Arlene Johnson said on
Monday, March 25, 2013
A version of this would be possible if we can make it work as a Bylaw amendment and stay within the Protective Covenants. Wording that is compatible with our documents would be necessary to present at the annual meeting. Please contact me with more detail.
Jack said on
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Welcome to the neighborhood! Many people in the HOA use the co-op. Contact Joel Eberhard for more info: (801)253-3363
no said on
Monday, October 03, 2011
i would not trust leilani vaivaka she is not worthy of the position
Property Owner said on
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Thank you Arlene for your informative response and phone call which prompted me to check the HC-2 site. I am willing to help with getting the attention of government officials in regard to changing the source protection regulations (or other impediments to land development)--to the extent that living in Idaho allows. I would not be able to travel to the Salt Lake Valley extensively. I do understand how a lack of organized voice by impacted landowners affects government official's willingness to make changes. I totally agree that now is the time to have everyone pull together to work toward solutions as you said.
Arlene Johnson said on
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
I share your frustrations. Many HOA members feel that it is solely the Board’s job to solve HCEII’s problems. Now we are blamed for problems that we have spent hundreds of hours trying to solve. Each one of us Board members would like to walk away from the HOA and get on with our lives but we do care about the future of HCEII. If we are going to solve the development problems, the entire HOA needs to work as a large group, pound our fists on the tables of government offices and use our resources and our members to push for solutions. We cannot afford to dwell petty things like the two year old rumor of a lost State grant for sewer and residents VS nonresidents. It is not worth the effort to whine that the County picks on us or the Herriman mayor is anti development. Our members are not a bunch of litigious crazies.
The wells that you are speaking of were purchased by Herriman from the Mascaro family several years ago. They were once a water source for HCEII but that was discontinued when we started purchasing water from Water Conservancy in the 1990s. Herriman purchased the wells from the Mascaros but have never used water from the wells. Since Herriman has not capped the Mascaro wells the Health Department enforces a source protection area. When I recently asked Herriman about capping the Mascaro wells their response was that they need to test them to see if they can use the water before considering capping them. Even if they capped these wells, there is another well about one half mile down the canyon that Herriman is currently using. The source protection area for this well also overlaps your property.
There is quite a distance between your property and the Herriman well and I believe that an engineering study could show that septic tanks in the HCEII area would not impact the water quality in the Herriman well. The County allows alternate septic system designs and this could be an area of compromise. We just need to convince the Health department and Herriman of this.
Sewer is the best solution but when three of us board members met with the South County Sewer Board, they said sewer was cost prohibitive for the small number of potential houses in our area. That Sewer Board is made up of elected Mayors and they change periodically. No matter what they decide in one giver year, we need to keep our situation known and not let the sewer district write us off.
Reducing assessments for members in source protection areas would be fair but we are bound by our Protective Covenants require that everyone pay their” pro rata share”. This document takes a ¾ vote of the membership to change and no one has been successful in changing it in the past. There is no reason we could not try this again.
When the Board met with County Public Works and the County Health Department none of us lived in the source protection areas and we were told that we would have better luck getting response if the property owners directly impacted were to push this issue. That is very difficult when many property owners live out of state and the local politicians do not understand how many people are impacted. If we had enough people who are directly impacted by the source protection areas to attend Herriman City Council meetings, attend County Council meetings, call the Herriman politicians, call the County politicians and use their political contacts to contact the politicians again, we can get the attention of the individuals who can help us make this area developable. I believe we can change the source protection area if we are persistent.
This election is getting more member attention that any other election I can remember. When they are going good, people are apathetic. Things are going very bad in Rose Canyon and people are angry. Now is the time to keep everyone’s attention and focus on pulling everyone together to work towards solutions. If you want to get involved or have additional suggestions, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org and call at 801-254-9721.
Arlene P. Johnson
Robin Smugala said on
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
There is one more candidate on the ballot this year not in the previous post that would welcome these issues and any other challenges of the ACC:
Years of diverse involvement with community activities have given me flexibility and a broad understanding of the need to communicate with all members regarding development and other community related issues. I have owned a successful transportation company for the last 11 years; currently participate with the Utah Mobility Summit, which is in part responsible for FrontRunner and improving the infrastructure of the Salt Lake Valley; am a member of the NDTA and I have been involved with the Military Affairs committee for the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce.
Tom Chace said on
Saturday, May 21, 2011
From Tom and Lenell Chace If you have read Keith’s “Opinion” pertaining to the Chace’s involvement in the Sewer, Greenbelt and the sale of Water Rights, you might want to know the rest of the story.
Sewer – The people that attended the sewer meeting have a very different version from Keith’s of what took place. From letters written to us...Ed MacCauley wrote: “I have given seemingly conflicting information to different callers over time. Here is the Water Quality Board’s position. Funding is available to fund priority sewer projects that meet eligibility criteria. Grant funds are extremely limited at this time, but were available previous years. Applications are accepted at any time, but applicants for sewer system funding must be political subdivisions.” Mayor Mills wrote: “Ed MacCauley provided information concerning funds that the state had available to assist in constructing a sewer system in HCEII. Letters from Mike Foerster and Craig White South Valley Sewer District confirm this as well.
