| | 2011 Annual HOA Meeting Minutes |
| | 5/20/2012 4:37:24 PM |
| | Fontana View Homeowners Association
2011 Annual Meeting Minutes
October 22, 2011
Stecoah Valley Center
Attendees:
Flo Clark plus daughter and granddaughter
Kevin Hughes
Denis Destefano
Tim Goodwin
Jerry Feliu
Bruce Pettit
Mark and Kim Pettit
Andrew Chambers
Mark and Judy Page
Ron LaRocque
Greg and Kristi Lindsay
Dirk and Angela Nafzger
Pete Kunzweiler
Linda and Henry Fernandez
Charlie Ruffenach
Dennis Pardue
Bill and Michelle Ellis
Liz Norman
Larry Casey
Mike Shakar
Eighteen signed proxy forms were received from the following owners who were not able to attend the meeting:
Tommie and Sharon Crapps
Barry and Lisa Beckerdite
Victor and Virginia Ortino
David and Carrie Childs
Catherine Simonsen
Roger and Martha Bland
Lenellen and Douglas Johnstone
William and Catherine Norris
James and Elaine McFadden
Tim and Brenda Stamey
Mark and Kim Albertson
Deborah Berman
John LaRocque
Brian and Hillary McFadden
Jeffrey and Deanna Blossom
James Drinkwater
Cheryl Bowman
Thomas Apsey
President Mike Shakar called the meeting to order at 2 p.m. He then introduced the Swain County Ranger, Mr. Benji Reece, for a presentation on fire safety, wildfire suppression, and defensible space and prescribed burns for our community. Mr. Reece handed out several publications detailing the topics he covered and blank contracts for prescribed burning for all present. Many owners indicated that they were interested in conducting prescribed burns on their properties in order to reduce the possibility of a destructive wildfire. The Forest Service performs this service free of charge. Copies of the prescribed burn contracts will be included in the mailing of the minutes for this meeting for the use of those who were unable to attend the meeting. They should be signed, witnessed and returned to the association post office box address.
Mr. Reece also updated the group on the status of our Firewise application. He has recently been in contact with the North Carolina State coordinator for the program and was told that our application is very near being approved. When that happens we will be eligible for grant money that will offset the costs of various projects which increase the wildfire safety of our community including access road improvement, debris removal after storms, dry hydrants, egress route construction and maintenance and so on.
Mike Shakar and those present thanked Mr. Reece for his time and information. Mike will continue to keep in contact with Mr. Reece and coordinate communications on the proposed prescribed burns between the Forest Service, the association members, and the rental cabin management companies.
Prior to beginning of the business portion of the meeting all members and guests present were asked to introduce themselves to the group and give their associated lot numbers. A total of 28 members and guests were present for the meeting.
At the attendee’s request, highlights of last Octobers meeting minutes were presented by Mike Shakar, there were no questions or objections to the minutes as presented and a motion to accept those minutes was made, seconded and passed.
Roads
We now have approximately 75% of the community roads inspected and repaired using the road base repair/replacement techniques began last year followed by an overlay of BST (chip and seal). The areas that were repaired last year have generally held up very well over this past winters free/thaw cycles, snowfall and snow removal activities. There were a few areas that needed to be “touched up” and they were included in this past summer’s road work. The board feels that we are somewhat ahead of our proposed 10 year road repair schedule and we will continue next summer with work on Freeman’s Overlook, Bee gum Ridge and Doubletree.
In response to a question by owner Bill Ellis, Mike Shakar stated that our roads do not meet county or state standards and are not eligible for county or state maintenance. The objective of the board in repairing and maintaining the roads is not to bring them up to county or state standards but to provide safe roads, good points of ingress and egress and roads that do not detract from our property values.
