in the current purchase order for three years at 1.9%. (Barth) Audience Comment: Last year, per records, was the second highest snow year posted in 19 years and they used a second operator 4 times. (D. Crabtree)The studies that were done over the last 3 years should have been put out to the landowners. It should have been talked about at every committee, board and annual meeting. We were all told that these pieces of equipment were going to be leased for two years. (Barth)Audience Comment: The only people that really care are the ones that are here today. What makes you think that you are going to get people to respond to surveys? We can’t even get a 1000 people to vote. I think the membership should be polled but you’re not going to get a response. (S. Roberts).The vote is dead so we have to go back to the previous board’s vote to purchase the loader. (Barth)    

Liz's UNOFFICIAL Notes from 10/6/12 Board Meeting: Part 2

To contact us Click HERE
Liz's Personal Notes - UNOFFICIAL: 10/6/12 (Part 2)RESERVE STUDY: (Wilson/Barth)In 2010 the FPLOA signed a 3-year contract with Assn. Reserves. An on site Reserve Study was done in 2010 with an update in 2011 and 2012. However, the FPLOA never scheduled an update in 2011 and the contract became void. Therefore no Reserve Study had/has been scheduled for 2012. Because of our failure to meet the terms of our original contract, we just found out this week they will not offer us the discounted “loyalty” agreement ($ 7050.00 for 3-years) and we will only be able to receive a one-year contract for this year’s Reserve Study ($ 4810.00 per year). Previously this board had voted, unanimously, to use this company to provide our Reserve Study and we had already sent a check for $3525.00. The Reserve Study is required. We have a policy and it’s Colorado Law. Because of the delay in contacting the Reserve Specialist we may not be able to compete the Reserve Study until early next year. AUDIT: (Barth)The previous board signed a contract with Martinez and Associates to complete the Audit for this 2012. They did the 2011 audit. Last year the audit cost about $10,000 because she had to re-build our budget from about June through Sept. We got a good audit. This year her quote is for $5500 and she’ll come in at the end of Dec or the first of Jan. The law says we are supposed to have the audit complete within 90 days so we are trying to get her to squeeze it in. We are happy with her – knowledgeable and a CPA.Are there any questions?  Hopefully, we’ll have a Reserve Study she can look at.ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSFER FEE: (Barth)This is a $200.00 Transfer Fee that is collected when someone buys property here in the Park. Unless you use a title company to close, it can become a problem to collect. There’s a new law in 2011 (SB 11-234) which addresses Transfer Fees on Real Property in Colorado. There is nothing in our CCRs that talk about the collection of a “transfer fee” and to be legitimate, that fee would have to have been recorded in our covenants prior to the passing of the new law. Management companies can charge “transfer fees” but it is not in our covenants and it was never voted in by our members. We need to eliminate this fee.  We can charge fees for other things – like gate cards and making copies, etc.I am making a motion today that we rescind the $200.00 Transfer Fee --as it’s written on the books, as of 2006 -- and make it retro-active to Oct. 1, 2012. So, if anyone has purchased or sold property since Oct.1, they cannot be charged a “transfer fee”.  Is there a second?I second (Waters). Is there any discussion? (Barth)What was the purpose? (Waters). It was legal when it was enacted because we were using a management company and the law was not place at that time.  The board, at the time, voted unanimously because we had no reserves and we needed the money. There were 200 lots sold that year and it was a general purpose way to receive revenue – for roads or whatever. (Barth)So it will not be retro-active? (Waters)My recommendation is just since October 1. (Barth)Audience: At the time it was put in place, reserves were down and roads were in disrepair and we needed to raise some money. I don’t think anyone had a problem with it at that time. But now that we’ve corrected that over a period of years, I don’t think we can justify it. (M. Schrotenboer)We can do one other thing. We can charge for a “status letter” -- usually between $15-50.00 and we have a right to do that. It’s a smart thing to do because, when someone buys a lot, they might find out they have $1000.00 in back fees or something like that.Audience: To require funds just because we need the money is questionable.There was board action on it and the charge (transfer fee) was legitimate at the time. (Barth)Let’s take a vote. The board vote was unanimous.MANAGER’S REPORT: (S. Colvin)About 65% of the landowner’s have paid their assessments. Payments are still coming in at the rate of about 50 per day. Recommends getting rid of the little (“lizard”) truck. It doesn’t have any power and it burns more oil than gas. It’s not economical. Motion made to sell the “lizard” -- as an asset of the corporation and disclose the known