Published Agenda
GREENEHAVEN PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
MARCH 24, 2008 @5PM
32 North 10th Ave, Page AZ
Agenda March 24, 2008
Call to Order
Public Comments Open Session
1) Commentary on ARS 1804 allowing public commentary on each agenda item in
addition to this open session.
Approval of Previous minutes
Old Business
1) Unit 1 drainage issues, county work progress, fence encroachment, survey cost,
discussion and possible action
2) “Soft” CCR letter, discussion and approval
3) 2nd Dues notice report from Secretary, $60K in with few problems
New Business
1) State Corp Filing Report
2) Corp Tax filing report
3) CPA review discussion and possible action
4) Budget report compilation assignment
5) POA Property Resale paperwork package, discussion
6) Member submission of Unit 3 CCR changes, discussion and possible action
7) Speed Bumps, member request and possible solutions
8) ARS handout for Board members
Executive Session
4 items dealing with @20 new and continuing CCR litigation issues
Published Minutes
GREENEHAVEN PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
March 24, 2008 @5PM
32 North 10th Ave, Page AZ
Meeting Minutes
1) Call to Order and Roll Call @ 5PM
All members present
2) Public Comments Session
Announcement made as to the Board being advised of the requirement for public commentary before each agenda item and the Board agreed with the advice and it will be followed. Comment made to add an agenda item about the Reserve Study. Item will be on a future agenda. A question about the height of the buildings on lots 70 & 71 in Unit 3. Carl Bixler commented that the height was checked several times and will be in compliance. A Verizon cell site proposal was discussed and previous contacts have proved to be of no use in securing a cell site for Greenehaven. A question was proffered about CCR Grievance forms being available on the web. It will be looked into. A request was made to put the Unit CCR changes and the legality of same on the agenda. It will be added to a future agenda. The Clean up Committee requested financial assistance for this years SWOOP work and it was granted at $317.
3) Approval of Minutes
Approved
4) Old Business
a) Unit 1 drainage issues, work stoppage and fence encroachment.
Explanation that the County had issued a work stoppage on the Unit 1 drainage grading and they had incorrectly included Greenehaven Development Corp into the stop work order and that the work should fall under Federal regulations 40 CFR and not require a new SWPPP. Commentary was noted that during this time a preliminary survey was done and many rear fence lines on the south side of Unit1 (where the flood and drainage work was to be done) were placed on Association Flood Zone property. The Board fully discussed the situation and decided the only course of action was to have the fences removed. A letter will be drafted and sent to the home owners notifying them of the encroachment and that the fences must be removed from Association property. If the owner feels that the fence is properly located they can use a surveyor of their choice to remeasure their property. If the fence line is found to be located properly the Association will cover the cost of the survey for the homeowner.
b) A discussion of a “soft” letter asking for voluntary compliance with CCR violations prior to our 4 step procedural letters being sent out was made. A draft of 2 different letters was offered and a combination of each was finalized for distribution. This soft letter will be the initial contact from the Board to any property owner that may be in violation of the CCRs.
c) The Secretary reported that the 2nd Dues notice (revised for amounts due) was sent out and most owners have paid their bill. Robin had noted that few problems existed with it and only 2 checks have been written for refunds of the $6 overcharge. Most owners are willing to apply the over charge to next year’s bill.
5) New Business
a) State Corp Filling annual report to the state was completed.
b) State Non-profit Corp Tax filling was completed. A look at a revised tax filing will be done if needed.
c) CPA annual review of Association books was discussed and will be commenced this month.
d) The Treasurer will compile a Budget for the Association to be presented at a future meeting.
e) The ARS requirements for notification to resale property owners from the Association was discussed and most of the required documents are in house. This is being completed and will be presented to the Board at a future meeting.
f) A members submission of proposed changes to the CCRs in Unit 3 was discussed and will be an agenda item at a future meeting. Other units will be looked at then.
g) A member requested that the Board review the need and design of the speed bumps in the property. The Board decided to make sure all speed bumps meet county specifications.
h) All members of the Board were given sets of the applicable ARS pertaining to planned communities.
6) Executive Session
a) The Board dealt with 8 reports of CCR violations and determined they could be considered in compliance and could be closed out. The Board determined that 6 violation notices are in need of further processing and notices to those home owners will be sent out.
7) Meeting Adjourned
Meeting Notes
[notes provided by Lisa Everett]
Public Comments – Open Session
Member Question: There is no agenda item for Treasurer’s Report. Will there be one tonight?
Response: No, there will not.
Member Question: Will there be a Treasurer’s Report in the future?
Response: At some time. Perhaps quarterly.
Member Question: Has the current Board of Directors seen a financial statement since taking office in November?
Response: No. They have seen the bank statements and a list of checks written.
Member Question: Why was the office moved from the prior location?
Response: To save approximately half the cost of the former location.
Observation: Our Association business and legal records currently share an office space with a construction company in Page. All records, documents and equipment are stacked in an open, unsecured 9′x 9′ space in the construction company’s office.
Member Question: Has the Reserve Study been discussed by the Board of Directors?
Response: No. It will be an agenda item at some time in the future.
