April 12, 2022

Sierra Los Pinos Property Owners' Association
Board of Directors Meeting
April 12, 2022, at 6:37 p.m.

The meeting was called to order by Vice-President Keith Rigney. The following members present: Ann Cooke, John Hines, Jeremy Oepping and Kristi Cross. Paul Lisko was excused to attend a wedding in California and Cindy Hines was excused due to work obligations. David Stuedell, Paul Rightley and Josh Toennis had indicated to Keith they may be joining later.

Guests: Julieann Quintana with Salazar Construction, Suzanne Star.

Approval of Agenda: Jeremy Oepping moved to approve the agenda; seconded by Ann Cooke, motion carried.

Approval of Minutes: Ann Cooke moved to approve the minutes of the March 8, 2022 meeting; seconded by Jeremy Oepping; motion carried.

OFFICER REPORTS:
PRESIDENT:

Paul is absent attending a wedding in California and has prepared a narrative to be read, which I will do now, verbatim. I will not be able to speak to his accounts, unless I have been included on those accounts. So feel free to ask a question and we can forward that to Paul once he is back:

Agenda ii: Paul Lisko received a call from New Mexico State Forestry FMO Chris Romo. He stated that he will be leaving the Bernalillo office to accept a position as FMO with the Village of Angel Fire. He entered data into a program called “Collector” for residences within SLP to determine their fire preparedness and to make that data available to fire management teams in the event of catastrophic wildfire threatening the community. He stated he would like someone to complete the project, but the person would have to be associated with a government entity in order to gain access to the so-called “Collector.”

I (Paul) then contacted Tamara Weary, who stated to me previously that she wanted to coordinate a project for which the junior members of La Cueva Volunteer Fire Department would take responsibility. This seemed like a win-win proposition for all concerned, especially residents of SLP who may be hesitant to offer “home hardening” precautionary info entered into the database. They may be more responsive to youths performing this task. Tamara stated she will reach out to Chris and coordinate something the week of 4/11.

Keith: That’s sometime this week.

Agenda iii: Drafted and mailed letters to two contractors who bid on the co-mingle project, informing them that the Board had decided to place the project on hold for now, thanked them for their interest and hoped we could work together in the future.

Keith: We do have one of them in attendance today, so thank you for attending.

Agenda iv: He received a call on 3/15 from Contractor Salazar on status. Advised him. He was disappointed. Contractor Salazar had not yet received the aforementioned letter and called to inquire on status of his bid on the co-mingle project. His primary concern was that if he could not give the go-ahead to purchase the materials at the costs locked in with Baker Supply on or before March 16th, then Baker was going to increase the costs of the material by up to another $5,000. Paul explained the situation to Mr. Salazar and apologized for any inconvenience. He was thoroughly disappointed.

Agenda v: Paul received maps on 3/22 of valve locations in AutoCAD transposed over an aerial view of SLP. His comments are in preparation for potential leak detection activities of SLPPOA’s water systems, he requested and received maps from NV5. These maps took the data that was provided to NV5 in an AutoCAD program, giving the relative location of mainline gate valves and service valves, which the firm then used in development of its Design Analysis Report for the co-mingle project. Over these data points an aerial view of SLP was superimposed. This gave physical dimension to better locate these valves.

I don’t know if anyone knows about this, but are these valves current valves in the system or are these valves NV5 would like in the system?

John Hines: Those are current valves.

Keith: Do you think that would be able to help you, John, for location of valves or is AutoCAD to real world kind of ambiguous?

John Hines: No, it’s pretty accurate, so it’s going to help considerably.

Keith: Perfect, I would like to see that, see how it can help in the future, as well.

Agenda item vi: The Water Management Team met on 3/26; NMRWA Circuit Rider Fred Black; 5/16 tentative start date for crew. The NMRWA Circuit Rider Fred Black met with members of the Water Management Team. He will ask his supervisor if he, and a small crew, could be assigned to help with leak detection efforts in SLP. Tentative start date is sometime in mid-May. His team cannot work during weekends. Volunteers will be necessary to close and open valves.

Can anyone from the Water Management Team speak to that a little bit more?

