SLPPOA Newsletter January 2004
The intent of this newsletter is to report the official minutes of the Board meetings and other unrelated events or notices which may be of interest to our Association members.
Board meetings are normally held the 3rd Wednesday of each month at 7:15 PM at the SLP fire station. All property owners are welcome.
Next meeting: Wednesday Feb 18th, 2004
Jan 21, 2004 Meeting minutes
Board members in attendance: Ann Cooke, Brian Reardon, Karen Taylor, Orlando Archuleta, Kirk Thompson, Donna Smith, Wendy Bisset
Guests: Catherine Coulter, VP Vallecitos de Los Indios (VDLI), John Bootzin, Kay & Mike Karnes
Minutes: Suzanne Star
Meeting called to order 7:19PM
Discussion started regarding issues brought up by board members in a letter written Nov 19th, 2003 Catherine distributed documents that would be referred to in the discussion: Coulter referenced a letter of March 28, 2003 sent by VanderHam on behalf of SLPPOA, and several documents and agreements between SLPPOA and VDLI.
Coulter on behalf of Bob Bootzin (who was sick) and VDLI began the discussion. She summarized the demands/request of the Nov. 19th, 2003 letter from SLPPOA to Bob Bootzin: SLPPOA proposed that VDLI join the association and pay 2003 fees and special assessment cost for Syst. 2 well totaling $846 for each of six unsold lots by Dec. 31st, 2003 or the association would designate the VDLI lots out of bounds. Or, VDLI could pay minimally $5,145 per lot, later with arrangement through the board, which would include prior assessments for past improvements. See Nov. 19, 2003 letter.
Coulter stated the first issue of possible misunderstanding: whether or not membership in SLPPOA is voluntary or mandatory. She referred to 2 pages of the HUD statement from which the subdivision originally received Federal approval. The HUD Report indicates that membership in the property owners association is voluntary and owners of lots in SLP have the option to join the association and receive the benefits of receiving water from the association or not join and drill their own wells.
Cooke questioned whether there was ever intended to be a time line on this issue.
Discussion from guests and board members focused on whether this issue was ever made clear to new lot purchasers. Cooke suggested that Harold Corn supposedly had a choice as he purchased direct from Bootzin. So why would he choose to acquire membership for both of his lots instead of just one? He could have saved money just becoming a member for one lot. Cooke also suggested that Corn went through a great amount of effort to consolidate so he could eventually save money on the second lot. It is not clear that he thought he had a choice in the matter. Further, Ballman purchased three lots from Bootzin, and later, approached the association about consolidating all three together. The By-Laws/covenants only allow for two lots to be consolidated and Ballman requested a vote of the membership to allow the consolidation of all three (which failed) so in the end, he sold one of the lots and consolidated the other two. Coulter asked why he wanted to consolidated his lots, and Cooke replied that she believed that Ballman didn't like paying three association dues for one household. Coulter, indicated that she could see why this would be so. Cooke asked that if Ballman had had a choice about membership in the association for his three lots, why he didn't choose to have one in and the other two out. Thompson also indicated that he had bought his lot from Bootzin, and he didn't remember having any choice about membership in the association.
Karnes suggested that they did not have a choice. They were told to sign the papers at the title company. Ron Brown was the realtor, and they purchased "second hand" from a previous owner
John Bootzin suggested that ignorance does not excuse remedy from the law.
A question was asked about the separation between water and roads and association membership. Question was dismissed as another legal issue that needed clarification. Smith stated that she has been working closely with the Governor's office and that the state engineer is getting very aggressive about private well drilling. Under the present water conditions, in her opinion, the SLP aquifer might be compromised if individuals begin drilling private wells. She also suggested that what might have been acceptable procedure in the past is not necessarily appropriate today.
Coulter reiterated that VDLI does not choose to join the association and would leave the choice of joining or not joining to the new owners when the lots are sold. Thompson asked if lots were sold to others would the new owners have the option to join or back out of the association if the lots were already considered "members".
John Bootzin's interpretation was that once somebody is in the association, they cannot back out; however he suggested that this issue needed legal attention. Thompson suggested that this question be turned over to the SLPPOA attorney.