The Chaces did what the board asked us to do--send out postcards to poll support for a “free sewer study”. We ALSO presented HCEII’s request for a sewer study to South Valley Sewer District based on the results of that poll. We gave a sewer report at the 2009 Annual Meeting. We kept in contact with SVSD and the Water Quality Board to determine when they would have a decision. We were shocked and felt betrayed by the board when 6 months later the Water Quality Board turned down the request for the study because in order to fund the study or to get funding for the sewer we needed to be in the sewer district or part of a public entity. At this point the money that was available was gone. WHY didn’t the board have us ask the questions on the postcard “Will you pay for the remaining 1/3 balance of the sewer cost?” and “Are you willing to annex into the sewer district to get this funding?” Would the Board have taken this same approach if the money was going to pay for the upgrade of the water system? Almost a year after the sewer meeting, when the Chaces and members of the PRG were discussing annexation with Herriman, we were told by Herriman staff that when they later asked the HCEII board--what happened with the sewer money? – they were told there was a vote and HCEII turned it down.
Greenbelt –The Greenbelt Committee was not “authorized” by the Board as Keith claims. At the 2008 Annual Meeting when members asked the board for help, he board made it very clear they were not involved in this issue—“take care of it yourself”. Their only requirement was “just don’t have any free roaming cows”, even though HCEII is still considered open grazing by the county. We complied with the Board’s request by using horses that would either be pastured inside fencing or attended when out grazing on greenbelt properties to ensure they didn’t trespass on non group greenbelt land. The new provider filed his plan with the County and it was approved.
Keith wants you to believe that this is about fencing. Our fencing plan was submitted and approved in writing by the ACC. The earlier plan we submitted to use temporary fencing and temporary shelters during the grazing period was abandoned because the county said the animals couldn’t be fenced while grazing.
For all the years that HCEII has had group greenbelt, the ACC had not required an “Animal Management Plan”. Previous Greenbelt grazing requirements were always just between the County and the Group’s Provider. The ACC can say this is required by the Covenants, but when we asked to see previous plans that had been filed, none were produced. If you don’t enforce requirements, even if they are written in the governing documents you cannot suddenly after 20 – 30 years decide to selectively start enforcing them. After several months of increasing requirements that we tried to appease, there were finally two ACC demands we could not comply with:
1. A daily schedule where the horses would be during the grazing season. We explained that where the horses would be at any given time was dependent on the amount of feed in the various areas, the weather, and the provider’s personal schedule and could not be provided in advance. We explained that the provider made a report to the County at the end of the grazing season and we would give them a copy of that report and explained that the County did their own audit to confirm we were following the rules. The ACC would not approve our animal management plan and insisted “That the ACC be informed of the movement logistics of the horses regarding dates and lot numbers”.
2. Shelters - This was not a previous requirement for group greenbelt, but we tried to appease the ACC’s request for shelters and submitted a shelter design. The shelter was approved, but only for 2 horses (there are nine horses needed to qualify the acreage). When we explained that Horse Shelters were not required by the County or State for pastured animals, the ACC said their requirements could be stricter than the State or County. The ACC requirement of 60 square feet for each horse, was the requirement for “stabled” horses and would have meant a 20’ by 30’ barn or 5 of the smaller shelters. When we went to the county they said this would require a subdivision and building permit which the County would not authorize for a barn or shelter if there was no house. This was simply not possible.
The ACC did not approve a management plan or remove the shelter requirement and instead gave us threatening letters if we did not comply. The only reason they stopped harassing the provider, lot owners, and group greenbelt is because of a lawsuit.
1. HCEII agreed to the State Board to operate as a mutual water company and as such lacks the power to divest its shareholders of their water rights without a vote of the shareholders. The board did not disclose the terms of the sale of the water rights or allow members to vote 6 years ago. When we got a copy of the water sale contract through Herriman using a Grama request (Government Records Access Management Act) we discovered this was a direct sale with no safeguards that water would be available for future development. The water rights sale sold only the portion of the water (895 acre ft.) that would be needed for the non resident’s future development. The water needed for residents ((148 acre ft) was not sold. The Board planned to immediately use this money to fix only a portion of the water system. Six years ago we were led to believe that the proceeds from the sale of the water rights would to fix the whole system. Where is the fairness in the approach that uses the money from the sale of the water rights shares that belonged to the unbuilt property owners so residents will have Storage Capacity for fire control and maybe a few more homes can be built. (This is Phase I of the upgrade). We do not believe a direct sale is the best option.
2. The best solution is to have Herriman take over the water system. The Board has gone back to Herriman with this approach because of legal pressure, but the terms of how this would be done and its financial impact to all members need to be disclosed and a vote taken as required by law.