John Hines: I can’t speak because I wasn’t able to go to the meeting because I was working on a leak on Los Griegos.

Keith: You were doing leak detection; thank you, John.

Suzanne Star: Keith, this is Suzanne. I was at that meeting and I believe that according to Fred Black – I haven’t heard anything back yet on that 5/14 tentative date, but I think that he was going to work with John, and he was going to work with Harold on trying to locate – or at least they would have to locate the valves before he will come up to do the leak detection. But he did say that if they needed assistance, that he could try to come up and try to help them try to locate the valves, as well, ahead of time. So, I don’t know. John, did you ever get a message like that from Fred, or have you heard anything more from him or Harold on how you’re going to handle that?

John Hines: Yeah, I received a message from him, but I haven’t returned the call, because I’ve kind of been preoccupied with repairing leaks at the time. So, if everything goes well, I will probably be contacting him this week to see if we can schedule that. I talked to Harold today, and maybe we can work together on that.

Suzanne Star: Okay, great. That’s all I have to report.

Keith: Wonderful; thank you so much.

Agenda Item vii: The Road Maintenance Agreement revised and presented to realtor and buyer on 3/28. Negotiations ongoing through 4/6.
The Road Management Agreement was originally drafted to provide the terms for SLPPOA not being required to maintain High Road for the owner of Lot 3 in Unit 6 - this is for LANet – and for assessing a reduced annual fee, since delivery of water to the lot was not included. Now, a new buyer has come along for the remaining four lots and Track A. Initially, HOAMCO wanted to assess $580.77 for each lot and $996 for Tract A. The realtor complained fees were excessive. Paul contacted HOAMCO, which withdrew these assessments until such time as our attorney weighs on. Upon contacting him, he thought it appropriate to waive any fee being assessed on Tract A, since that was a well location, which makes it a utility. Realtor wanted potential buyer to be assessed just one annual fee (per- family charge) for all four lots until such time as current buyer happened to sell one of those lots, thereby generating a new annual fee. Our attorney advised there is nothing in the by-laws to allow this. On 4/4, potential buyer stated his intention to place a gate across High Road. He was told this wouldn’t be allowed.

Keith: I am actually in some of these e-mails and I can speak to it briefly. They are looking to sell these lots. We are not allowed to assess them one annual fee and grandfather them in as a single owner. What we can do though, given permission by the potential buyers, is we can combine the lots to reduce fees. The combination of lots will be Lots 1 and 2 and Lots 4 and 5. So, instead of doing four annual fees, it will be two annual fees. At this time, we are waiting for the buyers to either agree or disagree to doing this by combining lots.

And also with the gate, the new, potential buyer is looking to store equipment up there, and he wants it to be locked up and for no one to be able to get to it. We have stated, just as before, that no gate can go up that blocks anyone’s property, since we own to the middle of the road. This is still in negotiation as they obviously don’t like it, but with the lots that they own, if they park them up on the higher end, they should be able to put a gate on a location that does not bother any of the lots.

And moving on to our very last topic, Paul is requesting reimbursement for $2.32 for postage, may combine with other receipts later. He said, I seek approval from the Board for reimbursement of an out-of-pocket expense in the amount of $2.32 for postage. If approved, I am willing to wait until such time as there may be additional charges to warrant issuing a check from HOAMCO.

Keith: Since Paul is not here, I will not be advocating for this reimbursement. It’s only $2 and he can advocate for himself next meeting.

VICE PRESIDENT:

Keith Rigney: I propose a 30-minute max duration for individual agenda. If longer is required, this can be dealt with either in an email or in a separate meeting.

These meetings tend to go on for hours, and I know people would rather not, so I do want to propose that we can limit individuals speaking and/or subjects to 30 minutes. If they go longer than that, I would like to set up either a special meeting for people that are interested in the subject or an email stream looking to address these issues. I don’t know what people think about this. I can easily do a rough timer on my end in future meetings. I’m just trying to get a little idea here of what the Board thinks, even though there are only a few of us here.

Ann Cooke: I approve.

John Hines: I think it’s a good idea. I mean, it’s pretty common amongst all Board meetings with municipalities and things. I don’t see any problem with it.