Smith read through part of the Bylaws and Covenants where there it is stated that "… every owner shall be considered a member, but not until such owner shall have executed a restrictive covenant …", and "These Covenants are to run with the land…"
Thompson suggested that apparently the old adage regarding buying property still applies "…. buyer bewares."
Karnes questioned whether opting out of the membership of the association also meant that you would be opting out of any other membership responsibility i.e.: architectural control. Coulter stated that the there are different kinds of covenants for various aspects such as architectural control and that they have nothing to do with association membership but that certain covenants and restrictions run with the land.
Thompson suggested membership dues include roads and water… he questioned the degree of separation; if you do not decide to join, some rules apply and some don't? Smith read the covenants and reiterated that membership runs with the signing of the covenants.
Thompson brought up the unresolved issue of water rights dedication. Coulter provided documents regarding the dedication to Thompson.
Coulter pointed out that in a 1981 agreement, the association accepted Units 4-10. Para #6 in the agreement indicates that the lots in question in Unit 7, 9 & 5 have already been accepted for potential membership in SLPPOA. It is not a question of whether the lots want to be in or not. In addition, the agreement stated that the association agreed to supply water to units 4-10.
The next point of discussion was the 1991 agreement between SLPPOA and VDLI whereby SLPPOA indicated a desire to purchase the well in the pasture. The well, the water rights for the well, an easement, and land were transferred from VDLI to SLPPOA as a result of this agreement. Coulter referred the board to Section E of the 1991 agreement which states" The Association agrees to supply water to designated lots 1-5, Unit 6; lots 2,3,4,5, 16-22, Unit 7; and lots 1-18, Unit 9 in the Sierra Los Pinos Subdivision..." The issue regarding Unit 9 lots 1-18 was addressed in Vanderham's letter that said assoc was not going to accept these lots. Coulter suggested that only 6 lots were ever designated for potential membership in SLPPOA, not 18. Specifically lots 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, & 16.
Thompson pointed out references in Para 6 of the 1981 document referring to specific units and not to all 4-10 units.
Smith suggested that the document is poorly written and that the references are not specific. Discussion issued regarding the interpretation of these documents and the need for further review.
Coulter stated that she went back to the association minutes and found reference to where the association agreed to accept Units 4-10.
Coulter referenced the long range plan and the issue of how much water SLPPOA has. She stated that the developer went through the old files to find out why we are in this situation. She stated that in 1979 Bob Bootzin hired Dr. William Turner to do a hydrological study. The study at the time indicated that 0.25 acre ft per year per lot was an appropriate usage assumption. Indicators now, based on Elmer Salazar's proposal, which are included in the long range plan; indicate that 0.4 to 0.6 acre ft is the acceptable usage assumption. Coulter stated that the wells were permitted based on the original 0.25 acre ft. calculation.
Karnes asked whether VDLI was only estimating usage based on Units 4, 5, 6 at the time.
Thompson responded with an explanation about return flow assumption based on geology and return factor hydrology studies done for original permitting.
It was brought up that the plan was for 103 lots (4-10), and that there was enough water based on the original numbers. Karnes however suggested that now there are at least 150 lots in the association. The 103 lots number was only for lots in units 4-10.
Thompson asked Coulter again about whether their lots are going to be in or out.
Cooke reiterated that SLPPOA does not want to be responsible for water supply to Unit 9. Long range plans suggested we don't have the allocation to supply Unit 9. Coulter disagreed suggesting that the association does have enough water to supply, and suggested that SLPPOA should use the originally allocated 0.25 acre-ft of water per lot
Thompson stated that the association is using more than originally planned.
Cooke restated that in the VanderHam letter, SLPPOA refused Unit 9 based on the covenants and that SLP doesn't want the responsibility.
Discussion ensued regarding the original restrictive covenants in 1980 para 4 and the multiple dwelling issue.
Coulter again stated that the intention was that 12 of the lots in Unit 9 would supply their own water, 6 lots would use association water
Smith stated that the SLPPOA attorney has advised that SLPPOA cannot promise to deliver what SLPPOA cannot provide. In addition SLPPOA has never had a restriction as to how many acre ft per lot each owner is allotted. Further, there has never been any mechanism established to enforce a certain amount of water per lot.
Thompson commented that if the association agreed to provide 0.25 acre ft per lot the board must consider going to having the membership install meters so we can monitor usage.