There was a general discussion among those present as to what our final objective for road surface finish will be. Several members thought that the repair/BST process would be the final road surface and others thought that an overlay of asphalt after the BST would be the final surface. Mike Shakar stated that asphalt laying is a considerably more expensive process than the repair/BST process and would probably result in the need for doubling or tripling the budget line item for the roads. A motion was made and it was seconded that we would monitor how the roads are holding up over time following the repair/BST process and make a decision for further work which could include an overlay of the entire road system with asphalt if indicated.
Liz Norman asked if guard rails had been considered for the roads in areas where it would be more likely that a vehicle may go over the embankment. Tim Goodwin and Mike Shakar stated that guard rails had been discussed in the past, but the idea was discarded for the community as a whole because of cost and potential liability problems for the association if the guard rails were not put in according to county and state standards. Mike suggested that we include the discussion in the minutes and that if there was enough interest in pursuing the idea further, we could open it again for discussion at our next meeting. It was also suggested that if owners were interested in guard rails on their individual properties that they could possibly seek a contractor as a group to get a better rate for the work.
Mark Page stated that a new road (Lower Trails Edge) off of Upper Round Top road had been put in by lot owners along that road and paved to serve four lots. He wanted to know if that road would now be included in the association’s road maintenance plan and in the winter snow removal program. A discussion resulted in the decision that if the road is an expansion of the existing road system and the new road meets community standards, and if the lots served by the new road are dues paying lots, that it should be included in routine community road maintenance. A joint motion was made by Ron LaRocque and Flo Clark that gives the board the authority to determine if new roads meet community standards and to decide if they should be included in routine community maintenance/snow removal. The motion was seconded and passed by those present. The board members will inspect the new road section and decide if it should be included in the routine maintenance/snow removal schedule.
Forest Service/Firewise
This topic was covered in detail in Mr. Reece’s discussion. Mike Shakar stated that any property owner who has excess fuel sources on their property (old lumber piles, storm debris, leaf piles, etc.) should see that those fuel sources are removed as soon as practical for fire safety purposes. If anyone needs assistance with that, he has a list of local contractors who can do those
things at minimal cost so please contact him for assistance. Anyone who did not attend the meeting and needs more information on wildfire safety and prescribed burns can find it on our website at FontanaView.com or at the following sites: ncforestservice.gov/fire control or ncprescribedfirecouncil.org.
Gate/Cameras
The gate/entrance area was actually vandalized twice over the past year, once in early February and again in May. In the first case, the gate was cut from its hinges by two members of the Round Top Cemetery Association in order to gain access to the development and the cemetery. The perpetrators were caught on our security cameras and after an investigation by the sheriff’s department were arrested. The vandalism resulted in approximately $500.00 damage, but the gate was repaired and in operation again within 48 hours. The cemetery association members have always been provided access codes and gate clickers through their representatives, however, those who carried out the gate vandalism do not recognize our right to install a gate on Round Top Road and have therefore filed suit against Fontana View asking that the gate be removed completely. This suit is still in the court system despite the fact that even their attorney has recommended against it. We have retained the law firm of Melrose, Seago and Lay, P.A. in Sylva to represent us in this matter and have given them a $1500.00 retainer against expenses incurred.
The second incident in May resulted in our security cameras being stolen along with the DVR and other equipment that was secured in a locked metal box mounted on the back of the entrance kiosk. This took place after a break-in at one of the cabins on the mountain and is believed to have happened because the break-in perpetrators were covering our attempts to identify them through the security video. A police report was filed, but so far no results have come from the investigation. The association’s insurance company has reimbursed us for the cost of the lost equipment and we are now looking at replacing the cameras, but having the video recorded at a remote location instead of at the kiosk. This should prevent an incident of this type from occurring without our being able to review a record of the events. There is a DSL line available at the kiosk, but none available on the mountain for installing a remote recorder, so that will have to be done at a site off the mountain by a security company or possibly by locating a remote recorder at some member’s home or business that has appropriate DSL/high-speed connectivity available with a static IP address. The cost to the association for a DSL line will be approximately $50/month plus a fee of approximately $15/camera/month for recording at a remote security company. After a group discussion in which those present agreed that the cost involved would be well worth it, a motion was made by Charlie Ruffenach and seconded by Ron LaRocque that we investigate placing a recorder at one on Ron’s business locations if possible, and if not, using a local security company for that service. The motion was passed and Ron will look into locating a recorder at one of his business locations and let the board know how we need to proceed.