Kristi Cross: I’m all for it, too.

We don’t have enough members to vote, so we’ll try it out at the next few Board meetings if that’s okay with everyone.

My last subject is this is a very broad, very ambiguous, very open-ended subject, and you can take it however you want and apply it to emails you have received or emails you have sent in the past. I guess I’m going to be HR when it comes to our Board right now, and we need to follow a little bit of Board manners. There needs to be an email etiquette that people need to be reminded of, as we are volunteers, we are voted in by our community, and we need to work and advocate for that community. I have seen emails between Board members and the community that I do not feel are respectable. I don’t think it’s okay, in my mind. I have also seen emails between Board members that I do not think are okay, nor do I think they should ever be escalated to that level. And I know I’m only speaking to five or six of us here, but this needs to change. I don’t know what we can do to change this, but I have also seen emails to the Board from our community with such tone. For future reference, if this is ever addressed again, the email will be politely replied to as in a state of “we are looking into it” or “we will not be looking into it,” depending on what the subject is, but in theory these emails will be ignored and your concerns will not be addressed. Keep that in mind. I don’t know if anyone has any input on this, but I think this is a real problem. I think it’s a real issues of why we don’t have volunteers on the Board.

John Hines: I concur.

Kristi Cross: I agree.

Ann Cooke: No objection here.

Keith: Thank you, everyone. If you ever do see something or notice something that needs to be addressed, please send it my way and I will handle it the best I can, professionally as I can. So, with that being said, we’ll move on to our secretary, Kristi Cross.

SECRETARY:

Kristi Cross indicated there was nothing to report, but I did have one question and, of course, we have a limited Board here tonight. In regards to the request to provide a list of services and whatnot that people provide, I’m kind of at a loss on that, because I think it’s subjective. Somebody that I might like for electrical could have had a really bad experience with someone else, and I tend to shy away from putting something out there for the whole community that, heaven forbid, somebody has a bad experience and comes back and blame it on the Board for suggesting them. So I didn’t know what your-all’s thoughts were on that. I know that on Facebook, on Jemez Chat, there’s a list of things that we could direct people to, but as for providing one as a Board, I think that can kind of be not a great thing, depending on who has what experience.

Keith Rigney: I think that is valid, Kristi, in the point that I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and on the Board I hear a lot of “I” and “my” opinions, and I think that goes directly in hand with what you’re saying, as in we can provide information as you can use blank, blank or blank for an electrician. That decision of who you choose is up to you. This is just us giving you their contact info.

Jeremy Oepping: There’s probably a statement you can put in there that says, “We don’t recommend or not recommend” or whatever it is. I agree with you, Kristi, it’s for informational purposes only.

Kristi: And I have the list that Paul provided initially, but it needs a lot of updating, so if you all could give me some input, because I know a couple of places I’ve used, but not an extensive list, nor do I really have the time, with working and everything else, to funnel out information for every plumber, electrician, carpenter or whatever that someone may need. That would be awesome if you guys could send me suggestions of people that you might have used.

John Hines: Kristi, this is John and, for example, I’ve got a contractor that has given me his card, that has actually gone to people who have had leaks on their system, and has dug them up and repaired them. I could give you that, where I’m not recommending them, but he’s affordable and he seems to do a good job, and he’s worked on ten different places here. So, something like that I could get for you, and then, obviously, contractors and things like that, if they need heavy equipment, I can give you examples of that also.

Kristi: All that I’ve had done on my house since I’ve been here is have a whole house generator installed, so I can recommend those guys, but I haven’t had anybody else do any work.

Julieann Quintana: I was going to bring up something, too. I don’t think that DA Salazar Construction is on that list. I’ve seen that list in Jemez Chat, and it’s got quite a few people on there, but I don’t even thing that we’re listed in that.

Kristi: I you want to send me your information, we can put that on there.

Julieann Quintana: Okay, no problem.

Keith Rigney: Thank you, Kristi. Once you compile John’s stuff and Mr. Salazar’s stuff, we can easily send that out to the Board and we can add some more if we need to.