defects. (Waters).Bunn seconded. No discussion. Motion passed unanimously.Recommended a cover be constructed over the back porch of the Admin. Building as protection from the weather and railings installed on the stairs and the back entrance for a cost of $1500.00Waters made the motion and Barth seconded. Audience: There were volunteers in line to put the railings on before the board took over. (G.Nickle)There was no discussion from the audience and the motion passed unanimously.Audience: Be sure the roof is constructed where the snow does not slide onto the porch like at the Center. It makes the steps really slippery. (B. Moss)COMMITTEE REPORTS:All the committee chairpersons were asked to submit their year-end reports in writing so they are in the packets to read to save time. At the end of the meeting, questions can be asked about the reports. (Barth)
NEW BUSINESS:APPOINTMENT OF NEW BOARD MEMBER:D. Roper resigned in August which created a position that needs to be filled until July 6 of next year – about 10 months. Three names were submitted. The four candidates from the election were contacted and one responded – M. Mercier. K. Smith and D. Atkins (current FPLOA secretary) were the other two. Qualifications of the candidates were reviewed. There is no FPLOA process that specifies how someone is appointed.  The attorney advised that we “shall” appoint a replacement by today.  If I came in third, I would want the board to ask me but it doesn’t mean they have to do that. (Barth)Waters made a motion to appoint M. Mercier to the board to complete the term of D. Roper.Barth seconded the motion.Audience: D. Corder, B. Moss, D. Armstrong, J. Fix, C. Roper, C. Taylor-Dunn and D. Marcella all spoke in support of M. Mercier.I would also like us to consider someone else who is full time. K. Smith is also full time. I’d like to see somebody who doesn’t have a history, with a fresh perspective, a new face. There is definitely a difference in philosophy between the former board and this board, in general, and I would like to find /train new leadership who can look for new ways to put us together rather than separate us. I think we ought to consider K. Smith and D. Atkins is doing a great job, as secretary, so I don’t want to lose her. (Wilson)Audience (Directed at Wilson): Do you have property here? (“I do”– Wilson) But you don’t have a residence here. (C. Taylor-Dunn)No, I don’t. I represent the people who don’t have residences up here. (Wilson)Audience: You represent all of the people here. (D. Armstrong)I represent that particular perspective. (Wilson)Audience: I serve on two other boards where people have resigned and, if there’s not something in the bylaws, protocol is usually that the next-voted normally takes the temporary position. It’s logical. As far as a “fresh perspective”, M. Mercier would be open to what the board wants to do. We’ve owned property since the 70’s and there have always been a lot of factions. (D. Marcella) Audience: You need to represent all the members. (D. Corder) -- <Clapping> The people outside the Park don’t have a voice. There are 2600+ members and if they don’t live here or have a residence here --in October-- it’s pretty hard for them to show up and fill up a room. So I think it’s important that there is somebody in the room that might have a different perspective than everybody who does live here or have a residence here. It’s a perspective that needs to be represented here, as well, because there are a lot more of them than there are of you. (Wilson)Audience: People who don’t have a residence here are not necessarily speaking for me because they don’t always know what’s going on. They aren’t here in the wintertime and to hear all that goes on and they can form an opinion based on what they’re being told and not what they are actually seeing. As a board member, you need to be representing all of us -- not just the people that are not residents here. (D. Marcella) -- <Clapping>Audience: With your statement what you are implying is that the other three people up there aren’t representing all of the people and they are. I’ve heard them and I think that you ought to represent all the people and you shouldn’t be making single statements like that. (R. Godfrey) -- <Clapping>One more time… my job is to represent everybody – not just the people that are in this room. And since most of the people that own property are not in this room, I think their interests should also have a voice and I’m their voice. (Wilson)Audience: We need to recognize that the general membership does have the power here. We can clap and disrespect L. Wilson. But the people here that think the non-residents don’t have a concern about Forbes Park are wrong. They do. They have the controlling vote. They need to have SKYPE or something available where they can be watching this and become a part of things. Right now they feel disconnected and they have voted other people out because they don’t understand what’s going on. (M. Schroetenboer)I agree with you. But I also know, if we ran another election, M. Mercier would most likely win that election. She won over 300 votes and they were not all from people that live here. (Barth)Audience: This is the second time I’ve been