Mark Pettit (who has 28 years’ experience in law enforcement in Minnesota) was concerned about the lack of updates or information from the local sheriff’s department on the investigation of the camera/recorder thefts and volunteered to contact them to see if he could get some sense of where they are with the process. He will report back to the board regarding the matter.
Community Upkeep
Our expenses for snow removal/salting this past winter were somewhat lower than the previous year because the weather was relatively milder. We did still go over our standard budget allocation for plowing/salting, so that line item in the budget should still allow for excess cost should we have a more severe winter storm occurrence again. Any additional funds that may remain if we have a milder winter are diverted into the road funds.
Last year, after a concerted effort to clean the brush/weeds out of the ditches and culverts, place new rip rap and install new drainage grates to improve water control and prevent damage to the roads, we began a program of spraying the ditches once a summer in order to control unwanted growth in those areas. The herbicide used is one that is designed for weed control at the edge of ponds and streams and is not harmful to aquatic life. It does control weed growth well and is relatively inexpensive (approximately $47.00/gallon including shipping) and one gallon used at the recommended dilution will do most of the ditches on the mountain. Two of our owners have expressed their objection to the spraying on the concern that it could be harmful to pets and wildlife and the ditches could be kept clean by means of weed eating and hand cleaning where needed. After discussion by those present, it was decided that we would not spray next summer, but would attempt to control the growth and keep the ditches and culverts clean by manual means (weed eating, mowing, and hand cleaning). We will see how well this works vs. chemical control and readdress the issue at next fall’s meeting.
Water Tanks (dry hydrants)
Mike Shakar provided the following summary of events. Over the past several years we have discussed and researched ways of having a reliable water source on the mountain for use in firefighting. Our initial investigations involved creating surface water ponds in appropriate locations on private property to serve that purpose. For several reasons, the primary of which is that in the locations we have available for a pond, there would not be enough usable water available to the fire department to make the costs of constructing the pond worthwhile. The HOA had approved a budget last year that would have made a total of approximately $25,000 available for that project. With the pond off of the table, the board continued researching dry hydrants (holding tanks) based on the recommendations of the local Fire Marshall (Irving Winchester) and the experiences of other developments in the area in placing and maintaining dry hydrants. It appeared that fiberglass tanks placed at easily accessible locations in the development would be the best solution, so the board’s efforts continued in that direction to find the best source for tanks of that description based on cost, holding capacity, and ease of installation. The board’s findings were that the best size tank would be approximately 12,000 gallon capacity at a cost of approximately $17,000/tank and another $9,500 in placement costs. That amount would still fall close to the original $25,000 allocation, but would not result in the recommended 30,000 gal of available water on the mountain. The board made the decision to pursue this solution and attempt to place one holding tank on the mountain every year or two until we had the recommended amount of water available. At this point we have placed a deposit of $8,400 with a tank construction company (Rainwater Management Solutions, Inc.) to provide us with one tank which would be available by December of this year.