Karnes reiterated that the original allocation still doesn't account for rest of the association, only units 4, 5, 6 as per the 1979 agreement (103) lots
John Bootzin stated that the plat encompasses more than 103 lots.
Cooke suggested that VDLI is the developer and it is the business of developers to incur risk, not of a homeowners association and if the developer chooses to sell lots that the developer or the lot purchaser must also be prepared to pay for accumulating improvement costs, and that SLPPOA should not be expected to absorb all the improvement costs that benefit lots held by VDLI. VDLI, or the new lot owner, should expect to pay for what we offer, either now or later. SLPPOA cannot afford to finance future development of lots' portion of new wells, pipe, and up grades such as holding tanks.
SLPPOA does not wish to extend a free loan for improvements to the lots in question; SLPPOA has paid $48,000 in upgrades, which are already a benefit to the lots… if VDLI wants SLPPOA to keep track of all the upgrades, we can do that and charge when they come into the association.
Coulter concurred that the association has contributed upgrades and has increased the value of the water system. She questioned how past lot sales were handled in respect to back assessments.
Smith stated that assessments accrued to the lots and the owners paid whatever had accrued to date on the lot, whether they received the benefit directly or not. Lately there have been no special assessments. However, as lots today are sold the new or existing owners are expected to pay the special assessments that have accrued on the lot. Coulter questioned why lot owners would agree to do that.
Taylor wanted to know why she should pay for an assessment which was made over 5 years ago and should have been assessed against the owner at that time...Bootzin. She also stated that she has not enjoyed the 5 years of benefit from the assessment as had other property owners.
Cooke commented that the special assessment associated with Karen's lot was from the installation of the new Syst. 2 well and is the well from which the water is obtained for Karen's lot when it is fully improved. The association has charged new lots those amounts from assessments that directly effect improvements to those lots within the association, and not past assessments from other units' improvements which benefited other units and lots. Cooke further commented that the two lots in Unit 10, paid a fee of $800.00 per lot to join to the water system of system 1, in order to contribute their portion for the improvements rendered to system 1 water system by the membership - the amounts were reimbursed to the system 1 membership. Coulter indicated that she didn't know this. Smith commented that it has been the practice of the association to have new lots buy into the improvements the membership has made to the association.
Cooke brought up the issue that Bob Bootzin sold a lot that doesn't have pipe to it -Unit 7 lot 17- and that the lot owners have been paying association dues. The fact is that they are still benefiting from the association commitment to provide water.
Thompson added that there are technical challenges to getting water to this lot. One is that someone will need to install a pressure control valve to reduce the water pressure in the main line. John Bootzin commented that pipe was proceeding down Los Greigos toward this lot and discussion ensued as to the proper location for a pressure control valve. Thompson commented that the PVC pipe was limited in the amount of water pressure it could handle and that those limits have been reached and that pipe could not be extended down hill to new lots without a pressure control valve place in the line. Further, house fittings and joints could tolerate even less total pressure and had a tendency to "pop" fittings, causing large amounts of damage.
Cooke started discussion on the issue of some dedicated water rights and the State notification of irrigation violations. She stated that the State notified SLPPOA that the original permit to REG-43044, which concerns 4-9 units and the agreement of 3.5 acres of land dedicated by Bob Bootzin on schedule and associated water rights needs to be resolved. Thompson responded that in 1979 there was only 2 acre ft dedicated instead of 3.5. Coulter referred to the 1987 acceptance in the file that may indicate that the dedication issue may be resolvable with the State.
Thompson suggested that the board defer this until further investigation. Coulter stated that the State engineer has not contacted VDLI on this issue.
Thompson stated that SLPPOA has spent approx $32,000 on the new well, paid for with a special assessment, and $48,000 out of general funds for upgrades and improvement. Future improvements may include the purchase of additional water rights, new holding tank, and the possibility of adding a metering system.
Cooke suggested that the VDLI lots would benefit from these future improvements and that SLPPOA can keep track of the dues and past assessments and pass them on when the new lot owners decide to join the association membership.