TREASURER:

Jeremy Oepping reported:

The balance in accounts as of March 31, 2022 is as follows:

Operating Account: $191,058.92
Reserve Account: $130,080.71

As of March 31st, we have 22 delinquent accounts totaling $25,664.12. This is a decrease of $11,274.32 from last month. Annual assessments were officially due at the end of January and late fees and interest started as of April 1st, retro’d back to January 31st.

The March amount of $666.67 was transferred to Reserves during the month.

There were two changes in property ownership in the month of March. We welcome:

Sarah Wright and Erik Alberts, 1309 Los Griegos Road.
Henry P and Tara D. Polaco, 527 Los Griegos Road

HOT TOPICS:

Keith Rigney: Thank you, Jeremy. Now we are going to move into a brief hot topic. This is a topic that was brought up by Paul Lisko. He once again has a statement for me to read.

A letter from DA Salazar Construction, addressed to me and NV5 Project Manager Arvind Patel, was sent electronically, dated March 15, 2022; a copy of which is now sent to each Board member. In that letter, Mr. Salazar stated his willingness to extend the co-mingle project bid for 30 days to allow the Board to reconsider its decision and ultimately approve the contract for which his company was the successful low bidder. On April 4th, I spoke with Mr. Salazar and asked if that offer was still good. He told me it was and that he was willing to eat any additional charges from Baker Supply.

I bring this to the Board’s attention because it was a legitimate offer brought to my attention and think it should be given fair consideration by the Board. I am uncertain, given Robert’s Rules, whether or not it would be permissible to even vote on this Hot Topic again. If it ultimately is, then you should all know that I would be in favor of funding the co-mingle project with funds drawn from the Reserve account to cover it.

Please reconsider that some of the information given in opposition to this project was unreliable. The initial engineer’s estimate of nearly $88,000 turned out to be bid at half that amount. The concern that the two property owners at the top of Scout’s Lane would not receive water during any operation of this co-mingle line was inaccurate as the project’s scope of work included a gate valve to accommodate them. Finally, the theory that the existing co-mingle could be made to move water from Sys. 2 to Sys. 1 didn’t take into account that water as being untreated, likely creating a code violation.

That is the end of Paul’s statement. I will let anyone on the Board, or I can let Julieann talk about DA Salazar.

Ann Cooke: May I ask, do we have a quorum?

Keith Rigney: We do not, so we cannot take a vote tonight.

Ann Cooke: Then I don’t think it’s worthwhile to discuss it.

Keith Rigney: So we have five Board members in attendance. I do not know what the quorum limit states.

Ann Cooke: We do have a simple majority.

Keith Rigney: Then I guess we can discuss. I, personally, do not feel comfortable to vote, as we are missing quite a few members. My only concern – I enjoyed the bid. I asked Paul beforehand for references of his previous work, and I also asked to see the bid beforehand, which neither of those were received on my end, which is why I, personally, denied the co-mingles, because I was not given the information I asked for. My only other issue with this is when we get to the next report, John Hines, he is actively fixing leaks left and right, forwards, backwards, up and down, and he is actively replacing hundreds of feet of pipe, because he cannot find these leaks, nor can he find the pipe. This is totaling – I don’t even know yet – but it’s got to be tens of thousands of dollars that will be used from our reserve account. With that being said, we are going to potentially have a $44,000 bill for the co-mingle and then right beside that we could have a $20,000 to $40,000 bill for finding and fixing leaks, which could total between $60,000 and $80,000. The public initially wanted us to deny the co-mingle because we were going to drain our reserve account at 88K. We have a potential of taking our reserves down to 50 percent with leaks and the co-mingle. I do not know if the public still cares for that amount being reduced. That is my personal opinion.

Ann Cooke: I’ll put in my two cents. At the last meeting, the reading I had of the discussion, especially with Harold’s comments, is that the co-mingle could probably be lived without. That the membership was against spending money for the convenience of maybe not being out of water while we fix the line, and that they would prefer to be out of water and fix the line at this point, live with that inconvenience, at least on unit 1. I also understand that if you’re going to be – if you’re at the very end of the Unit, or I should say System 1 water, and you’re fixing line in between the homes at the end, and whatever the line is, co-mingle is not going to help them anyway.