Most of the members present at the meeting were very surprised at the costs involved in buying and placing the dry hydrants and there was a great deal of discussion on the subject regarding the alternatives and costs vs. benefits. Based on their experiences with the West Swain Fire Department and their capabilities, Ron LaRocque and Tim Goodwin commented that when the fire department responds to a fire, they normally bring two to four trucks with them which can carry up to 2000 gallons of water total. That is more than adequate for fighting most house fires that are not fully involved. During the course of fighting a fire, the trucks can shuttle water from their source if necessary. The fire department response time to the top of our mountain is approximately 20 minutes and unless people are present when the fire breaks out and immediately initiate their own fire suppression with fire extinguishers or water if appropriate, the chances are that the structure may be a loss by the time the fire fighters arrive, no matter how much water is available to them. The conclusion among those present was that although having dry hydrants of the appropriate capacity and construction on the mountain would be nice to have and would make the fire departments job easier, the costs outweighed the benefits. Denis Destefano made a motion that we attempt to get back our deposit and table the issue until next year’s meeting pending further review. The motion was seconded by Kevin Hughes and passed by a majority. The board will contact Rainwater Management Solutions and request that our check be returned if possible, if not we will arrange to contact owners by mail and give them the option of continuing with one dry hydrant only or writing the deposit off as a loss.*
Treasurer’s Report
Treasurer Larry Casey reported that the association has made significant progress toward bringing past due accounts up-to-date this past year. At the beginning of the year, we had 35 properties that were in arrears with their dues and not making payments. At present we only have four properties that are grossly in arrears and that have not made any arrangements to
____________
*Note: The check was returned in its entirety the following week
make payments toward paying off what they owe the association. These four properties have had liens placed against them in the association’s behalf by the local law firm of Gary A. Miller, Attorney.
These liens must be acted upon within three years or they will become void. If there is no resolution, the association must file suit with the courts to have these liens satisfied. A law suit to resolve these liens could result in the property being awarded to the association to satisfy the back dues. The association has no interest in acquiring another member’s property, but that may be the only way we can recoup what is owed us.
This past year’s total collections amounted to slightly more than $114,000 including the collection of the past due amounts plus the regular due’s payment schedule. Our expenses for the year amounted to around $95,000. At present the association has $46,303.63 in our checking account and two certificates of deposit with values of slightly more than $20,000 each. Those amounts should give us a cushion for any unexpected expenses this winter and give us money to continue our work on the roads next summer.
A motion was made to accept the treasurer’s report and seconded. The motion passed without opposition.
Budget
President Mike Shakar discussed this past year’s basic normal operating budget line item expenditures as outlined in the budget attachment to the agenda that every property owner was sent. There were no objections to that portion of the budget. A suggestion was made by Greg Lindsey that we consider paying for large one time expenditures such as the dry hydrants as a special assessment rather than including it as a line item budget expense. Tim Goodwin and Mike Shakar stated that based on past experiences with collection of special assessments such as the gate and entrance, there was difficulty in collecting those special assessments and it took over three years to pay for that expense. The idea of special assessments was dismissed by the members for the present time. A motion was made by Ron LaRocque to accept the proposed line item budget for 2011/2012 as outlined minus the amounts that we were going to spend on dry hydrants. The motion was seconded by Greg Lindsay and passed by those present.
A lengthy discussion then ensued regarding the proposed dues structure for next year. Greg Lindsay argued against changing the dues structure from one of two tiers (unimproved, improved) to one of three tiers (unimproved, improved, improved with dwelling) based on North Carolina case law. In a 2006 case, the NC Supreme Court found it could not agree with the changing of covenants by an owner association that subjected property owners to new restrictions and fee structures that were not included in the original covenants. The amendment process for covenants is designed to fix something that is wrong, as in when the covenants do not comply with stated law, not to change the structure of the original community covenants that owners agreed to when they bought into the development.
After considerable discussion by the group, it was recommended to stay with the two tiered dues structure as defined by NC state law, improved lots being defined as ones that have a driveway, house site, well or septic system, and unimproved lots having none of the above. It was then recommended that we should keep the due’s apportionment between unimproved and improved the same as they were when the original covenants were adopted. At that time unimproved lots paid one third less in dues than an improved lot.
Based on the above discussions, a motion was made to set the dues for improved lots for the next due’s cycle at $975.00 and for unimproved lots at $650.00. With the number of lots projected to be in the development next year that should result in an income for the next dues cycle of approximately $88,000. Any money collected above normal operating expenses will go into community upkeep for use where needed. The motion was seconded and passed by those present.
Election of Officers
There were no write-ins or volunteers for new members on the board and the ballots unanimously reelected the sitting board members to another year in office.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:30 pm. |
|