Member Question: The previous Board of Directors had sought legal opinion regarding the ability of the Developer to change the CCR’s of Unit II and was counseled that the Developer had given up those rights through Unit II’s CCR’s. Has the current Board sought counsel regarding this matter as the Developer has gone forward and recorded changes to Unit II’s CCR’s.
Response: Yes.
Member Question: Was this independent counsel?
Response: No. It was the legal opinion of the Developer’s attorney.
Member Question: Wouldn’t it be in our best interest to seek independent legal counsel since there has been a previous opinion that the Developer could not make the changes to the CCR’s?
Response: We will place this on the agenda for a future meeting.
Member Question: Who does this current Board of Directors represent? The property owners or the Developer?
Response: The Board serves to carry out the governing documents of the Association which is made up by both Class A and Class B stock holders, so the Board serves both the property owners and the Developer. The Board has not felt any pressure from the Developer to conduct business in any particular manner.
Member Question: Why was the previous Board of Directors removed from office?
Response: Since 1999, when the Developer purchased this project, he was unaware that it was his responsibility to appoint each Board. He became aware of this responsibility prior to the last annual meeting in November 2007 and acted accordingly.
Agenda Items
Approval of previous minutes
Unit I drainage issues, county work progress, fence encroachment, survey cost, discussion and possible action:
The County issued a Stop Work Order on all grading work in Greenehaven, not just Unit I due to a complaint filed with the County by a concerned resident. The County is requiring a Storm Water Permit Plan/Study before they will allow work to continue. The Board is under the belief that the work being done in Unit I is maintenance work and not new work and therefore the study is not necessary. The Board will be meeting with the County Engineering Dept. in the next few weeks to discuss their differing opinions and see what options are available.
Fence encroachment:
It was discovered by the President that a number of fences in Unit I were encroaching onto Association property with the belief that corner pins had been removed so that clear identification of the property corners could not be identified. A letter will be sent out to the property owners in question regarding the potential encroachment. The property owners will be required to hire a surveyor to identify their property boundaries and in the event that their fences are encroaching, they will be required to move their fences. In the event that the fences are not encroaching, the Association will reimburse the homeowners for the surveying expense.
“Soft” CCR letter:
Two preliminary CCR violation letters were presented that the Board deemed “softer” and friendlier than the one previously sent out for CCR violations. The hope is to have the property owner address the potential violation voluntarily before the legal letters were sent out that have definitive legal time frames.
2nd Dues notice report from Secretary:
The Secretary reported that he had worked with the bookkeeper in regards to the second dues notice due to the errors in the first billing. The bookkeeper reported to the Secretary that there had been few problems and to date $60,000 in dues had been received.
New Business
State Corp Filing Report:
The Secretary reported that the annual State Corp Filing Report had been submitted to the State as required.
Note from Member – report due 4/30/08
Corp Tax filing report:
The Secretary reported that the 2007 tax return had been filed and the appropriate tax paid.
Member Question: Was a compilation report, as required by State law, done prior to the tax return being prepared and sent?
Response: No. That was to be discussed.
Member Question: The previous Treasurer had discussed on several occasions, both verbally and in writing, with the current Secretary the need to have a compilation report done prior to the tax return being generated. It was also discussed that the firm of Stevens and Frost in Flagstaff that had prepared the 2006 Review of our books was an extremely competent and educated firm with great familiarity of homeowner’s associations. It was also discussed that the current CPA prepared our tax returns with no more information than a year end financial statement from our bookkeeper with no supporting documents.
Response: We will have to look into that and possibly file an amended return if necessary.
Observation: The Association will be paying twice for the same service it was advised of needing but ignored.
Budget Report compilation assignment:
The President requested that someone accept the assignment of looking into having a budget for the Association prepared for 2008. The assignment was to gather cost estimates for having a budget prepared.
Member Question: Wasn’t the Board responsible for preparing their own Budget?
Response: Yes, they could do that. They could use last year’s budget and make changes as necessary for 2008.
POA Property Resale paperwork, discussion:
The Secretary presented to the Board the document outlining the information required by law to be given to a new buyer by the Board. The list includes the current budget, reserve study summary, pending law suits, dues, among other things. This Board required report is currently being supplied by the sales agents at Rimview Properties on the Board’s behalf. It was discussed that the Board should prepare packages and begin completing the form themselves as required.
Member submission of Unit III CCR changes:
A Member from Unit III had previously submitted a request to the Board that Unit III CCR’s be changed by the Developer. The changes were similar to the changes made to Unit II CCR’s recently. The member suggested that a letter be sent out to the owners in Unit III for a canvassing of their opinions of the proposed changes. The Board agreed that the letter was a good idea.
Member Question: Wouldn’t it be prudent for the entire tract to have a matching set of CCR’s which may help to eliminate the animosity currently felt by many owners.
Response: This item will be placed on a future agenda.
Speed bumps:
A member has requested that the speed bumps in the tract be addressed. They are either too high or not maintained. The Board says they will evaluate the existing speed bumps to make sure they are in compliance with County specifications. If they are not in compliance, they will adjust them.
Members Comments: The feeling were mixed. Some wanted them removed altogether, others wanted more added.