I was going to ask this question, especially of John Hines. Is Salazar – is the pipe he’s going to buy, if we can get it at a good price now, can we have it available for fixing line?

Julieann Quintana: It’s no problem for us to go ahead and purchase the pipe for you guys, if that’s what you want, but I don’t know if that’s allowed with your Association there, and you just have it sitting there for a certain amount of time. You know there’s a lot that goes into that, as well, and I don’t even know if you guys would have a storage area for all that pipe.

Keith Rigney: You are correct, in that we do not have a storage area, and if it was sitting outside, it would age and ruin itself. I also would not want to use a third-party buy personally. I would feel bad.

Suzanne Star: Question, please, this is Suzanne. I just wanted to make a quick comment, is that at the last Board meeting, you had your vote, you chose not to go ahead and pursue the co-mingle at this point. We do have somebody who is going to come in now and help us with leak detection and give us a little bit of an idea as to what we might be faced with. I think it’s a little – I don’t quite understand why, all of a sudden, well, let’s go ahead and vote again. That doesn’t seem to make any sense to me at this point. You voted once, we decided to move ahead with the leak detection, we’re going to try to do that, and as far as I believe purchasing line, I don’t think we’ve gotten far enough into this to decide whether we’re going four-inch lines, we’re going six-inch lines. I don’t think any decision has been made or anything has been talked about, even from the Board perspective. So, I think that you ought to, what you just said, put this on hold at this point and let’s see what’s coming with the leak detection mid-next month and see what they are coming up with, and then NV5 will have to get involved and decide what we’re going to do with what we find, and then we go from the four-inch lines to the six-inch lines and what we’re going to do, but we’re a little premature in this right now. That’s my comment.

Keith Rigney: With that being said, I do agree with Suzanne. I did not want Ms. Quintana to not get a chance to speak. So if there’s anything you want to say, let us know. I’d like to keep in mind that we are where we are up in Sierra Los Pinos. It is very hard for us to find good contractors, and I think all of us here slightly do hate the idea that we are not helping a local contractor, which in turn does help us, it’s just right contractor/wrong time. We would like to look more into your services and what you can offer us, and we would definitely like to pursue something in the future.

Julieann Quintana: That sounds great. We really enjoyed working with you guys repairing these leaks, and this other water line that we just did, the emergency work there. We appreciate everything. We are local. We do like to bid work up here instead of outside of the community. So, yeah, we would appreciate you keeping us in mind. We really want this job up here, instead of having to go out and do anything else. But yeah, let ups know if that’s the route that you want to take. We may have to resubmit a bid, depending on how much time goes by, because prices of material are going up, but we don’t mind. We are willing to work with you guys.

Keith Rigney: Are you currently helping the leaks with John Hines?

Julieann Quintana: I’ve been up there, but I’ve not been doing any of that work. I was doing a lot of the administrative work, the invoices and the payroll and everything for our employees.

Keith Rigney: Well, we are, as you heard, actively looking into leak detection through NV5. If they do come up with a plan, I assume NV5 is going to throw another bid out for certain areas of pipe to be replaced. This may be hundreds of feet of pipe, it may be a lot more than that. We don’t know how this is going to look. Please keep an eye out for that. We will also make sure that if we get the bid on our end, or the requirements of the bid on our end, we’ll send it your way directly, if that’s okay?

Julieann Quintana: That sounds good.

Keith Rigney: Does anyone else have anything on Hot Topics for today? I’ll take that as a no, and we’re going to go to Standing Committee Reports.

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:

WATER:

John Hines reported:

I’ll start with maintenance. I did the weekly well and pump inspections this month. I had to repair a pump controller and booster pump station on System 2 that burned up.