3. The Master Plan ( made by PSOMAS) for completion of the system is based on money to completion the system coming from future connections and relies on the removal of the Water Source Protection (which is highly unlikely). FCOZ restrictions would still be in place. This almost guarantees that new connections and funding will be very limited and not sufficient to finish the Water System per the PSOMAS plan. There needs to be assurance that if Herriman takes over the water system, the whole system will be brought up to the new code requirements, not just Phase I. After the 1.8 million is spent there will be no funds for further upgrading the system to State code (7.5 million).
4. Keith states that water users are the only ones that fund the water system. The water users pay for the maintenance of the system which is only fair...unless you have a residence and need water you are not using the system. However, all members paid a by-pass fee to fund the system when it was built. We personally contributed over $33,000 in the 1980s towards building the original system and have 12 pre-paid water connections. Even though we had HCEII permission to connect to the water system last year for water for our horses, the county stopped our connecting because we did not have a building permit. This further illustrates our point that there are not going to be a lot of new connections until we solve the building issues.
Finally we take this opportunity to explain our SUPPORT of the Property Rights Group and the legal actions. IT IS NOT because we can’t build. We are fortunate that we do not have all the problems that others do. Our property is NOT in area D. We have a road to our land. We would be served by Phase I of a new water system like the residents. We have areas on our land that will perk. We are not in group greenbelt and qualify ourselves with our own horses. We paid for perimeter fencing around our property and got approval for it. We do have FCOZ restrictions on some of our land.
It is because we support those that have waited so long to build and we believe this Association should benefit all its members equally that we hope that others who believe in a fair approach will work with us to solve the problems.
Keith said on
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Thanks for your comment. I could not have stated your postion any better myself.
Just a few items of clearification. At the last meeting we were talking about the budget for next year. My argument was that we increase the budgeted amount on the snow plowing line because yu had voted to stop approving payment for snowremoval. The monthly meetings are for the membership to be informed. I wanted them to hear your rationale from you own words.
The budget was not voted down. It was presented to the membership but a vote was not taken.
My proposition for increasing assesments was to generate more money for roads in general not just for snow removal.
Am I trying to use scare tactics? The PRG of which you are a member is pushing to gain control of the Board. In the first lawsuit where the PRG is the Plaintiff filed, cause of action #30 under the second bullet states "By wasting limited association resources on winter snow removal of some roads while leaving entire sections of roads within the association completely impassable in any season" Further
again under paragraph 56 "The association wastes and spends limited resources (which could be spent on year round maintenance of all roads) on winter snow removal for some roads but not all roads in the association". Your voting record also confirms this.
These are not my words but the words of the PRG in a lawsuit now making its way through court. If you are truly saying that these claims are ridiculous then the lawsuit should be amended or dropped.
Bottom line is I have faith that the members of the association will vote for who they believe will do the best job for them.
vaivaka said on
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
As usual Keith has taken selected items out of context and twisted them to shine an unfavorable and negative light on others. It is my opinion that he continually does this hoping for a public flogging. Speaking only to the point concerning Snowplowing vs Road maintenance - First of all, when I said educated I meant educated on how this Board just takes money from road grading and maintenance to apply to snow plowing without question or vote or input from its members already knowing that this budget was voted down at the last annual meeting.
Secondly, while I do believe in transparency, I find it peculiar that never before has an individual Directors vote been singled out in such a fashion. If you were present at the meeting you will know that Keith brought this forward by saying he wanted to discuss how all members of the Board save one voted to not approve going over on the budgeted amount for the snow plowing and he wanted my opinion as to why I voted this way when he already knew my rationale (which was supplied at the time that I voted no and stated in red above in Keith's comments ) and knew the majority vote approved and went forth with snow plowing of the roads. If Keith was not hoping for a public flogging, what was the purpose of publicizing and singling out my vote in such a fashion?
Thirdly, the ratio of money spent on snowplowing is a larger portion of the roads budget than maintenance. snowplowing is a safety issue .....maintaining the roads is a safety issue. They are both a priority and the responsibility of the board. It is a difficult balancing act and makes it tough for decision makers who have limited resources. However, if you take the funds from maintenance for snowplowing--will there be money available to fix potholes and washouts? You can only spend the money once. I, as a board member, have a right to question if money will be sufficient to cover both. The idea that roads will not be plowed in the winter is ridiculous and a scare tactic that is being used to cast a negative light on others.
Fourthly, Keith made a proposal two years ago for snowplowing to be paid by “special assessment”, NOT I as I was not even elected to the Board until about one year ago. As to who should pay if it is a “special assessment”-- Look at the addresses in the roster. The majority of HCEII members don’t live in HCEII and most don’t use HCEII roads at all, much less in the winter. Or let's consider all those members who beg for road grading and maintenance and they are told by the Board that we have limited resources and if they want more than what those limited resources can afford then pay themselves or approve a special assessment. Why is it different for snow plowing?