January 2013 MHA Board Of Directors Meeting Minutes* (*Edited pronoun & grammar usage)

MHA BOARD OF DIRECTOR MEETING MINUTES

January 28, 2013

Unity Church, Boulder, CO

 Present:  Kurt Bischoff/President, Maggie Barber/VP, Harry Evenstad/Treasurer, Curtine Metcalf/Secretary and Tom Shockcor/Management Company and Jim Wilson/Resident.  Curtine arrived 20 minutes late.

The meeting was called to order at 6:35pm.

OLD BUSINESS:  There was a discussion about the north side infrastructure.  Harry/Treasurer stated that about a year ago he and Kurt and Maggie presented some questions to our legal rep/Susan Perkins about purchasing the Park and things to look out for.  In the meantime the BOD decided maybe it wasn’t the best time to purchase the Park.  Since then the BOD has come together and said if the MHA is not going to buy the Park, then we need to fix the infrastructure.  Harry sent an email in January of 2012 and February 2012 when the MHA paid Susan Perkins, our attorney, to look in to our legal situation regarding the unfinished infrastructure – Thistle and COB (City of Boulder).  Susan Perkins recommended reviewing the mortgage document and the infrastructure reports to see if we have sufficient information to fully evaluate the options to the MHA.  Harry recommended that we give Susan the mortgage document.  Isabel and Maggie would like to get an idea of what the cost would be for this from Susan Perkins prior to the work being done.  Kurt suggested we set a budget. Susan Perkins worked on this original document with Thistle and the COB and put specific provisions in for the MHA protection.  Jim noted that from what he has seen, in the beginning of the south side infrastructure, there were many odd issues that arose on the south side that aren’t on the north side (the creek/ditch as an example).  Jim has already contacted three folks who were not interested in bidding on this project; however, he has sent four more requests off to other contractors.  The Board agreed that it makes sense for Susan to review things in advance. Maggie noted there was previous discussion about doing things differently instead of tearing up the whole north side streets; Jim commented that many things can be completed  in a relatively narrow space instead of tearing up the entire street – maybe a 3.5 – 4 foot trench with steel plates over them.  Some of our questions were: Do home owners need new water lines – what is the current water pressure?  Does the North Side need new gas lines?  Can we do a “re-line” on the North Side sewer?  Do we need to dig everything up?  Do we just want to do sewer, water and low voltage?  How much do we need/want to spend on replacing things that don’t need replacing?  Harry again requested a “discovery” of sorts. Jim noted what we have right now is the original engineering for the entire Park.  Jim’s piece is to get us some informal numbers with his contacts in the industry, see what our options are, get a target number and review for making sense of how to approach North Side Upgrade.  He took the north section of the original park engineering and put it out for bids; this will give us a sense of what we are going to do; $1.5 – $1.8 million is his generic guess on what it might cost; 8%-10% of the total cost usually goes to engineering; once we get a generic cost then we go in and get the detailed engineering from the existing plans.  Jim hopes to get the numbers within 4-6 weeks or so.  He is also able to write grants and has contacts with the COB and the State.  The infrastructure isn’t going to happen this year but probably next year.  Isabel noted that even though The MHA will be getting clarity from Susan Perkins, The Board should still be going for grants and any other funding available.  Isabel queried regarding grants and Jim informed us that every month the State has a different pot for different things, and also mentioned that CHAFFA (Colorado Housing And Finance Authority) could be a potential source of funding.  Kurt made the MOTION – “The MHA allocate $1500 for Susan Perkins to review the bond document for infrastructure upgrade responsibility and options”.  The motion was passed unanimously.  Jim Wilson left.  Harry and/or Kurt will deliver the 7 binders to Susan Perkins/attorney for the above MOTION review.