We had a water outage at the end of Los Griegos. Five customers were out of water. It ended up taking about 20 days, or about a month, to get that repaired. We ended up having to install a new water line, about 400 feet of four-inch line. We repaired a major water leak at 631 Aspen Grove on System 2. Replaced 400 feet of four-inch line at the end of Los Griegos. What we found was: I had to call six different times for emergency line locates. We hit the phone line once and the electric line twice, because they were all mis-marked. So it became a major headache with the weather, mud, snow, ice. It was a major problem, but thanks to Salazar Construction, we did get that replaced and those people now have water again. We never did find exactly what the problem was. We suspect it was a leak, but we don’t know, because we never could find the water. What we found was that the water line was buried – mismarked and buried – underneath the electric line, about four inches of separation, and the primary line burial tape was between the water line and the electric line. So the burial tape was actually underneath the electric line. That’s one of the reasons we hit it twice.
I discussed the well meters with the State Engineer’s Office, and they are finally getting it straightened out to where our wells are actually going to be appropriately in with the State Engineer’s Office. So now I will be able to use the website.

The Mountain Pacific meter company is planning to be here in May to recalibrate our master meters. I read the meters on April 1st.

I did want to bring up a point. Today -- or yesterday, we started losing water out of System 1 water tanks, and so we spent yesterday and today trying to figure out why we were losing so much water. I read the meters again today, to see if there was a possible major leak somewhere on a homeowner, and I think we found one, and Harold went to go investigate it, because it was right about the time when this meeting was starting, and I couldn’t go. I haven’t heard back from him. So we may have found another leak, but in the process I just want to reiterate that we cannot serve System 1 from System 2, which was what the co-mingle was going to do. We can do it, but the problem with that is, is we actually use water that is non-chlorinated to do that, and that’s a big no-no with the State. So, as far as my opinion is, we will not be ever co-mingling System 2 to System 1 until we can get either a chlorination set up on System 2 to System 1, or we have a co-mingle, because I, personally, will not put unchlorinated water into System 1.

As far as System 1, these numbers are going to be really skewed because we had leaks on System 1 and we had leaks on System 2 also.

System 1:
Pumped 649,503 gallons
Used: Almost 227,000 gallons
Average Household Usage; 82.27 gallons per day
Lost: 452,528 gallons; leakage rate of 65%
Leak Flags – 11, with nine of those being repeats
Users over 7,000 gallons – Seven, and six with leak flags

System 2:
Pumped 221,820 gallons
Used: 141,322 gallons.
Average Household Usage: 73.52 gallons
Lost: 80,498 gallons; leakage rate of 27% and I’m sure that’s because of the leak on Aspen Grove
Leak Flags – 5, with three being repeats
Users over 7,000 gallons – Three

As far as the compliance report goes:
System 1, had zero Coliform present; Disinfection Residual 0.11 mg/l and
System 2, zero Coliform Present; Chlorine Residual 0.09 mg/l

That concludes my report unless someone has any questions.

David Stuedell: I know John worked his tail off fixing that pipe. I saw him in the ditch. So anyone who didn’t go out and see John repairing that water main missed an opportunity to see him work.

Keith Rigney: John, do we have any estimates, bills, that are going to be coming through for all these repairs?

John Hines: Yeah. I haven’t totaled them up, but it looks like it’s going to be between $26,000 and $30,000 for those repairs. I would like to reiterate that David Salazar Construction came and repaired the leak on Forest Road 10. I’m sure a lot of people saw that, because we had to detour traffic and things. And then he also installed the repair on Los Griegos. And I just would like to thank David Salazar. He did a great job and I’m very happy with their construction and with their professionalism.

Julieann Quintana: Thank you; we appreciate it. We really enjoyed working with you guys, as well.
David Stuedell: My phone line has been fixed and it’s all good.

Keith Rigney: I want to note that we did have David Stuedell and Harold Corn join the meeting awhile back. We also do have someone else joining the meeting at 349-5600? Who is that?

Barbara Van Ruyckevelt: Barbara Van Ruckevelt.

Keith Rigney: Thank you, Barbara. I don’t have your number memorized either.

Barbara Van Ruyckevelt: I have different numbers, so it’s hard to memorize. Thank you.

ROADS:

David Stuedell: This will be nice and short. We have a complaint about cars being parked on Mimbres Way. I haven’t personally checked it out yet. I need to. I guess the question for the Board is, is if cars are parked on the roadway, in a turn-around area, how do we address that? Do I send a memo to the individual, does the President send a memo, “please remove your cars”; how do we address cars being parked on the public Sierra Los Pinos roadways?