in the blog and I don’t appreciate it. That’s what’s divided this whole community and that’s what got some of these members elected because false statements were made on that blog and people don’t have to own up to them. They get real close to defamation of character and I want it to stop and I want it stopped now. (D. Corder)(Barth) I’m going to take a vote. All those in favor of appointing M. Mercier to be on the board…Aye (Waters), Aye (Barth), Opposed (Bunn), Opposed (Wilson)So, under parliamentary procedure, that motion has died because of a tie.What I would like to do, if it’s okay with the board, is to table. It’s a dead motion and I would like to discuss further it in executive session and invite M. Mercier and K. Smith to address the board. We can come out of that and make a decision. We will change this. The election bylaws will have a procedure next year. B. Reid asked G. Fix and he declined and they appointed M. Herring. Audience: How are you going to put that in executive session – under what means? (B. Moss) It’s because we will be talking about personalities and sensitive information. We can’t vote but we can discuss. (Barth)Audience: So nobody else except the board is going to be involved and you’re not going to take audience recommendations or membership input. (B. Moss)We just did. We’ll discuss any sensitive information. Then we can come out and bring it up again. (Barth)   CODE OF ETHICS:The Community Associations Institute recommends that boards of directors operate under a Code of Ethics and they actually have one they have already put together. I would like to recommend that, like the Conflict of Interest Policy, we adopt a Code of Ethics that we sign on to when we become board members. (Wilson)We had one last year (Waters, Bunn)We’ll re-institute that and look at it. (Barth) TOTAL FIRE BAN:Barth made a motion to rescind the year-round, total fire ban and for the FPLOA to follow County guidelines.  Bunn seconded.Audience: What does it mean? (R. Godfrey) Audience: Covenants say “no open fires”.  A grate is okay. Fires need a spark arrestor. The fire ban was put in Jan. 2011 because it was crispy critters out here. It was put it in before the county because we couldn’t wait anymore. You could still have a camp stove. Even L. Wilson would agree that, if we had 15,000 acres of burnt land, it wouldn’t be worth anything and would be bad for all the members – not just the people that live here. (B. Moss)(Barth) I want to follow the county guidelines and we can’t even have a campfire if we have a total fire ban. Audience: We’re going to put it back the way the covenants say. (B. Moss)Call for the vote. (Barth). Barth-AYE, Bunn-AYE, Wilson-AYE, Waters- NO. Motion carried 3-1.

Liz's UNOFFICIAL Notes: from 10/6/12 Board Meeting - Part 3 of 3

To contact us Click HERE
Liz's UNOFFICIAL Notes: Board Meeting 10/6/12 - Part 3 of 3YEAR-END FINANCIAL REPORT: (Wilson)** I read a written report that I will provide to any of you who wants one if you send an e-mail request to forbesparkfriends@gmail.comThe board has never voted to allocate reserves based on our Audit report and there are things that can be moved around, for example, the picnic area down by Wagon Creek. It’s slated for $17K in reserves to re-build the pavilion but the board might decide to move that money into something we’re paying for like the grader. (Barth)A lot of the reserve work we’ve been doing is not coming out of the reserve, it’s been coming out of the operating side –repair work with culverts and berms. Properly we should be putting money in reserves and taking it out of that but we’ve been taking it out of the operating side so we didn’t need to replenish it in reserves. Maybe I’m wrong. (Waters)The $215,500 for reserves in the budget this year needs to go immediately into reserves and the landowners need to see it. Right now if you look at our accounting reports you can’t tell what’s in reserves and you can’t tell if spending came out of operating or reserves. We are addressing this and the Auditor will get after us if we don’t separate out our reserves and pay attention. Our bylaws state a super-majority of the board must vote to spend money out of reserves – four out of five directors. Unfortunately, a lot of the reserve money last year was depleted, bank accounts were closed and I can’t find a board vote that Okayed reserve money to be spent on the Admin. Building. There was $94,000 in reserves at the beginning of Oct, 2011. That bank account was closed by December and there is no vote as to where that money went. It showed up again later on in “Roads” but the board would have had to move that money into “Roads”. The paperwork and process was overlooked. (Barth) So…money was moved out of reserves to pay for the Admin. Building which totaled…. (Bunn)By the time you add in all the costs associated with the Admin. Building like the parking lot (about $5,000), the septic was dug (and that ended up in the Roads budget), and I don’t know how much the well was but the final cost is closer to $150,000. (Barth)We were told that money was not taken out of reserves for the building. (Bunn)We’ll have full accounting of it because we have 12 bank statements and we have copies of