NEW BUSINESS – Tom Shockcor planned to start eviction proceedings against one resident based on the rent being “habitually late” (past the 5th day of the month).  Three BOD members, Isabel Sanchez, Maggie Barber and Curtine Metcalf made it unquestionably clear that they, as a board majority, did not wish for him to proceed this way, but rather follow the proceedings outlined in the “2008 Enforcement of Rules and Regulations” The Secretary read, for clarity, “Management is granted the authority to enforce all provisions of the rules and regulations through the levy of fines and/or evictions and garnishment of wages…owner of mobile home will be notified of all violations.  Fines will be assessed as additional levies to the rent for the lease space.  All fines will be subject to a late charge of $25 if not paid within 30 days.  Late payment fines will be subject to an interest rate of 18% per annum.  Each adult resident of a unit will be held liable for all fines assessed  due to violations….please be advised that every day is essentially a new violation.  You may be assessed a new violation every day after initial notice……first offense a warning letter, second offense a $25 fine may be assessed against a unit owner, third offense a $50 fine may be assessed, fourth and subsequent offense is a $100 fine may be assessed against the unit owner.”    I. Sanchez, M. Barber, and C. Metcalf interpreted the Rules and Regs as providing for the increase of fines as a means of enforcement of the Rules and Regulations and advised Tom S. to utilize this method, rather than beginning eviction procedures. Tom S. was not in agreement and stated that WE would need to come up with a remedy.  To which I. Sanchez, M. Barber, and C. Metcalf repeated that they thought that raising the fine for a “second offense” was a more appropriate method in a low-income community than eviction. There was also concern that this could be setting a precedent for future eviction proceedings. It was expressed that they did not think that eviction was appropriate without first utilizing all the tools in the MHA governing documents that are available.  Isabel S. stated that Tom S. had done a great job with 135 out of 136 units.  Tom S. stated that he could still make things great.  Isabel S. asked for Tom S. to work with the board when seeking solutions.  Harry says he could see the City Of Boulder taking us over if Tom S. gets tired of representing us – as no one wanted to take MHA on when Kurt was looking for property managers.  Isabel stated that was because no one (other property management co.) wanted to take the account from Hast – we have a new board and are working toward solutions.   We (VP, Mgmt. Cmte. Chair, Secretary) numerous times, suggested following the above procedures outlined in our formal governing documents as the remedy.  This continued for an hour.  Tom S. said he would discuss this with his attorneys. The board majority asked Tom S. to specifically convey to the attorneys their objection to his decision to start eviction proceedings AND convey their above stated request to follow the process in place (lease/rules & regs/bylaws).   Tom S. said he would present all the issues to the attorneys. It was not clear whether or not the specific request to follow the outlined process made by the board majority, would be honored. The objection to his method and request to stop eviction proceedings that was made by the board majority was not acknowledged as a request that he would honor.  This discussion will be continued in detail at a future time.

MANAGEMENT COMPANY REPORT – All of the stump grinding that has been identified for this year has been done with the exception of the four trees that were just removed (and any trees that will be removed later this year.)  The MHA had a budget of $7,000 this year for stump grinding and only $2,880 has been spent. There is still some flexibility.  Tom S. noted that now The MHA has a new relationship with the City Of Boulder (COB) planning dept. that determines how many of the cottonwoods are going to be removed. The MHA was originally going to take out 10-12 cottonwoods this year.  Tom S. notes that The MHA has saved over 50% in costs by switching from Dan’s Tree Service to Native Tree Service. Native is much quicker as well. There is money within the budget for the arborist that the COB is requesting we bring in to evaluate the cottonwood tree removals. Kurt and Maggie recently met with the COB regarding City requirements for a detailed park tree plan to ensure COB oversight on cottonwood tree removal. We are now working with an independent arborist and the COB on this issue.  

TREASURER REPORT – Due to the lengthy discussion of the north side infrastructure and enforcement issues, there was no Treasurer Report.

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT – Due to the lengthy discussion of the north side infrastructure and enforcement issues, there was no Management Committee Report.

This intense and very lengthy meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:15pm.