SLPPOA Newsletter May 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:

Bob addressed us about memo regarding discussion from last Board meeting. No problem with items 1 or 2. With respect to point 3, the dedication issue, he understands we want him t pick up the dedication of water rights. He won’t. He considers this an error we both made, not just him.

Item 4. Bootzin says BS. He’ll pay for his lawyer and we pay for ours. Or could divide total lawyer bills in two.

Reminds us that 1991 agreement says SLPPOA will take over well and supply water to 9 (among others).

Ann says that in 1987 there was a contract between Bob and the state that BOB would do the retirement. Understand that Bob may not have neglected this on purpose, but it was never stated that we were the ones responsible. 1991 agreement with SLPPOA not exactly valid if contract not fulfilled on Bob’s part.

Bob says then that if he did dedication, then we WOULD have to supply water to 9.

Ann thinks we could just leave everything as is. And not supply water to 9, keep rights etc.

Bob threatens taking to judge. Wants to avoid adversarial position. He says he is NOT in an adversarial position because Bootzin has contributed so much. Considers his first offer was fair.

Ann made point that Bob is the one that sold all these lots, giving people the idea that water would come with lots. Implicit "deal" that water came with lots. Bob’s guy said 25 acre-feet was enough, we can only pump 15 acre-feet because the dedication has not been taken care of. OSE has withheld ten of the 25 because Bob has not fulfilled his agreement with the state.

Bob gives us one month to knuckle under.

Ann asks if Bob would spearhead, i.e., do the work required to retire rights. Both Bob and her agreed that we want ASAP, less than 6 months. Talk about possibility of 50-50 with Bob spearheading.

Road access to unit 9? Bob does not want to get into right now. SLPPOA later noted that some road work is being done on the Bootzin property, possibly related to this issue.

John question why it is our fault Bob did not fulfill his agreement with the state. Because we never noticed before making the deal with him.

Letter from Bootzin’s lawyer to state dated May 22, 1987 stated that Bootzin was responsible for retiring rights.

We drew up the following 3 options:

A. We could just let everything stay as is, accept unit 9, and levy special assessment to cover our costs on these units only. This would make these units very expensive for Bob to sell. Four in unit 7 and 2 in unit 5 included. Our bylaws allow us to set this fee. Initial assessments for new units can be set by us. Special assessments as approved by members of community. We would pay off the water rights entirely ourselves. We avoid lawyers, other than for acquiring water rights. We keep the well also. $20K initial cost to us, plan to get back on unit 9 lots if Bob can sell them. If we perfect the rights now, but don't actually beneficially use them, are they at risk?

This takes us back to the position from before that letter was sent to him.

B. We go ahead and split, but we are concerned if these are bogus rights Bob might buy? We must make sure these are good water rights to satisfy the state. We do necessarily need to worry despite we are only purchasing these rights to retire to satisfy state. We will pay for our lawyer. We only pay 50% of costs of water rights. We need it done in six months to fulfill our schedule. Get Bootzin to agree to take back responsibility for Unit 9. $8K cost for us. Good for us is to get rid of Unit 9, which would requires about 9 acre-feet of water. We get the dedication fulfilled without paying entire cost. Bob sort of agreed he would pay all the extra costs associated with this. We would need to be REALLY careful no loose ends to come bite us later. If Bob does bad job, we get stuck holding the bag. We would need to set time framepenalties on Bob and get him to agree.

C. Dump unit 9 until Bob pays for water rights we have reason to expect. We pay lawyer fees when he takes us to court or whatever. Likely we end up at option A after paying court/lawyer fees.

Kirk is going to research the possible water rights problems. We think that it is important to get the water rights. We would like Unit 9 gone or something to solve our problem here.

Treasury report Talked about the one month assessment on lot that was combined with another. Moved/seconded passed we forgive the $30 he sort of owed us for the second lot due to an "administrative" error on the part of his surveyor. 6 people left who have not payed yearly dues. Last letters sent end of April. Next letters end of this month. Penalties accrue, liens placed for continued non-payment.

Architectural Lots of calls, but nothing submitted. John Bootzin is still waiting on his letter. Last we decided that we would not require anything to be done now, but it would be a mistake to actually forgive the violation. Still no action recommended.

Water System 2 leak is under an unfortunate owner’s house. Unit 5, lot 4. Isolated. System 1 leak has been narrowed down. Isolation test will narrow more. 13 gpm leak had vanished, then came back. Going to investigate better leak detection technology.

Slash pit Scott Allen says EPA has required written notice of everyone within 1 mile radius for burning. This sort of makes it too hard to do the burn. Ever. Scott is checking whether this is really true.

I should send out meeting reminders notices. Send notes to SStar after expiration of comment period.

Adjourned 9:51