Keith Rigney: David, are these the same cars that are blocking snow removal?

David Stuedell: Yeah, but it’s in conjunction. Jonathan, who has went above and beyond, our snow-removal person, you know, he managed to kind of back scoop it. It was a combination of a horse trailer, which is the person who was complaining, which was on the road, and then there were some cars that Mr. James has parked on the road. So I guess the real question – the only real question here, and I don’t think it’s a big issue right now, is how do we notify homeowners that they are parking on the road and it’s causing some kind of issue? Any ideas?

Keith Rigney: Does that cause a utility access concern by any means? I’m trying to think if it’s an architectural concern, or something like that. I don’t know.

David Stuedell: It was a plowing concern in the winter, but now that we’re past snow, I’m not sure if it’s a real concern. I’m going to check it out more, but would this be something that the road manager would notify the homeowner or is it something that somebody else on the Board would do? That’s all I’m asking.

Ann Cooke: I would suggest that come fall, this coming year, that in one of the newsletters that it be prominently stated that it’s a difficulty at least and what the consequences are if the plows can’t get by with snow.

David Stuedell: That’s a good idea. Let me research this a little more and we can – it’s not resolved, so we can bring it up at the next Board meeting. There is no urgency there.

I just received the final invoice for our plowing. He was invoicing half at the beginning and half at the end, so we have an invoice of $8244 that I will send off to Jeremy.

I guess the last thing I have is that we have this new spreader. Any thoughts on where it should be stored for the summer period?

Jeremy Oepping: Where did we store the old one, David? Is there space in that location?

David Stuedell: That’s what I’m thinking is we’ll probably put it next to that, but I just wanted to ask.

John Hines: I think if you put it right next to the fence that I built around the water shed, where they used to put it, and I think it might even be easy to put a tarp from the fence over the spreader, so we keep it out of the weather. It would be pretty easy if we just set it right there.

David Stuedell: So, will I be able to figure that location out? You said it’s – could you say the location again?

John Hines: It would be on the southeast side of the shed, basically between the playground and the fence. If they put it close to the fence, we could actually tack the tarp to the fence and just drape it over.

David Stuedell: That’s all I have. Any questions, any road issues? The last thing is we don’t do the road maintenance and grading because it’s quite expensive, obviously. It’s a $30,000 bill. It takes a lot of equipment. It’s a planning thing. We have to get people to schedule it. And it worked out, in my opinion, pretty well in August. So, just a heads up, you’re going to be dealing with the roads until August, unless people want to make a major stink. That’s what the plan is, to grade the roads in August.

Keith Rigney: David, how expensive would a couple of spots be, where there’s either electrical or really bad potholes. Is there a way we can budget two or three spots a year to get fixed?

David Stuedell: I would say not with our current person who’s doing the roads, but if we got like the person who did our water, and he wanted to come up and we wanted to spend a few thousand dollars on it, I guess it’s a possibility. Let me look into it.

Keith Rigney: That would be awesome. And I don’t need anything like concrete or anything. I was just curious, if it was maybe a thousand per spot or 800 per spot or per load, or whatever it may be, just so us, as a Board, can go, okay, we have a little bit of extra budget here, I want to fix this spot here, something like that, if it’s possible. It just gives us options.

David Stuedell: Just to clarify that, when we actually do the roads, we order five loads of fill and we have that fill compacted in areas that cause issues or have a lot of bumps. We try to identify those areas. That’s done during the August maintenance grading period. If it’s something – the problem with getting a little spot here or there done, is someone has to bring heavy equipment up here to execute it. A load of fill, I think is $1500 for the fill and packing. Can you clarify a little bit? Are you talking about do something now and then do our main road maintenance in August, or are you talking about just enhanced road maintenance in August?

Keith Rigney: No. I was asking about your second option there to do maybe a little bit of road maintenance now to fix all the snow runoff that caused big potholes everywhere and then a big road maintenance in August. But what I gathered from that is one truck is $1500 without the compacting, which at that point it makes it too expensive for our budget. So, you answered my question perfectly. Thank you, David.

