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.