checks that were written to Pro-Shed and RMS and the numbers will speak for themselves. The landowners need to know this. It will be in the year-end report. It will be in the Audit Report and hopefully, going forward, the board will take these votes and make them public -- that money is being taken out of reserves for whatever reason.Where are the three CDs we are supposed to have – the actual certificates? (Bunn)Unfortunately, those CDs were not kept at the bank/s -- which is an option -- to keep them locked up at the bank. I don’t know why those were physically issued to Forbes Park but the certificates themselves are not in the records. Barth, Bunn and Colvin have all looked for them. It took a bank president’s sign-off to reissue the CDs. It became an issue. The only we could find is a statement by the former president saying that they were locked up in a safe at his home. We have the money. The money is not missing. It’s just the physical paper that said we owned it that is missing. (Barth)Audience: Are you saying that G. Fix did not turn over the CDs when he turned over his paperwork? (S. Roberts)Correct. And S. Colvin signed off on his papers and there’s nothing that says the CDs were physically there.  We don’t have a problem re-issuing them… (Barth)Have you asked him to return them? (Wilson) He said they were in the folders. He came in the office and looked through them and they weren’t there. I’m not making an accusation. I’m making a statement. We had them re-issued at the bank. (Barth)They were misplaced. (Waters)2013 BUDGET:There are some math errors in the budget. It doesn’t change anything that was voted on. Our assessments are the same. It’s just an accounting.  The top items – when you total your income and you total your expenses, they are supposed to add up. The top line “Repair and Replacement Fund” was originally $215,515.86 but, if you go to the bottom, it says $215,500. So it’s off by $15.86 so that has been adjusted. In the operating, if you total all of our expenses, we were off by $ 400.00 so I put in an unallocated line with $400.00 -- which was probably meant to be put into something, but it wasn’t. I’m making a motion to just clean up the math errors and have the 2013 Budget replaced on the website so everybody can see how the numbers add up. (Barth)Second (Waters). Is there any discussion?? (Barth)Audience: Regardless of how you do the formal accounting, if you could place a summary online that everyone can understand -- in layman’s terms-- so we can all see what things actually cost and can know what’s going on. (M. Schroetenboer)We can do that on big-ticket items. We can do a monthly report in addition to what the accountant gives us. L. Wilson can add some notes, on a monthly basis, and we can make an icon on our website if people are interested. I don’t know, down to the dollar, what we spent on the Admin. Building. When we get our Audit Report, we will know because it will move over to the asset side and we’ll depreciate it and budget for it in our reserves. (Barth)Let’s vote on cleaning up the math errors in our budget. (Barth). The vote was unanimous.NEW TILE IN CENTER:The previous ECC brought an estimate of around $2500.00 for the labor to remove the carpet and put in tile. With the materials, we figure it will cost about $5,000 total to replace the floor. So I make a motion that we take the money out of reserves and spend about $5000.00. It can go out for bid…whatever we want to do. Do I have a second? (Barth). I’ll second. (Waters)Is there any discussion on the floor? Do we want tile, carpet, corkboard? (Barth)Audience: What’s that going to do to the acoustics in here? (??)Loud. (Wilson)We only got a quote on ripping up the carpet and putting in tile. We didn’t get a quote on what kind of tile. I don’t want it to exceed $ 5000 so that will probably drive some of it. This is just one estimate. This is just to get it on the table. We might not have it for awhile and we can have other bids.Let’s vote. (Barth). The vote was unanimous.POLICY #4 (Bunn)Basically, anybody can ask for any kind of records that are in the office. There are some records that this does not apply to. But if it applies to purchasing equipment, contracts for services…you should be able to get any of that. This is an association and you should be able to know what you’re paying for. There’s a new bill coming out Jan 1 and you can just about anything you want with a few exceptions -- the same five restrictions as are already listed on the Policy we have now (read them from the policy). …And trade secrets (Waters)These are the ones that are listed in CCIOA. (Wilson)This is one of the statutes – an opinion we have from Motz. (Waters)I don’t think we have any trade secrets. (Wilson)The individual privacy addresses that because some contractors actually have their trade secrets in their contract. (Barth)And the reason for that is they don’t want their competition to know what they are charging – so they stay competitive. The only way around that is to go to them and ask if you can divulge it. (Waters)Mr. Motz suggested that you talk with the contractors on existing bids and contracts and that can get white-out so that a landowner can come and