LEGAL:

Paul Rightley, as I indicated earlier in the meeting, was not going to make it. He said he had no new updates from last month. He is going to continue monitoring the outcome of his last few tasks. If you want clarification what those tasks are, feel free to ask, but I’m sure most of us do.

FIREWISE:

Ann Cooke indicated she has two things to report: Our Emergency Planning Firewise meeting was last Saturday. It was well-attended. I think it was a very positive meeting. I saw members of SLPPOA there and I think it went very well.

The other thing that I would like to report is that I’ve been in contact with Southwest Fire Defense. These are thinning contractors for trees, and they’re well-known in the neighborhood. I am going to be walking the property with them, Black Bear Park mostly, and maybe a side park over on Chaco to thin out the seedlings, chip them and get them underneath the playground equipment there. They will, more than likely, charge the Association one work day to do this work, and I am progressing with that organization. That’s it.

Keith Rigney: Southwest is a great company. I actually had them cut down some trees at my house. They came after other work up here, didn’t charge me a commuting fee and, if I paid cash, they actually wanted a lot less money. So I can’t thank them enough. They were incredible. So I hope we do get to work with them.

Ann Cooke: I will try to get the estimate and get everything to Jeremy, so that they are paid ASAP once the work is done.

Jeremy Oepping: Ann, do you know if we utilized them as an Association in the past? Are they in our system?

Ann Cooke: Yes. And that was – I believe I asked the question a couple of months ago and the answer was “yes,” they are.

ARCHITECTURAL:

Josh Toennis indicated that he no new updates for this month, and no new requests were submitted.

Keith Rigney: Any news from that letter you sent out?

Josh Toennis: Not at this time.

PARKS:

Cindy Hines is absent due to work obligations. She also had nothing new to report.

OLD BUSINESS: Does anyone have anything for old business? (No response.)

NEW BUSINESS: Anything for new business? (No response.)

ACTION ITEMS:

Keith Rigney: There is an action item generated by Paul: Delivery and installation of Intel water tanks to SLP Station #52 for fire suppression.
Paul sent an email to Chief Lee Taylor inquiring about any contact made with County Emergency Manager Greeno. There was no reply by 3/29. Paul followed up with email to Sandoval County Fire Chief Eric Masterson, who stated “DHSEM has not been contacted yet because the initial steps of getting the tanks signed over and determining how to transport them, along with the logistics of where to put them as no pad is down, all need to be figured out first. This is happening continually along with all the other duties that occur out of our office.” He was thanked for the update.

The next regular board meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 1830 hours via zoom.

Harold Corn: Keith, can I give a quick report?

Keith Rigney: Of course.

Harold Corn: Thank you. I just wanted to follow up with John’s statement earlier. He came by today and we noted that the System 1 tanks were slowly dropping. In other words, both of our System 1 wells were pumping continually and we could not keep up with the user demand and the leaks that are present. We put our heads together and I suggested we make sure the wells are putting out what they were. The large well, the Aspen Well, was putting out about 24 gallons a minute. The Hovenweep Well was producing about 10 gallons a minute. So they were doing what they were supposed to do. So somewhere we had a problem. We decided to go ahead and do a meter run, which John did today, and he called me just before the meeting and said would you go check on a property in Unit 1. I have been to that property and examined the meter in question, and the meter was running away. I did a calculation – the owners were there, and very attentive to the problem, and shut off his house at another shut-off point and we still had the meter running away. So it probably has a leak somewhere between the meter and where it goes up to the shut-off into his house. The calculation of the flow was approximately 19 to 20 gallons per minute, and it did not surface. The water did not surface. He has had a similar problem before, so he said, please shut my water off, and I did, and we should be able to restore System 1 storage tanks overnight, hopefully.

Ann Cooke inquired the name of the road; Harold replied Aztec.

Keith Rigney: Does anyone else have any other comments? (No response.) We are going to start executive session here, so I’m going to adjourn this meeting at 7:44 p.m. upon motion by Josh; seconded by Jeremy; motion carried.