Board of Directors Meeting Minutes

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. at the LLA Coldstream Drive office.

Board members present: Jim Cates, Jay Decker, Jim DiMeglio, Alan Dinkelacker, Brandon Frazier, Grant Sheehan.

BoD absent: Lisa Rogers.

Staff in attendance: GM Edwards, AGM Seligson, CRM Gurley.

APPROVAL of January 16, 2006 BoD MINUTES

The minutes of the January 16, 2006 regular board meeting were approved as written.

DEVELOPER’S REPORT

Director DiMeglio reported that Land Stewards was still working on Aspen Phase I and that it would soon submit a new plan for Aspen IV. He said that Land Stewards was to meet with county staff on February 9 regarding the plans for the dual driveway to service nine lots in Aspen. He reminded the board that Aspen residents and village committee had met with the developer on this driveway plan and had agreed the plan had the least impact on the land. Mr. DiMeglio also said that the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) text amendment submitted to the county planning department and county commissioners had been revised and that a copy of the revised version had been officially submitted to the county for processing. He said the hope was that the Frederick County Planning Commission would hold a hearing on the matter in March and that it would come before the Board of County Commissioners in April.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

FY’07 Budget— Director Frazier told the board that he still had problems with the budget and that he wanted to work them out with GM Edwards.

MOTION: Director Frazier made a motion to table approving the FY’07 budget until the February 20 meeting. Director Decker seconded the motion. VOTE: five directors voted in favor of the motion; none of the directors voted against the motion.

The board decided to hold a special session on the budget discussion at 6 p.m. on Monday, February 20, 2006 at the LLA office, one hour before the regular board meeting. The board directed staff to place notices in the Gazette and Frederick News-Post about the budget meeting.

Aspen North CDA Budget— GM Edwards read through a preliminary cost estimate on a budget for the Aspen North Community Development Authority (CDA). He estimated that the cost to get the CDA through to bond sale would be approximately $150,000. Director Sheehan said that the costs were redeemable for the LLA with the sale of the bonds. He said the association had already supported the CDA in writing and that it would be ludicrous if the board abandoned the project now. Director Frazier said the board did not intend to abandon the project but rather that it was a matter of smart project controls and smart to know what the association was facing in terms of the cost. Director Dinkelacker said he supported the project but he wanted cost figures. Director Sheehan said that the FY’07 budget did not have an entry for the cost figures on the project. Director Frazier said that was part of the reason he asked for the budget to be tabled until Feb. 20.

Aspen North CDA Committee chairperson MJ Minton said that the engineering for the project needed to be done so that the project could go beyond the hearing to permitting and she asked that legal costs for creating a separate 501(c)3 for the Aspen North project also be included in the budget figure. Director DiMeglio asked whether the engineering fees took it through construction and site development design. She said yes and that it included the permitting process. GM Edwards said that the engineer’s role was a year long process and that the costs were not deferrable but could be recouped with the sale of the bonds.

Director Frazier said that the LLA balance sheets were healthy but it could not write the $200,000+ cost into the FY’07 budget although it could use the reserves as collateral and go to the bank for a loan. He said that LLA costs for the coming budget year would be the interest payments.

MOTION: Director Cates made a motion to have the LLA apply for a line of credit for $225,000 earmarked for the Aspen North CDA and to put the money into an interest bearing account. Director Frazier seconded the motion. VOTE: four of the directors voted in favor of the motion, none of the directors voted against the motion, one director (Sheehan) abstained from the vote.

Director Frazier said that he wanted the charter and mission statement of the 501(c)3 to be written and approved by the LLA directors. Ms. Minton asked whether the lawyers could begin on the legal work for the 501(c)3 and to be prepared for the next county hearing. After discussing where to get the money, Mr. Sheehan suggested using reserve money until the loan was obtained and then reimbursing the reserve account. MOTION: Director Cates made a motion that $15,000 be used for the Aspen North CDA. Director Frazier seconded the motion. VOTE: four directors voted in favor of the motion, none of the directors voted against the motion, one director (Sheehan) abstained from the vote.

NEW BUSINESS

Lake Anita Louise Engineer Presentation— Steve Heiss, engineer for LDE Inc. in Columbia, told the board that he looked at the project from the perspective of the overall watershed. He said that calculations show that the pipe in the Lake Anita Louise farm pond dam was not the right size and that the original thought of slip-lining the existing pipes would not handle the job. He said that two 24-inch concrete pipes would be needed and that the cost of those pipes was approximately $51,000. Of the three projects involved in that area, Mr. Heiss said the money would be best spent on the lower lake because there is nowhere else to get the storage capability so the only option is the large pipe. Director Decker asked whether that strategy would accelerate the decline of Lake Anita Louise. Mr. Heiss said that a fore bay could be created in Lake Anita Louise to collect the erosion.