look. I do believe we have to disclose how much we are paying for the contract because it’s our money that is paying for those contracts. The landowner request that is on file now is a little difficult to get through because it says that, if you get a record, you have to destroy it within 30 days. I’d like to see this re-written between now and Jan 1 and we’ll have to follow that law. (Barth)I don’t think we need to make a motion. We just need owners to fill out a form and give us 5 days notice. You can’t have originals. You’ll have to pay for copies if you want them. (Bunn)The only real change is that you used to have to give a “proper purpose” to receive the records. What changes in HB1237 is that you no longer have to provide a “proper purpose”. You just need to give us notice so we can be prepared, get them ready, and make an appointment… (Wilson)Hopefully, we can get a lot of this available in electronic means of providing that information so that 2600 landowners that can’t come into the office or fill out forms can get what they need and that we can provide as long as the sensitive stuff has been taken out. Maybe we can put them on the website. (Barth)
POLICY # 7 - REVISION:We have to change this based on usurious laws in Colorado. The law says that you cannot charge more than 45% of the account balance when you go into collection on delinquent accounts. We can change the procedure so that we can have this in effect by Dec 1. Interest is in our covenants at 10% per annum.My motion is that the procedure for collecting delinquent accounts be revised to comply with the Colorado Laws including the 10% per annum which is required under Article VI in the FPLOA covenants.  On Dec 1, the first notice delinquency of $15.00 (late fee) and a payment plan should be offered as an option in the letter that goes to the landowner. Jan 1, the second notice goes out with a late fee of $20.00. Feb 1, a third notice goes out with a late fee of $25.00. And then on March 1 notice, the landowner will receive a certified letter with return receipt (so we know it’s been received) in which there will be notice that, according to our covenants, we can file a lien and we can also refer to legal counsel. It doesn’t mean we have to do these things at that point but we can. I need a second. (Barth)I second (Bunn). Is there any discussion on that? (Barth) Motion passed unanimously.BUGLER IN NOVEMBER: (Barth)I’d like to see the Bugler published by the end of November. There are laws that we have to get out in the Bugler – like the budget. D. Barrett wants to do it again and she does a great job. We’ll put out a mass e-mail for people to put some other things in it so it isn’t all business. We do have a budget for the Bugler.REINSTATE FINANCE COMMITTEE WITH NEW CHARTER: (Bunn)We used to have a Finance committee and it got changed but I think we need to put it back in effect. We need a group of people doing our budget, watching our money and making sure the board is doing what we’re supposed to be doing. I’ve asked B. Reid to chair this committee and J. Franke will help. We’d like to stay on track and have internal controls. (Bunn)In the charter I would like to see them report to the Treasurer and not to the President as our bylaws say. The bylaws now say they work with the president.  (Barth)Is that a motion? (Barth)  Yes (Skip). Is there any discussion? No? Then let’s vote. (Barth)Motion passed unanimously.Landowner Surveys: (Wilson)It’s been a while since an owner survey was done. I think it was 2005. I’d like to see folks suggesting ideas for what they would like to ask in a survey. Some people aren’t happy with the covenants or they feel like they need to be clarified. We have some historical data but maybe some things have changed -- or maybe they haven’t. But I think we need to find out what things people support and what they want to pay for. A survey is not a mandate. It’s just feedback. It may not be everybody but it would be more broad-based input. The more people we can involve the better chance we will have to make good decisions which are supported by more people. I’d like to see us put together a committee. Perhaps we could set up an e-mail address to collect ideas for survey questions. We could include a survey in mailings we already are sending rather than incurring extra expense. I would like to see us mail it with election materials so they could use the pre-paid envelope.I don’t think we can include it in election materials. They have to be anonymous. (Barth)The survey doesn’t have to have a name on it. It could be anonymous. (Wilson)I’d like to see it go out with assessments. (Barth)We’ve got the option to use the website for surveys also. What do you want to do? (Barth)I’d like to set up a separate board e-mail and start collecting ideas for survey questions. (Wilson)Would it be better to have it sent to the manager? (Waters) I ran on this and this is something I’d like to be in charge. I’d like to collect them – not culling them but collecting them and present them to the board. (Wilson)Talk with Jim Homer and see about setting this up. (Barth)Can I make a motion that I be allowed to do this? (Wilson) Second (Barth). Motion passed unanimously.ESTABLISH BOARD MEETING SCHEDULEOur bylaws only require two a year. I think we have to have a meeting in the spring because we’re talking election and we may be looking at election policy –candidates & timeline.  