Cooke also commented that in regard to the issue of when the decision by owners is made for a new lot to become part of the association could reasonably be made upon the completion of the development of a lot (that being the installation of water pipe and the providing of a road, as we know them) instead of at the time of sale. This would apply to 4 of the 6 lots under discussion, as all development has been completed for 4 of these lots. Also, it could further be argued that the other 2 lots that do not have pipe laid to them and of which the "development" is not yet complete, benefit from the improvements of SLPPOA's water systems and benefit in the same way as Unit 7 lot 17 which exists in the same condition as these 2 lots and yet pays association dues for the potential of water from the association.
The board agreed that a big issue has been" not knowing" what the developer has been doing. Thompson stated that as board membership changes over the years, much oral history (and possible written/verbal agreements and documents) have been lost, which adds to the confusion.
Cooke stated that the dedication issue needs to be cleared up with the State, first.
The guests departed and all agreed that discussion should continue and that perhaps VDI and SLPPOA should plan to get together at least once a year in the future to discuss concerns and issues to both parties.
After the guests departed, Smith reiterated that nowhere is it stated that each owner has a specific allocation. She questioned if we cannot supply water to a lot, do we have to accept it in the association?
Smith suggested that the State is going to start matching water rights and usage and that SLPPPOA needs to update the water consumption projections.
Thompson stated that SLPPOA presently has a 48.4 acre ft allocation and it will go to 59.3 acre ft. if we get the dedication.
The Board agreed to skip a review of the minutes of last meeting, which was budget.
Treasurer: SLP has $36,000 in the account. 45% of the 2004 association dues are paid, and SLP has spent $10,500. All invoices are out.
Water: Fine. Everything working great. Finishing up the wiring for the booster station pump upgrade.
Roads: Pete submitted a bill. Cooke stated her concern about his lag time in response time for road maintenance. She doesn't like the fact that SLP is being bumped to the bottom of the priority list. Raue is another option. We're only obligated for this season's snow plowing. Cost is about $1000 for one complete association roads plowing, and that $5,000 has already been spent with 2 months of snow potential and no use of our spent capital. So consider plowing the roads Cooke suggested that some thinking go into an alternative to this issue, and Thompson and Archuleta start devising a plan for next year.
Archuleta's report P & M Construction Projects
1. Scouts Lane backfill & grade was added to the road. Berm was built up to divert flow towards Aspen Lane. 2. Hovenweep Loop, Aztec and Bonito Way backfill was added to cover water valves. 3. Eohippus Rd from Trilobite Trail to Coryphodon Lane rip rap was backed filled into ditches on both sides of the road. 4. Los Gregios & Cerro Pelado Trail exposed CMP was covered up with back fill. 5. Got call from Jim Moore about grade on Scouts Lane. Had meeting with Jim & Pete of P& M Const. about the drainage. We all came to the agreement that Pete would re grade the road and try and spread the flow more evenly above Jim's property. Also Pete was to add some gravel to a section on road to help with the muddy road due to drainage. 6. Need to discuss with some property owner's about allowing some drainage into their property. Pete said he would assist me in this endeavor! Unit 4, Lot 14? 7. Also discussed with Pete about installation of larger CMP on critical road that tend to wash out or old CMP plugging up do to size. Will check with Board for available funds or priorities?
Bisset reported that insurance went up about $1000 Thompson suggested we review with the insurance why the rates have jumped so high. Smith will investigate the insurance issue.
Architectural: No report
Old Business: Cooke reported that the wall lawsuit is over. Smith suggested that we need to follow up on the named insured issue of the suit. Cooke has written a summation of the lawsuit which will be posted on website.
Firewise: Organization is close to getting the 501(c3).
Parks… no report
Long range planning: no report
New Business: Cooke presented a letter from Stewart Consulting regarding a well encroaching on the Los Griegos easement. She will send the names of the owners who will be directly affected by the movement of the road easement. Cooke will respond to the letter.
Cooke asked that board members review the website and send recommendations for changes updates etc to Star. Katie Watson requested a new page for business services.
Cooke discovered some additional restrictive covenants documents dating from 1972-1980…the bad news is that we now have multiples of documents, which need to be reviewed by the attorney.
The board may choose to appoint another board member, due to the resignation of Mark Doub in December. Ideas for new members were submitted.
Meeting adjourned 10 PM, next meeting: Feb 18th