GM Edwards said that the original design of the townhouse section was to be open space and that it was now a parking lot and that as a result water zips down to Lake Anita Louise. Director Dinkelacker asked Mr. Heiss whether the plan would handle the storm water management for that area if the association did build a pool in that area of Pinehurst village. Mr. Heiss said yes. He added that it was a pond safety issue, too. GM Edwards said that the LLA was six years overdue to comply with the state mandate on this project.

GM Edwards discussed a variety cost estimates for various construction scenarios ranging from $350,000 to $400,000.

Director Decker said he wanted it in the record that the LAL projects and the Pinehurst pool are not in the FY’07 budget and that he felt that was a problem. GM Edwards said that the LLA will have a $200,000+ surplus at the end of the FY’06 and that these funds could be used for this project. He said he was meeting with the Pinehurst Village Committee chairperson about the dilemma of the three large projects and the costs and how they impact the pool project. Mr. Edwards said he also had talked to the county’s planning department about the obligation of the pool project. Guy Reese, Pinehurst Village Committee chairperson, said that in order to do the mandated projects and the pool project residents would most likely have to be special assessed, which he said he did not want to have to pay. He said he did not want to pay a special assessment for a pool facility that only gets used three months out of the year and that the village committee generally thought a park would be a better facility for the village and the PUD. He said the village committee would work with the GM to get feedback on this matter from village residents. MOTION: Director Frazier made a motion to open the options for Pinehurst amenity project, and to work with residents to get a sense of whether a pool or a park amenity is preferred. Director Decker seconded the motion. VOTE: five of the directors voted in favor of the motion, none of the directors voted against the motion.

Mr. Heiss said that he had been forking on the project’s calculations for a pool facility but would also do calculations for a park amenity. Director Dinkelacker said the do the engineering calculations for a worst case scenario.

ECC Guidelines Revision— AGM Seligson briefly reviewed the process involved to make the revisions. MOTION: Director Decker made a motion to accept the ECC Guideline revisions as presented. Director Sheehan seconded the motion. VOTE: four of the directors voted in favor of the motion; none of the directors voted against the motion; one director (Frazier) abstained from the vote.

Review of Proposed Due Process Enforcement Procedure for Addressing Alleged Violations of the Governing Documents— AGM Seligson said that the board had been given a copy of the proposed bylaw amendment, as well as the document that outlined the enforcement procedure and related fines. Director Decker asked whether the matter ultimately ended in court. AGM Seligson said no. He said the document eliminated the CCC but not the appeal to the board. He said that legal counsel confirmed that fines for the violation were permissible and that the bylaw language revision would establish the fine. Mr. Seligson said that LLA compliance staff was up against a brick wall with a lot of these matters and that sending letters regarding violations work up to 65 percent of the time. He said the intent is to create a financial responsibility to the homeowner to comply with the covenants. He added that the enforcement procedure puts teeth into the rules and that if the LLA is going to make any inroads into covenant compliance it has to get people to think “this is real.” Mr. Seligson said that last year when the association enforced the rule of not distributing membership cards to those who had compliance violations it brought positive results.

Director Sheehan asked the AGM about the ultimate fine. AGM Seligson said it would give the LLA the ability to tie the fine into the assessment and that if the assessment was not paid (including the fines) then a lien would be placed on the property.

Director Sheehan asked whether the LLA’s governing documents have been recorded with the county. CRM Gurley said all governing documents and some MoUs have been recorded with the county’s Home Owners Association Depository.

After some additional discussion, it was decided to table the matter until the next meeting on Feb. 20.

RESIDENT FORUM

•Balmoral resident Brian Jacobs told the board that the Balmoral Village Committee planned to attend a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to speak at the end of the meeting during public comments about their concern regarding the Linganore CDA. He also asked whether any other mechanism was available for Aspen North lot owners to build the utility infrastructure the village needed. Director Frazier said the CDA bonds were the lowest interest option available. Director Sheehan said that all parties involved looked at three options early on and that the current strategy was the best approach.

•Woodridge member Dance Burke asked the board to consider putting a boat rack in near the Brosius Dam for Woodridge residents. The board discussed the possibility though they acknowledged that area would be difficult for residents to get into the lake.

•Director Decker said the new Woodridge playground needed a parking area. GM Edwards said the area is set up but that it has been too wet to do the work.

ADJOURNMENT

Director Cates made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Director Frazier seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.