Right now I don’t see any need for a January board meeting. The dates I had are: Feb 23, April 27, July 27 and Oct 12 and the Annual meeting Saturday, July 6. I would like to get it on the calendar and in the Bugler. If we have it in February we’re getting close enough to talk about the election. That’s my preference. We can have some more discussion on that and we’ll get it out in the November Bugler so landowners can plan.Comments from the Audience:Audience: Something I’m concerned about and that we’re not talking about is… are we going to have 10% increases in assessments for the next five years or ten years? A lot of associations say “we want this” and “we want that” but we can’t keep doing that. We have an aging population that is on Social Security, 401s and whatever else.  In B. Reid’s time it was 5%. In my time it was 7%. We need to look at all the stuff we are buying and look into the future to see what we really need. Do we need 7%, 5%? Could we go one year at 0%? (M. Herring)That’ why we need a reserve study to help us budget for the future. We now have hard assets we have to save for – maintain, repair and replace. A lot of budget now is going to be driven by hard assets. (Wilson)I would recommend we have an auditor come in and do a forensic audit and I would like to know who signed off that we were a cattle and farm community. (M. Herring)G. Fix (Bunn)We’re taxed as residential – not agricultural. We had our lawyer, auditor and accountant advise us that we not sign off on that. We have to rely on the advice of professionals. (Barth)I’d like to emphasize that the majority does not always protect the rights of everybody. I agree with feedback but I want the board to do what is right. The people who are just landowners have the option of living here year-round. I bet if they did they would change their perspective somewhat. The rights we have been given upon purchasing our land need to be protected regardless of whether the majority agrees. (D. Armstrong)Absolutely. ..the board  has a fiduciary responsibility – of care and of loyalty. We also have to enforce and follow all of our governing documents. The ones that we can change, we should change because we have to follow the laws that trump those. (Barth)The only democracy we have here is when we vote. Then it is no longer a democracy and it is up to the board to make decisions and if we don’t like those decisions, then we vote you out. (D. Armstrong)The Guide to Building in the park shows it was submitted 3/6/2012. Has the board seen that and approved it? Because it seems to me there are some statements in there that look to conflict with Colorado Law and the Covenants and I’d like to see it rescinded. It says on the first page it was done by the ECC. And it’s on the webpage. It implies the board is supporting it. (R. Godfrey)I did not see a board vote and it might not even apply.  (Barth)Unfortunately the ECC is the most powerful committee here. The do what they want and don’t even report to us is my understanding. (Waters).We can replace them (Barth)We can replace them but they’re pretty well independent.We’ll make sure that comes off the website because it was not voted on. (Barth) Unless someone can show me the vote where it was approved it’s coming off the website.I think it was postponed for more study. (B. Moss)Then it should never have been put on the website. (Barth)The other option I would like to see on the other side of the firewall is all of the documents – not just the covenants whether they change or not.  (Barth)It is CCIOA law that sellers have to reveal all that to a potential buyer.  The onus is on the seller. The association is not responsible for doing that. The association is responsible for making the information available but we’re not responsible for revealing it to a potential buyer. (Wilson)Audience: We were provided with the covenants but we were not provided with the policies and the bylaws. How were we to know that some of the policies and bylaws were in conflict with the covenants? We read the covenants. We feel like everyone should be able to see all of this before they buy property. (D. Armstrong)At the last workshop I think we decided that we needed to receive a legal opinion from Mr. Motz about this and that still needs to be on his list. (Wilson)Audience: Are we going to move Forbes Park sales somewhere other than sharing it with the owners? I spent 2 ½ hours looking at property and they thought we would be willing to offer owner-financing like some of the owner’s do.   (B. Moss)It should be separated on the website (Barth). I agree (S. Bunn)I’d like to see them go back to open bids like we did in the past where we start with a good price and take the bids and have a closing sale and we got some money on that. It’s something to talk about with the Real Estate Committee. Okay. Is there a motion to Adjourn? (Barth)Motion to Adjourn (Bunn)Announcement: Thank you to the Rappers for the donation of the power saw to help with Fire Mitigation. (S. Colvin) <clapping>