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:
NEW BUSINESS: