Bill’s Ranch Lake

All information regarding the lake at Mountain Side can be found here.

1) Where is the lake? The PLAT is the official document showing the lake location along with its easement.

2) Official recorded documents:

Recording-771380 – 10/10/2004 QCD 0 – Quit Claim Deed to United Water

Recording-921999 – 10/10/2004 AGM 0 – Agreement filed in 2009 but signed in 2004 – Conveyed Lake United Water Paid $10.00

The following are all licenses to enter upon property (Mountainside Pond) sold by United Water in 2006 and 2007 to lake shore owners (some HOA-members, some non-HOA members).

Recording-865571 – 8/23/2007 – License to Bromley Companies, LLC $0 + $154.95 per year thereafter – Controlled by Bob Lembke

Recording-858450 – 6/19/2007 EAS – License to Theodore Johnson $0 + $154.95 per year thereafter

Recording-859129 – 859129 6/25/2007 EAS – License to Tom and Robin Manteuffel $5,000 + $154.95 per year thereafter

Recording-815753 – 815753 1/31/2006 EAS  – License to Dana and Ross Sheely $5,000 + $150 per year thereafter

Recording-815752 – 1/31/2006 EAS – License to Art and Marilynn Burger $3,000 + $150 per year thereafter

Recording-815751  – 1/31/2006 EAS – License to Judith and Robert Anderson $2,500 + $150 per year thereafter

Recording-815750 – 15750 1/31/2006 EAS – License to Beverly Cummer $5,000 + $150 per year thereafter

Recording-815749 –  1/31/2006 EAS – License to Richard and Patricia Tucker $2,500 + $150 per year thereafter

Recording-815748 –  2/7/2006 EAS  – License to Ben and Karen Little $5,000 + $150 per year thereafter

Recording-815747 –  2/22/2006 EAS – License to Jim Little $5,000 + $150 per year thereafter

Recording-829670  –  08/14/2006 EAS – License to Hugo and Barbara Palacios $5,000 + $150 per year thereafter

Recording-860007 –  08/14/2006 EAS – License to Hugo and Barbara Palacios Amended

The Annual meeting minutes of 2009 refer to a powerpoint presentation  shown to owners  in attendance (28 owners) by HOA board members. We were told by the HOA to refer to this presentation for full information regarding the lake. This presentation (either hardcopies or PPT file) is unfortunately not available in the official HOA records.

3) Photos: click on the link below to view updated pictures as of October of 2013. These pictures were taken clockwise starting on the easement road located off Hunter Circle.

4) Aerial Video of Easement Closure – The Pedestrian Easement Is 15 Feet From Existing Perimeter Shoreline

Bill’s Ranch Lake Aerial Video

5) Summary of posts regarding this subject

Bill’s Ranch Lake – Committee Recommends Deeding Bill’s Ranch Lake Back To The Mountainside Owners (HOA)

SkiCounty : January 4, 2019 4:07 pm : Lake, News

Great news for Mountainside owners. Deeding the lake back to the owners (HOA) is something we’ve long supported and now it looks like that will happen.

The exploratory committee that studied the transfer of the lake to United Water and Mr. Lembke contingent upon maintaining the option to take back possession has recommended that the lake be deeded back to the Mountainside HOA.

We’ll keep an eye on this and make sure it happens.

More information on the history of the lake can be found here:

http://mountain-side.com/owners/?p=2123

http://mountain-side.com/owners/?page_id=1605

Leave a response »

Mountain Side Lake Transfer and Dredging – Home Owner Website Outlining History of HOA and Lake Activities

SkiCounty : October 16, 2014 9:36 pm : Amenities, Clubhouse, HB-1237, HOA, HOA Code violation, HOA Financial, HOA maintenance and responsibilties, HOA Meeting Minutes, HOA records, Lake, legal complaints, Town of Frisco News, Utilities

The following links to photos are very interesting. Dredging appears to have been conducted specifically and purposely by United Water and Mr. Lembke and Mr. Burger as an attempt to cut back the easement and deny access to HOA owners. That type of activity is sadly disappointing and flies in the face of the intent of the transfer agreement.

What happened to this owner, Mr. Ginsberg, is also a sad story. A level of treatment other owners have experienced as well. It’s an HOA nightmare that won’t go away and a perfect example of why enforcement statutes must be put into place against this type of activity.

Property before and after removal of stream and easement.

Before
http://rockymountaincomputer.com/HOA_embezzlement/Property_access_before_augmentation.jpg

http://rockymountaincomputer.com/HOA_embezzlement/Property_access_before.jpg

After

http://rockymountaincomputer.com/HOA_embezzlement/BillsRanchLake13.jpg

(I paid to construct the bridge over the naturally occurring stream in 2009/2010.)

http://rockymountaincomputer.com/HOA_embezzlement/Property_access_before_augmentation.jpg

http://rockymountaincomputer.com/HOA_embezzlement/Property_access_before.jpg – my house on my land

The stream which exits my property was filled in with Concrete and boulders and I have not any more access to the path nor my property I am still paying taxes, a mortgage and HOA dues for. Please see my survey which was done before augmentation. This was a violation of Section 404 of the EPA clean water act for wetlands. The permit, representing disclosure and taxes was never carried out after multiple augmentations of the property.

http://rockymountaincomputer.com/HOA_embezzlement/Property_obstacles.jpg – pictures of my property after augmenation without federal permit.

http://rockymountaincomputer.com/HOA_embezzlement/sect4041.jpg

http://rockymountaincomputer.com/HOA_embezzlement/sect404b.jpg

http://rockymountaincomputer.com/HOA_embezzlement/sect404c.jpg

1 Comment »

New Pictures And Videos of Mountain Side Lake / Bill’s Ranch Lake That Was Given To United Water And Sanitation District Along With $20,000 By The Mountain Side HOA Board of Directors

SkiCounty : September 20, 2014 7:19 am : Amenities, HOA, HOA maintenance and responsibilties, HOA records, Lake, News, Uncategorized

The lake transfer agreement and Plat are included at the end of this album.

Aerial Photos of Mountain Side Lake aka Bill’s Ranch Lake, Frisco, Colorado: www.flickr.com/photos/69156648@N03/sets/72157647604120735/

Also see this video on Youtube: youtu.be/qh57HrdGsio

The Mountain Side Home Owners Association gave the Bill’s Ranch Lake to United Water and Sanitation District which is presided over by HOA board member and lakeside home owner, Bob Lembke. Mr. Lembke’s home is on the top of the lake in these photos and videos with the groomed lawn.

In addition to transferring ownership of the lake to United, the HOA Board, without a vote of the full membership, also agreed to pay United $20,000 for dredging. In other words, the HOA board, without a full membership vote, gave United Water and Sanitation District the lake along with $20k spending money.

Again and to be clear, the President of United Water and Sanitation District is Mountain Side HOA Board of Directors member and lakeside property owner, Bob Lembke.

See link for more information: www.unitedwaterdistrict.com/aboutstaff.html

Since transferring Bill’s Ranch lake ownership to United, United’s President, HOA Board Member and lake side home owner, Bob Lembke, and his neighbor to north, Art Burger (also an HOA Board Member) have closed off the Platted lake perimeter easement through their property.

Their reasoning was first stated as an easement around the perimeter of the lake never existed. That reasoning changed when the Mountain Side Plat was presented and showed that perimeter easement did, in fact, exist.

Then Mr. Lembke stated that the "lake moved" due to dredging conducted by United Water and Sanitation District and now the easement was under water at the Lembke and Burger property lines. (?)

This makes no sense to a growing number of reasonable and clear minded owners.

The attached photos were taken on September 14, 2014 to be used as an overlay of the official Plat. Once overlaid, it turns out that the lake has not actually moved. Likewise the Plat easement shows that it runs around the entire existing water line and is very clear that the easement continues to exist by all definitions.

As of September 2014, there is an opportunity to exercise the option by the Mountain Side HOA to take back the lake with no further cost or obligation to the HOA or United Water and Sanitation District. That option however will expire in about four years. After that, the lake is gone forever.

Additional information and the Plat can be found here: mountain-side.com/owners/?page_id=1605

Additional information can be provided upon request to the above website.

Leave a response »

EPA power grab? Pols, states claim new water reg could bring feds into your backyard

SkiCounty : November 21, 2013 6:47 pm : Amenities, HOA, Lake, News

EPA power grab? Pols, states claim new water reg could bring feds into your backyard.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/21/epa-power-grab-pols-states-claim-new-reg-could-bring-feds-into-your-backyard/

A river runs through it — and Uncle Sam isn’t far behind.

That’s what several Republican lawmakers and even state farming groups and local governments are warning, after a draft rule from the Environmental Protection Agency proposed expanding which waterways are federally protected under the Clean Water Act.

The concern is that the move could give the feds authority over virtually any stream or ditch, and hand environmentalists another way to sue property owners. In other words, critics say, the government might soon be able to declare jurisdiction over a seasonal stream in your backyard.

If so, good luck getting a permit to expand building space on your property, or marketing your land to prospective developers.

“(The) draft rule sent to the White House for review could expand the EPA’s regulatory power to give the agency unprecedented new authority over seasonal streams and ditches on private property,” Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, said in a statement to FoxNews.com.

The EPA flatly denies this charge. Officials told FoxNews.com that the draft rule, which was published on Nov. 8, is nothing like its detractors claim. “The proposed rule would not expand EPA’s or the (Army Corps of Engineers’) jurisdiction or protect any new waters that have not historically been covered under the Clean Water Act,” the agency told FoxNews.com.

“In fact, the proposed rule specifically takes into account the more narrow reading of Clean Water Act jurisdiction established by the Supreme Court.”

The EPA and its supporters say “mass confusion” over what constitutes a protected water body under the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA), has been fueled mostly by a host of narrow rulings by the Supreme Court, and a lack of clarity in the current law.

In the most recent court case, Rapanos v. The United States, Justice Anthony Kennedy proclaimed that in order for an isolated wetland or smaller body of water (like a stream) to be protected under the CWA, the science must show a “significant nexus” to waters already protected under the law, like major river systems and lakes.

Jan Goldman-Carter, senior wetlands and water resources counsel with the National Wildlife Fund and supporter of the new rule, says the EPA is doing just what Justice Kennedy suggested — establishing, with scientific criteria, the kind of wetlands and water bodies that have a “significant nexus” to protected waters. These waters and wetlands are in the floodplain of “navigable waters,” and would meet the test anyway, she insists. Now it’s in black and white.

“(The new rule) is almost entirely about clarification,” she said. “The big difference is it will all be understood up front so you won’t have to waste agencies’ time and resources and landowners’ time and resources doing it all case-by-case.”

But the idea that there would be no expansion of the number of water bodies or wetlands covered under the CWA is disingenuous, say legal experts, who see plenty of room for EPA creep and bureaucratic red tape in the proposed measure.

“Under the leaked draft rule, more waters would be facially jurisdictional than under the current regime,” said attorneys Lowell Rothschild and Matthew Haynie, who both provide consulting services to developers and industries on environmental and public policy issues.

Writing on their blog for the law offices of Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP, they said the proposed rule “could have significant impact on infrastructure, energy and land development.” The definitions would be changed in more than one way, with “perhaps the most significant” being that many waters and wetlands would meet the “significant nexus” label automatically, bypassing the “fact intensive inquiry” they might have gone through to get those protections in the past.

But John Devine, senior attorney for the National Resources Defense Council, which supports the rule, says the EPA is “grounding these news rules in the science that has already been compiled about how streams and wetlands function in the aquatic system” and that critics are “twisting the facts to meet their political agendas.”

Therein lies the rub. On the other side, critics — who now include local land managers — say the EPA is basing its science on a draft environmental report that has yet to be fully vetted by the independent Science Advisory Board. Rep. Smith joins a number of Republican lawmakers in hoping to stop the rule from going forward, at least until that draft report, which provides justification for the new rule, is given a proper public airing.

Further, critics contend the report itself goes too far. When it was released for public comment in October, Nita Taylor, county manager of Lincoln, New Mexico, told her fellow commissioners she interpreted the report as the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers seeking to “gain jurisdiction over all water in the United States, and all activities affecting all water; and to regulate water now considered entirely under state jurisdiction.”

Other commissioners agreed and suggested joining forces with neighboring county governments to fight the EPA on this front. They see federal bureaucracy getting in the way of their land management. “It’s bad enough with the state in charge. Turning it over to federal agencies would be disastrous,” County Commission Chairman Jackie Powell told reporters.

Meanwhile, in comments submitted to the EPA, the South Carolina Farm Bureau warned that the report appears to say that “streams and most wetlands are connected and exert and influence on downstream waters” — however, the “EPA stops short of asking important questions about the scientific significance of these connections.” David Winkles, Farm Bureau president, wrote it would seem “any measurable connection would be enough” to declare a water body or wetland under federal jurisdiction.

Proponents note that many areas will still be considered on a case-by-case basis, according to both the report and draft rule. But those elements are being ignored for political reasons, they say. “Industry and members of Congress calling EPA’s actions an overreach are the same people who deny science and reasonable environmental protections on a whole host of other issues,” charged Dalal Aboulhosn, spokesman for Sierra Club, which supports the rule.

Smith says the devil is in the details, and that the EPA appears to be rushing forward to avoid scrutiny.

“The agency’s own science advisors have not had the opportunity to review the science underpinning this rule,” he said. “Any rule that could give EPA the authority to tell us what to do in our own backyards needs to be supported by sound science.”

Leave a response »

Bill’s Ranch Lake / Mountain Side Lake Committee Owners Representative Response To Committee Reference Scope Of Committee

SkiCounty : November 21, 2013 9:20 am : Amenities, HOA, HOA maintenance and responsibilties, Lake, News

This was the HOA President, Bill Meek’s, response to the owners representative’s email below. Mr. Meek’s response about the path to lake may be correct. The responsibility for maintaining the easement and access of the lake is defined in the transfer/conveyance agreement as quoted below. The owner’s representative was questioning why the HOA would be responsible for clearing the path and building the bridge.

From: William Meek

Date: Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:58 AM
Subject: RE: Lake

To: Art Burger , “JM”

thank you for your comment HOA responsible for the path to the lake

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is from the lake transfer/conveyance agreement: http://mountain-side.com/owners/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Recording-921999.pdf

4.) IRREVOCABLE LICENSE FOR ACCESS TO AND TO USE THE POND. In addition to any and all easements existing on the Property, the District, its successors and assigns, shall allow reasonable, unfettered and posted access to the Pond for the members of Mountain Side to use the Pond and walk around the perimeter of the Pond, within the easement areas set forth in the plats referenced in paragraph 1 above.

5. MAINTENANCE AND INSURANCE OF THE PROPERTY AND POND. The District shall maintain the Property and the Pond and shall obtain and carry property and liability insurance on the Property, in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), naming Mountain Side as an additional insured.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Email response to Committee from owners representative.

From: JM

To: “William Meek”

Cc: “Art Burger” , “Don Cacace” , “Smith” , “Pete” , “Phil”

Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 1:51:36 PM

Subject: Re: Lake

Mr. Meek,

I didn’t include Mr. Lembke because he was not named as a member of the committee at the meeting. If this has changed or I misunderstood, let me know. However, I don’t think he should be included in this committee because his position as president of United Water requires him to represent and protect United Water’s best interest and does not allow him to be completely objective and work 100% in the best interest of the Mountain Side HOA members.

At the meeting, Mr. Ponds stated that a lot of inaccurate information has been exchanged and that this committee should work toward examining all the information and providing factual information based on existing recorded documents.
Again, for the sake of convenience, I have already done substantial research and all documentation can be found here: http://mountain-side.com/owners/?page_id=1605. If additional documentation or research is required, I will be happy to do that.
I personally do not know what is inaccurate. It is the purpose of this committee to establish and clarify this, possibly with legal consultation. Can you clarify?

What exactly do you mean when you refer to the ‘access to the pond’ being the HOA’s responsibility? The easement access coming from Hunter Circle? The pedestrian access around the entire perimeter of the lake? Both? Where is this specifically stated in the agreement of 2004? How did you come to this conclusion?

At least 12 HOA members and non-HOA members (primarily shoreline owners) have purchased a license (generating $38,000+) to enter upon real property (Mountain Side Pond) in 2006/2007. This license was sold to them by United Water. This license grants them access to the lake. How could United Water sell licenses and collect money for something they contend they are not responsible for? This license also calls for a yearly collection of dues to be applied toward the maintenance of the lake, but that is not the main purpose of the license.

There seems to be a consensus that there was access in the area where the new dam now stands prior to it being built. Was the HOA aware that the dam was going to cut this access? Per the Agreement of 2004, United Water should have provided copies of the construction plans and receive HOA approval. Did the HOA receive such plans? What did these plans show with regard to easement access?

The agreement of 2004 also says that the District ‘shall not in any way impair Mountain Side’s use of the Pond…..permitted by the easements on the property”. (page 2, item 2)

By building the dam, United Water has impaired Mountain side’s use of the lake by removing the existing pedestrian physical access and not installing a new physical access in its place. In addition, how might the ‘licenses to enter real property (Mountain Side pond)’ that have been sold to Mountain Side owners and non-owners alike by United Water impede access to the HOA members now or in the future?

The agreement of 2004 was made between the HOA and United. What happens when United sells or transfers ownership? What are United’s future intentions for the lake? What happens when Mr. Lembke sells his home? These are questions that should also be considered.

On another note, one of the reasons given as to why the lake was reconveyed to United Water has been the threat of a possible law suit for failure to maintain the lake. We need to examine whether this threat would still exist today if the HOA decided to take the lake back. Who threatened a possible law suit for failure to maintain the lake in 2004? There is nothing at all in the record related to this threat of litigation.

Another reason given why United Water was chosen was that Bills Ranch Water district would have denied access. Is this true? Please provide the relevant documents showing this as there is nothing at all in the records related to Bill’s Ranch wanting the lake or that they would disallow access. The plat includes a pedestrian easement around the entire perimeter of the lake. Any attempt to close that easement would have involved a heavily regulated process with low probability of success. The record only shows that they wanted to store water in the lake, that they offered $10,000 in legal fees to the HOA and that Mr. Lembke, while working in the interest of United, was to help the HOA by negotiating the recouping of legal fees. No agreement was ever reached and no fees were ever recouped according to Mountain Managers. The most recent meeting minutes do address water storage for Bill’s Ranch Water District. Does this mean that the HOA has another opportunity to recoup legal fees? How about revenues for water storage? The transfer agreement requires United to have HOA approval of any future agreements so this should be considered in that process.

Lastly, the minutes showed that the insurance company was not informed that the lake was private and not open to public access. Once they were made aware of that material fact, they agreed that they would insure it without a problem. The record clearly shows that the insurance issue became a moot point once the underwriting information was properly presented. If the risk can be economically transferred, then there is no liability issue. Is this still the case today?

Thank you.
Joelle Miller

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:56 AM, William Meek wrote:

Mrs. Miller,

Thank you for your note. Your understanding of the committee is correct. Yes United Water is responsible for the maintenance but the access to the pond is HOA’s responsibility and I did not make this clear. You mentioned in your note examining the existing information and correct the information that is not accurate could you please elaborate on what information is not accurate? And I think you are correct about this committee assignment is to determine if the lake should be taken back in the HOA and whether or not it is practical to make it so that you can walk completely around the lake.

Leave a response »

“Oh Boy. Does she realize that she is not on the committee but in an ‘adviser’ role the same way Bob Lembke is?” – Art Burger, Mountain Side HOA Board Member About Owners Representative On Lake Committee.

SkiCounty : November 21, 2013 8:40 am : Amenities, HOA, HOA maintenance and responsibilties, HOA Meeting Minutes, Lake, News, Uncategorized

Art Burger, a Mountain Side HOA Board Member and who’s home borders the Bill’s Ranch / Mountain Side Lake, sent an email to HOA Board President Bill Meek stating as follows:

“Hi Bill,

Oh Boy.

Does she realize that she is not on the committee but in an ‘adviser’ role the same way Bob Lembke is?

Art”

The response was sent privately to Bill Meek. Bill Meek then rightfully copied both Mr. Burger and the HOA Owners Representative on the Committee.

Mr. Burger owns a home that borders the lake. Mr. Burger is one party who purchased an access license/Easement from Mr. Bob Lembke and the United Water and Sanitation District. Mr. Burger has closed of the pedestrian easement at his property line which appears to be in violation of the original plat (see plat link below). On the Plat, Mr. Burger’s property is comprised of Lots Number 31 and 32 according the Summit County Assessor.

1.) Link to picture of Mr. Burger’s property line with roped off access across easement: http://mountain-side.com/owners/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IMG_1115-160×120.jpg

2.) Link to aerial video of Mr. Burger’s patio across pedestrian easement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFxqBDZVyYY

3.) Link to License/Easement purchased by Mr. Burger from Mr. Lembke and United Water and Sanitation District: http://mountain-side.com/owners/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Recording-815752.pdf

4.) Link to official plat showing lake and pedestrian easement: http://mountain-side.com/owners/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/PLAT.pdf

The response was replying to the following email. All documents referenced can be found here: http://mountain-side.com/owners/?page_id=1605

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From: JM

To: “William Meek”

Cc: “Art Burger” , “Don Cacace” , “Smith” , “Pete” , “Phil”

Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 1:51:36 PM

Subject: Re: Lake

Mr. Meek,

I didn’t include Mr. Lembke because he was not named as a member of the committee at the meeting. If this has changed or I misunderstood, let me know. However, I don’t think he should be included in this committee because his position as president of United Water requires him to represent and protect United Water’s best interest and does not allow him to be completely objective and work 100% in the best interest of the Mountain Side HOA members.

At the meeting, Mr. Ponds stated that a lot of inaccurate information has been exchanged and that this committee should work toward examining all the information and providing factual information based on existing recorded documents.

Again, for the sake of convenience, I have already done substantial research and all documentation can be found here: http://mountain-side.com/owners/?page_id=1605. If additional documentation or research is required, I will be happy to do that.
I personally do not know what is inaccurate. It is the purpose of this committee to establish and clarify this, possibly with legal consultation. Can you clarify?

What exactly do you mean when you refer to the ‘access to the pond’ being the HOA’s responsibility? The easement access coming from Hunter Circle? The pedestrian access around the entire perimeter of the lake? Both? Where is this specifically stated in the agreement of 2004? How did you come to this conclusion?

At least 12 HOA members and non-HOA members (primarily shoreline owners) have purchased a license (generating $38,000+) to enter upon real property (Mountain Side Pond) in 2006/2007. This license was sold to them by United Water. This license grants them access to the lake. How could United Water sell licenses and collect money for something they contend they are not responsible for? This license also calls for a yearly collection of dues to be applied toward the maintenance of the lake, but that is not the main purpose of the license.

There seems to be a consensus that there was access in the area where the new dam now stands prior to it being built. Was the HOA aware that the dam was going to cut this access? Per the Agreement of 2004, United Water should have provided copies of the construction plans and receive HOA approval. Did the HOA receive such plans? What did these plans show with regard to easement access?

The agreement of 2004 also says that the District ‘shall not in any way impair Mountain Side’s use of the Pond…..permitted by the easements on the property”. (page 2, item 2)

By building the dam, United Water has impaired Mountain side’s use of the lake by removing the existing pedestrian physical access and not installing a new physical access in its place. In addition, how might the ‘licenses to enter real property (Mountain Side pond)’ that have been sold to Mountain Side owners and non-owners alike by United Water impede access to the HOA members now or in the future?

The agreement of 2004 was made between the HOA and United. What happens when United sells or transfers ownership? What are United’s future intentions for the lake? What happens when Mr. Lembke sells his home? These are questions that should also be considered.

On another note, one of the reasons given as to why the lake was reconveyed to United Water has been the threat of a possible law suit for failure to maintain the lake. We need to examine whether this threat would still exist today if the HOA decided to take the lake back. Who threatened a possible law suit for failure to maintain the lake in 2004? There is nothing at all in the record related to this threat of litigation.

Another reason given why United Water was chosen was that Bills Ranch Water district would have denied access. Is this true? Please provide the relevant documents showing this as there is nothing at all in the records related to Bill’s Ranch wanting the lake or that they would disallow access. The plat includes a pedestrian easement around the entire perimeter of the lake. Any attempt to close that easement would have involved a heavily regulated process with low probability of success. The record only shows that they wanted to store water in the lake, that they offered $10,000 in legal fees to the HOA and that Mr. Lembke, while working in the interest of United, was to help the HOA by negotiating the recouping of legal fees. No agreement was ever reached and no fees were ever recouped according to Mountain Managers. The most recent meeting minutes do address water storage for Bill’s Ranch Water District. Does this mean that the HOA has another opportunity to recoup legal fees? How about revenues for water storage? The transfer agreement requires United to have HOA approval of any future agreements so this should be considered in that process.

Lastly, the minutes showed that the insurance company was not informed that the lake was private and not open to public access. Once they were made aware of that material fact, they agreed that they would insure it without a problem. The record clearly shows that the insurance issue became a moot point once the underwriting information was properly presented. If the risk can be economically transferred, then there is no liability issue. Is this still the case today?

Thank you.

JM

Leave a response »

09CW48 – Bill’s Ranch Lake – APPLICATION FOR GROUNDWATER RIGHT, CHANGE OF WATER RIGHT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION

SkiCounty : November 20, 2013 4:13 pm : Amenities, HOA, HOA maintenance and responsibilties, HOA Meeting Minutes, Lake, News

Complete document can be found here: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Water/Resumes/Div5/May%202009%20Resume.pdf

10. PURSUANT TO C.R.S., §37-92-302, AS AMENDED, YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE FOLLOWING PAGES COMPRISE A RESUME OF THE APPLICATIONS AND AMENDED APPLICATIONS FILED WITH THE WATER CLERK FOR WATER DIVISION 5 DURING THE MONTH OF MAY 2009.
09CW48 SUMMIT COUNTY.

Miners Creek, tributary to Dillon Reservoir and Blue River. Bill’s Ranch Water Company, c/o David C. Hallford, Esq. and Scott Grosscup, Esq., Balcomb & Green, P.C., P.O. Drawer 790, Glenwood Springs, CO 81602.

APPLICATION FOR GROUNDWATER RIGHT, CHANGE OF WATER RIGHT AND APPROVAL OF PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION. Summary: This application requests approval of ground water rights for a well field located within the Bill’s Ranch Subdivision, approval of a plan for augmentation for wells located within Bill’s Ranch and a change of the Applicant’s ownership interest in the Carwood Ditch water rights to use the historical consumptive use credits from Bill’s Lake to replace out-of-priority depletions from the well field. Name of Structure: Bill’s Ranch Well Field. Location: S1/2 of Sec. 35, T. 5 South, R. 78 West of the 6th P.M., and more particularly described as being in the SW1/4 and SE1/4 of the SW1/4, the SW1/4, SE1/4, NE1/4, and NW1/4.

of the SE1/4, and the SE1/4 and SW1/4 of the NE1/4 of section 35 to encompass an area of approx. 96 acres, as depicted on Exh. A attached to the App. Source and depth: Groundwater trib. to the Blue River; the wells range in depths from roughly 30 feet to 350 feet. Date of approp: May 18, 2009, by mailing of application to identified well owners.

Amt: 80.8 g.p.m. (0.18 cfs), cumulative for all wells, conditional. Uses: i. Irrigation of up to 1.71 acres; ii. Domestic use within 86.0 EQR’s – one EQR equals 3.5 people per dwelling unit; livestock watering, and pond evap. Remarks: The Bill’s Ranch Neighborhood Association consists of 61 member properties within the Bill’s Ranch Subdivision, Summit Cty., Co.

These properties are provided domestic water service from existing groundwater wells. See Exh. B attached to App. Pursuant to CRS § 37-90-137 (2)(b)(II)(B), Applicant provided notice of this App. by certified mail to the registered owners of wells located within 600 feet of the augmented wells. Exh. C to the App. Applicant’s members participating herein have waived claims of well-to-well interference from other members’ wells pursuant to Applicant’s Bylaws. Water Rights to be Changed: Applicant owns a 7.5/28ths interest in the Carwood Ditch water rights, described as follows: a. Information from Previous Decrees b. Point of Diversion: The originally decreed location of the headgate for the Carwood Ditch is a point on the west side of Miners Creek, a/k/a/ Jug Creek, in the SE1/4 SW1/4 of Sec. 35, T. 5 S., R. 78 West, 6th P.M. The decree in C.A. No. 1709 described this point of diversion at a point where the south quarter corner of Sec. 35, T. 5 S., R. 78 West, 6th P.M. bears north 76 degrees 46 minutes west a distance of 1,456 feet. c. Hist. Use: Irrigation and Domestic. i. The District Court, W.D. 5, decreed in 87CW254 and 87CW391, that the water rights decreed to the Carwood Ditch were historically applied to domestic uses and irrigation of hay fields on “Bill’s Ranch,” generally located along the southeast boundaries of the Town of Frisco, near Dillon Reservoir.

The court further found that the irrigation of 25 acres were attributable to Priority No. 78. The court further found that the total consumptive use under Priority No. 78 was 28 A.F. per year and that water was available from May 1 through September 30 of each year with average diversions of 69 acre feet per year. Those cases changed 25 percent of the water rights decreed to the Carwood Ditch. ii. Those findings regarding the historical use of the Carwood Ditch were reiterated in the decree entered on February 1, 1999 in 98CW112, and again on May 8, 2006 in 98CW297 by the District Court, W.D. 5. Exh. D and E attached to the App. d. Amt. to be Changed: 7.5 a.f. of the 28 a.f. of historical consumptive use credits decreed to the Carwood Ditch in 87CW254, 87CW391, 98CW112 and 98CW297. e. Change of Type of Use. Applicant requests to change the type of use of the Carwood Ditch Rights to include recreational and aesthetic uses in Bill’s Ranch Lake and augmentation of domestic, irrigation, livestock watering, and pond evaporation uses. Consumptive use credits not required by this plan shall be used for aesthetic and recreational purposes in Bills Ranch Lake until they are used in future plans for augmentation. Change to Storage.

Applicant also requests to change the method of use from direct flow to storage of the historical consumptive use credits in Bills Ranch Lake for use for recreational purposes and augmentation use. i. Bills Ranch Lake was decreed in this Court’s Case No. W-380 for a capacity of 16.83 a.f., absolute. No change of that right is requested herein. On information and belief, that right is owned by Defenders of Miners Creek, Inc. ii. Location. The decreed location for Bills Ranch Lake commences at a point on the high water line at the SW Corner of said lake from which point the SW Corner of Sec. 35, T. 5 S., R. 78 West of the 6th P.M. bears S. 74 degrees W. a distance of 3,300 feet. iii. Source. As decreed in W-380, the Lake is an off-channel structure and is supplied from Miners Creek by the Carwood Ditch. iv. Capacity: 16.83 AF; the dead storage amount is currently unknown to Applicant.

Structures to be Augmented: a. Applicant’s members’ wells provide domestic, livestock, irrigation and pond evaporation uses in the Bill’s Ranch Neighborhood. The specific wells and the uses associated therewith are described in Exh. B. They collectively represent and average diversion of 22.5 g.p.m. and 36.34 a.f. of annual withdrawal. Replacement wells may be constructed for these wells. I. Source: Miners Creek alluvium, tributary to Miners Creek, tributary to Dillon Reservoir and the Blue River. ii. Amounts: See Exh. B for the pumping rates and annual volumetric withdrawals of the individual wells. iii.

Depths: The depths of these wells will be between 30 and 350 feet deep. b. Well Permits: Prior to participation in this plan for augmentation, Applicant’s members shall obtain valid well permits from the State Engineer pursuant to C.R.S. § 37-90-137.

Water Rights to be Used for Augmentation: 4.05 a.f. of the 7.5 a.f. of historical consumptive use credits from the Carwood Ditch as changed and bypassed for aug. or stored in Bills Ranch Lake. Statement of Plan for Augmentation: This plan for aug. replaces all out-of-priority depletions from the Bill’s Ranch Well Field for domestic, irrigation, and stock watering uses and to augment evaporative depletions from the members’ aesthetic ponds within the Bill’s Ranch Neighborhood.

The Company will provide aug. water to up to 61 separate developed properties within the Bill’s Ranch Neighborhood. Demands and Depletions. i. Domestic Demands. 86.0 EQR’s, Yearly in-house demand will total 33.72 a.f. Wastewater treatment occurs through a combination of: central wastewater collection and treatment with depletions estimated at 5 percent; septic tanks with leach field with estimated depletions of 10 percent; or some other form of

Leave a response »

Mountain Side HOA Committee – Mountain Side Lake aka Bill’s Ranch Lake – HOA President Thinks Scope Should Be Limited To Five Items – Owner Response Expanding Scope

SkiCounty : November 20, 2013 8:21 am : Amenities, HOA, HOA maintenance and responsibilties, Lake, News, Uncategorized

The Mountain Side HOA President, Bill Meek, who has been on the HOA board for more than twenty (20) years, sent an email advising HOA Mountain Side Lake committee members that he thinks the scope of the discussion should be limited to five items primarily dealing with expenses and liability. The committee owner representative responded with a clarification of the scope and suggested expansion beyond the five items including value of the lake as an asset to the HOA and owners along with additional value such as water storage which was appraised at nearly $500,000 in 2011.

The five items Mr. Meek thinks should the scope should be limited to are as follows:

“On the lake, I think we need to determine what the committees objections are.

1. Do we want to take the lake back?
2. What will the lake cost us to take back?
3. How much would we have to budget for the lake?
4. Do we want to build a walkway over the water portions of the lake?
5. How much would that cost?”

or these five items. It’s difficult to tell which five he was referring to:

“1.The little stream can you get a price for a plank bridge 3 or 4 by 12 treated 2 by 4 treated glued and nail under the planks no hand rail
2.can you send me a copy fo the filed plat.
3Bob would united water object to 2 picnic tables
4 will colorado water allow a self standing bridge over the two water crossing? and who need to approve it
5 phil I need picture of the lake showing all parts”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Following is the HOA Lake Committee owner representative response to the Mountain Side HOA President’s email to the committee recommending that the scope of the committee be limited to the above five items. Additionally, how United Water and Sanitation District disposes of the lake once the transfer agreement runs out should also be addressed. Does it simply transfer to Bob Lembke? Is it sold to the highest bidder? Water and water storage rights? What about access after that?

“Mr. Meek,

Did I misunderstand the purpose of the committee established at the meeting? I thought its purpose was to allow examination of the existing information in an objective and non biased way, correct the information that is not accurate, establish responsibility for maintenance, inform owners with accurate facts and make decisions for the future of the lake with the best interest of all owners in mind.

Your email seems to indicate that it is the responsibility of the HOA to maintain access. I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion however that responsibility was established as United’s when ownership of the lake was transferred in 2004. At least that was the intent of the agreement that United accepted in 2004 when they took ownership.

Here is a copy of the plat referenced in the agreement signed in 2004: http://mountain-side.com/owners/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/PLAT.pdf

Pictures of the lake are available here: http://mountain-side.com/owners/?gallery=mountainside-lake-october-2013 (sorted clockwise)

The current area below the spillway that is currently passable because someone put a plank over the stream is here:
http://mountain-side.com/owners/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IMG_1064-682×1024.jpg

The agreement signed in 2004 (http://mountain-side.com/owners/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Recording-921999.pdf) indicates in paragraph 4, that the District ‘shall allow the members of Mountain Side to use the Pond and walk around the perimeter of the Pond..”

Paragraph 5 discusses maintenance of the lake and states that ‘The District shall maintain the property’. What exactly does this mean? Nothing is specifically excluded.

Furthermore, in the 12 licenses United Water and Sanitation District sold to individuals (many of them non-HOA homeowners) in 2006 and 2007, (see example here: http://mountain-side.com/owners/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Recording-815750.pdf, the same reference to ‘maintenance of the property’ is made.

In this document, United Water acknowledges its responsibility for ‘continued maintenance of the Property’. What exactly does “maintenance of the property” mean in this document? What exact maintenance projects are these license holders contributing toward? maintenance of easement access? landscape upkeep? fish stocking? Others? Again, nothing is specifically excluded, so why is the HOA automatically assuming that the restoring of the easement access falls under the HOA’s responsibility and is a cost that the HOA needs to cover instead of a United Water’s responsibility?

Lastly, this committee should ask Mr. Lembke to provide a copy of the building permit application and approval of the dam. Everyone agrees that there was pedestrian access before the dam was built. I therefore don’t believe that a permit that was going to remove access to an existing easement documented in the plat would have be approved.

Thank you.

JM”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Following is the original email from HOA BOD President, Bill Meek, to the Mountain side Lake Committee.

Mr. Meek says that the HOA was threatened with a law suit related to the maintenance of the lake however no such documentation is provided, that information has never been part of the record in any HOA meeting nor does he identify by whom. Excerpts of all lake related meeting minutes are included here: http://mountain-side.com/owners/?page_id=1605

Mr. Meek says that the insurance company notified them that the HOA insurance was being cancelled. This is no minor action and involves a heavily regulated procedure that insurers must comply with. A link to the insurance statute can be found here: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/4D21668C6AAB33F787257B1700671E4C?Open&file=211_01.pdf There is no record of a notice of cancellation ever being issued. In fact, the HOA meeting minutes state otherwise. The HOA record clarifies that the underwriting information provided to the insurance company did not inform them that the lake was private and not public. The record shows that the insurance became a non-issue once the insurance company became aware that the lake was private.

See Meeting minutes dated May, 2012 and the Annual Meeting Minutes dated September 3, 2011 at this link: http://mountain-side.com/owners/?page_id=1605

Mr. Meek says that the Bill’s Ranch Water District wanted the lake and would not give access to HOA Owners. Again, there is nothing in the record even remotely related to this type of demand or arrangement. Based upon the lake plat, this would have, again, been a heavily regulated process to remove the pedestrian easement by any party and would have required a change of the plat. The records show no such demand or any record of intended change to the plat. The lake plat can be found here: http://mountain-side.com/owners/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/PLAT.pdf The record shows only that Bill’s Ranch Water District wanted to store water in the lake and that Mr. Bob Lembke was supposed to negotiate water storage rights in exchange for the HOA recouping legal fees. No fees were ever recouped despite Bills Ranch Water District offering to pay at least $10,000. The above references are numerous in the record which can be found here: http://mountain-side.com/owners/?page_id=1605

As respects changes to lake access to HOA owners, the record shows that Mr. Lembke later sold access to the lake that he called licenses but that he filed as easements. Therefore the only actual record of any potential change to access were the documents filed by Mr. Lembke. Licenses/easements were sold to non-owners and owners alike. Those licenses/easements can be found here: http://mountain-side.com/owners/?page_id=1605

“From: William Meek

Date: Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Subject: LAKE

To: Pete , Smith , Art Burger , Don Cacace , “joelle@goinghigh.com” JM, Phil , Bob Lembke

I think we need to stay with the 5 previsions that I originally sent out to everyone. I think that it is important that i give you some background information on the lake.

I have been a member of the HOA since 1991 or 1992 and I’ve been on the board an awfully long time.

In passed board meetings prior to us moving the lake we never, never pulled routine maintenance on the lake. We were facing a possible lawsuit because we didn’t keep the lake up. During that time we had our insurance with Farmers Insurance Group and Farmers had insured this property from the very conception but they didn’t know that we had a lake. Once they found out (Farmers Insurance0 they were threatening according to Eric Gill to cancel the policy. So we tried to find insurance but according to Eric to the board members either we couldn’t find it or it would be too expensive. We had a proposal from Bill’s Water District from Charlene Webb to deed the property over to them and they would take all responsibility of the lake. But we would not have access to the lake as an HOA. Bob made a suggestion because his company is governmental that we deed it to him and he would have it drenched, fix the over flow which then became an issue with Colorado to where we had to replace portion of the dam. Once it was in United Water’s control they agreed they would return the property to us upon demand and we could have full use of the lake, fishing, ice skating, etc. When the lake was taken over UWD you couldn’t walk around the lake, that is a fact. That fact is not going to change. If we want to figure out what it would cost to build bridges and the liability if someone falls off the bridge or slips on the bridge then we could walk around the lake.

It is alright for us to disagree but we must remember that we are all members of the same HOA. We can disagree and still be friendly with each other.

Here is how I see the lake. The lake has been drenched, the dam has been repaired, we have full access to it as we have in the past and we have no liability or financial outlay and right now we couldn’t afford to fix anything in the lake.

I have known Bob ever since he has been on the board and I have found him to be one of the most unselfish people that I have met. He doesn’t have a hidden motive or agenda and he has had rude and inaccurate statements made against him personally and his company for years.

So if we do nothing else in my opinon we owe Bob a lot more personally and professionally than we could ever repay. It is unfortunate when people make statements against a person’s character because they simply don’t know all the facts.
w”

Leave a response »

United Water and Sanitation District President, Bob Lembke, Responds To HOA Member With Answers To Questions

SkiCounty : November 19, 2013 8:04 am : HOA, HOA maintenance and responsibilties, Lake, News, Uncategorized

Mr. Lembke has responded to the HOA board member following that board member’s response and apology. Those emails can be found here and below: http://mountain-side.com/owners/?p=1935

Most or all of the documents referenced or attached to Mr. Lembke’s email below can be found our this site here: http://mountain-side.com/owners/?page_id=1605

If some documents are found to be different from those on this site or are not currently posted at the above link, they will be posted shortly.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Steve

This is in response to some of your questions. Since Outlot A was deeded to United Water, it has worked diligently to maintain the lake, without needless assessments imposed on the HOA. For your information, please find attached a copy of the 2004 Agreement under which Outlot A was conveyed to United by Mountainside.

In an attempt to get the process back on track, I am going to respond to some of your questions. I appreciate your apology of earlier today, and will move forward. However, there are a number of accusations to which I must respond.

As I stated earlier I was offended by your email. After reading the email chain below, it appears you start the dialog by holding forth at some length about United wanting to “dump” the “tar baby”, and then went on for several long paragraphs, analyzing what United has failed to do under the 2004 Agreement.

Then, in your second email in response to me, you admitted you don’t even have a copy of the Agreement, and asked that I provide you with one. Reading that Agreement prior to offering your opinions on United’s obligations would have been an excellent start.

As a courtesy to you and the remainder of the Committee, I am going to reproduce relevant sections of the Agreement, and comment on the same.

Let me address the Millers before I begin. Within hours of the email exchange, they chose to place our group discussions on their web site. They have the right to do so. They then made the following editorial comment:

Three emails into the process of determining if the Mountain Side HOA should take back ownership of the Bill’s Ranch Lake / Mountain Side Lake from United Water and Sanitation District, United Water and Sanitation District’s President, Bob Lembke, has become offended and without an apology, threatened to end the process now.

Although there’s question as to whether he has power or authority to do that, the conflict of interest is certainly evident and shows why Mr. Lembke and United Water and Sanitation District probably should not be part of the process.
See: http://mountain-side.com/owners/?p=1935#more-‘

There is no question on whether I have the power or authority to participate in a process that began as badly as this. I have no duty to participate, and I have the authority to deed Outlot A back to the HOA when United chooses to do so—And the United Board has already expressed their strong preference to deed the lake back to the HOA. If the lake is deeded back, no other discussion is relevant.

With those introductory words, let me review parts of the 2004 Agreement:

Paragraph 1 is reproduced below:

Please note the provisions that the transfer to United was subject to all easements benefitting the Mountainside HOA. That means that all of those easements remained in effect, without change.

The paragraph also provides that the District shall re-convey the Property to Mountain Side upon the receipt of written request. That provision creates a duty of the District to re-convey the Property if asked. The District also has the right to convey the Property if it chooses to do so prior to that date.

Paragraph 2 dealt with water rights storage. We were aware of the water right held by others at the time of the lake conveyance, and included this provision should those rights ever be acquired for use in the Mountainside area. United never has sought water rights for its benefit, and has made no attempt to develop this small lake as a storage reservoir for its governmental activity.

Paragraph 4 deals with access. It states:

Under this paragraph United agreed to allow unfettered and posted access to the Pond for the Members of Mountain Side, and to allow the members of Mountain Side to use the Pond and walk around the perimeter within the easement areas.

So far, we are in agreement. United has never denied access to any Mountainside member. It has posted the Pond with no-trespassing signs. I have received reliable reports (which I have not independently verified) that Mr. Neese tore down one of the signs shortly after it was installed. We also provided a placement of bollards at the corners of Outlot A, so that the Mountainside owners would know where they could legally traverse.

Paragraph 5 deals with United’s obligations:

That’s it. We agreed to carry insurance, and to maintain the Property and the Pond. In your initial email you stated: “Now, it appears, United does not want to finish the project they started. The dam construction and dredging was only part of what was needed – and expected by the owners at the time. I was not an owner when this transfer took place, but in speaking with several owners who were owners at the time, they thought that United would be a good choice because: . . . They thought that United was going to do the things the HOA had not – like rebuild the dam, dredge, improve the bridge, and improve access around the lake. To complete the project, a replacement bridge needs to be built, and the pedestrian easement needs to be made assessable. This may involve Corps of Engineers approval.”

Steve, the word “bridge” never came up in any of the discussions in 2004. You admitted that you were not there at the time. You claim that some “owners” you had spoken with thought that United was going to “rebuild the dam, dredge, improve the bridge, and improve access around the lake.” These owners have an extremely tenuous relationship with the truth, or have their own agenda to pursue.

There was no contemplation that the dam would have to be rebuilt in 2004. It was never discussed. There was no discussion on the bridge. The old bridge was built by those living in the area, and it was not an HOA asset. And there was no discussion on improving access around the lake. United’s only obligations re maintenance is in that one sentence of paragraph 5. That’s all we agreed to do. United didn’t even agree to dredge the Pond. Rather, that was the subject of the next paragraph.

This paragraph clearly provides that United had an “intent” to dredge. Nowhere was United obligated to dredge. Indeed, if we had not dredged the Pond within 8 months, the only remedy for the HOA was the return of the money, with interest at 2%.

United did NOT make the open ended promises that serve as the basis of your initial email.

The balance of the Agreement deals with less material issues.

Your Emails. I am going to quote portions of your emails (in green) with my responses (in red).

B. United keeps control of the lake. They are responsible for these costs. United’s sole responsibility is in paragraph 5 of the Agreement. We have met those responsibilities.
I do not blame United for suddenly wanting to dump the responsibility of these items back into the lap of the HOA, now that there is a call for them to do what they should have been doing from the beginning of the period when they took control of the resource. Steve, this is the beginning of your accusations. It mischaracterizes the Agreement, as discussed above.
They chose to build a dam, and do some dredging. That’s great. They have the knowledge of dealing with various agencies regarding water storage issues. That’s what they do for a living. They solicited funds to help pay for the projects, and they paid for the balance. They were expensive projects, and it would have been a special assessment to HOA owners to pay for the work. You are correct about expensive. By virtue of the 2004 Agreement, United and the participating neighbors have saved Mountainside over $200,000.

United wanted this “tar baby”, so now they have it. They were given the asset (OK, sold for $10.00) so now they get to deal with it. All of it. Start to finish. Lesson learned: be careful what you wish for. Your confessed ignorance of the Agreement (since you had no copy) is clear here.

If another water agency (other than United) had taken control of the lake, Bob could have – presumably – been a consultant on behalf of the HOA to “ride herd” on the controlling entity to make sure that they did what was expected, including dam building, dredging, bridge rebuilding, walkway construction, vegetation clearing, liability maintenance, lake health / water quality control, and anything else which is necessary.

Now, it appears, United does not want to finish the project they started. Again, your accusation asserts obligations United never agreed to undertake. The dam construction and dredging was only part of what was needed – and expected by the owners at the time. Previously discussed. The “owners” you have received information from are misrepresenting the transaction for their own purposes. I was not an owner when this transfer took place, but in speaking with several owners who were owners at the time, they thought that United would be a good choice because:

1. They thought United would be a knowledgeable and responsible controlling entity.
2. They thought that United was going to do the things the HOA had not – like rebuild the dam, dredge, improve the bridge, and improve access around the lake. As discussed above, United did not agree to do any of these things.

To complete the project, a replacement bridge needs to be built, and the pedestrian easement needs to be made assessable. This may involve Corps of Engineers approval. You are correct. Building bridges in waters of the United States will require a Corps permit, and approval of the State Engineer. I would anticipate a rather lengthy and expensive process to obtain both approvals.
The claim that “you have never been able to walk all the way around the lake” only tells me that no one ever pressed the issue of having the pedestrian easement opened up for access. The pedestrian easement has ALWAYS been there. If a low over water walkway needs to be built over the portion of the easement which is under water, then I vote that we get bids to find out how much it will cost to have walkways built, and find out if governmental approval is needed. That would be fine with me. It is in the nature of what this Committee could do. United, however, has no obligation to undertake any of the activities desired by you.

Obviously, it is in the best interest of the HOA to leave the control of the lake with United, if for no other reason than the liability indemnification issue.

Expected expenses include:

1. A replacement bridge over the stream below the dam, which will be expensive. United is familiar with all of the intricacies of governmental requirements, etc. Again, that is what they do for a living.
2. At least one over water walkway to complete access all the way around the lake.
3. Pedestrian easement clearing and maintenance.
4. Pond management (water quality, aquatic vegetation control, etc.) will be an ongoing annual expense.
5. Liability protection.

In an effort to work with United towards a common goal, perhaps the HOA can contribute to the costs of these projects, and allow United to keep control of the asset.

Preventing non-owners from accessing the lake will be a never ending battle, which involves police enforcement. The lake is private property, and if properly marked, trespassing is (in Texas) a criminal offense. We’ve posted the signs. I have reliable information that at least one was destroyed by Mr. Nease.

Thanks again for the dialog.

“Smith”

Your second email to me in response to my reply also has a number of provisions for which response is necessary:

Bob, I am sorry you are offended.

My comments are about United Water, not you personally. The fact that you are so closely affiliated with them is coincidental. Steve, in a word, bulls**t. You know I am the President of United Water. There is no coincidence. You have been informed that United took on this responsibility at my request, because my home is on the Lake. I’ve made contributions of my own funds to finance United’s work not paid for by other contributions. Insulting United is insulting me, due to my leadership of United since its formation.

As I indicated in my email, I believe you would have been a good and qualified candidate to oversee work done by any water management company which would have taken control of this resource and project(s).

As a Mountainside owner, I expect exemplary representation to guard my financial investment. The pond is an amenity and asset of the HOA. It does not belong to any one or two individuals for their own private enjoyment, and it certainly is not a public park. In the previous sentence you seem to imply that the pond has been managed by one or two individuals for their private enjoyment. It appears that you are referring to Art Burger and me. If not, who are the one or two individuals to whom you refer?
I believe the pond should be made available to all HOA owners by opening up the pedestrian easement all the way around the lake, and that the pond should be managed for optimum condition. Your goals are worthy of discussion. They should be discussed with the Committee. I disagree with a number of them, but will hold my comments until the appropriate time.

Presumably, United Water knew what they were getting into when they took control of this asset. Along with that control came the unenviable position of being in a fish bowl with regard to criticism, scrutiny, and the assaults of nut job non HOA property owners. Actually, Steve, the level of insanity that has followed this project is without parallel in my experience. We first had to deal with Mr. Ginsburg, whose ravings and threats resulted in contacts from the Frisco Police, and the Sheriff’s department of two separate counties. My attorney had to arrange for security for her building, and I suffered attacks from Mr. Ginsburg both in person and via fraudulent emails from him. Mr. Nease is another chapter in this drama. He has no interest in the pond, but barraged me with emails which I have subsequently auto-deleted.

I would not want to be in that position. Your civil and restrained fashion of dealing with the consequences of this position appear to have been nonpareil. Apparently you and others have spent countless hours and a great deal of money in dealing with this pond issue.

As I said in my email, I was not an owner when the transfer to United Water took place. From what I have heard, the assumption was that if action was not taken the pond would evolve into a wetlands meadow. Because a new dam was built, the pond remains.
I want this to be a productive and cordial process, and again, I did not mean to insult you. My comments would have been the same if Joe Schmuckitelly were the guy behind United Water. It’s not about you personally. It’s about United Water – the company which took control of a HOA asset, and which is expected – by the owners of Mountainside real estate – to provide optimum management of the asset. Steve, you have been grossly misinformed by persons who may have their own agenda. United’s obligations were extremely limited, and have been satisfied.

Now the question remains: what is expected going forward? You say that “ United has done all it agreed to do, and far more”. So let’s start there. To what did United Water agree? Can you please send a copy of that agreement to the committee members?
Also, in addition to those items which were agreed upon, what else has been done? By having this information, we will know what does not need to be addressed. From United Water’s perspective, what is expected of United Water?

As board members, we are expected to represent the owners of over $60 million worth of real estate investment. The assets of the HOA are under our charge. In an effort to maximize property values, we are expected to oversee the care of the HOA assets and amenities. The pond is one of those assets.

You represent United Water. I also represent the HOA as a board member. You have their interests to defend. I can see how you would have your feelings hurt by comments against United Water. You have done what you have done presumably because you have a personal stake in the pond issue, since you are a HOA owner, and personally own waterfront property adjoining the pond. I have NO desire to take “inaccurate shots” at you, or anybody else. I only want to deal with the facts, and make progress in a positive direction. Steve, you did take inaccurate shots at me and at United.

Please tell me when and where I am wrong, and I will repentantly stand corrected. Let’s get the dialog started, and come up with a plan which will benefit all of the HOA.

Then we can all have a beer together, have a great big group hug, sing Kumbaya, and get our property values up where they belong!
Again, I am sorry that you have had to deal with non HOA property owners, and I am sorry if I insulted you.

As far as I can tell, you have been doing a fine job. Thank you for all that you have done for the HOA.

Hope to hear back from you soon.

Apologetically,

Steve

Steve, I will take your apology as sincere. Once you have read the attached agreement, I will be happy to have a Committee discussion on what to do.

Thank you”

Leave a response »

Mountain Side Lake – Owner Presents Outline For Committee Consideration

SkiCounty : November 19, 2013 8:02 am : Amenities, HOA, HOA maintenance and responsibilties, Lake, News

The objective of the ‘lake’ committee is to research and present the facts, remain objective and make a recommendations to the board regarding the future of the lake that will be in the best interest of all the HOA members.

During the HOA meeting, Mr. Lembke stated that it was his opinion that a committee should be formed to review whether the HOA should take back the lake. He was tired of it anyway. Mr. Lembke also put forth his strong belief that that neither he nor United should be part of the process except as a resource or contributor of sorts.

I would like to see the committee get started and focus on the task at hand.

In my opinion, the general outline below is what I think this committee should concentrate on.

Should MountainSide HOA take back ownership of the lake?

A. History (plat, before agreement of 2004, agreement of 2004, Bills Ranch Master Plan, other?)

B. What has the HOA gained/lost by conveying lake to United Waters in 2004?

– Access
– liability
– insurance
– lake maintenance
– water storage
– HOA cost incurred to convey to United Waters
– other?

C. Current value of the lake , water storage

1. What’s the value of the lake?
2. What’s the value of water storage?
3. What users may have interest in water storage?
4. Is there a market for water storage in the lake?
5. What value does the HOA lose by not owning the lake?
D. Pros/cons regarding changing ownership back to HOA.

1. HOA cost to take it back from United Waters.

– legal, other.

2. Lake budget: currently $0, how much would be needed?

a. liability, insurance cost
b. maintenance cost
c. Other?

3. funding of lake budget

a. yearly donations from HOA and non HOA members toward maintenance of the lake currently made to United Waters on a yearly basis: would they cease? would they increase in the HOA regained ownership?

b. other potential income (Water storage, other?)

4. United Water

a. between now and 2019:

– will they restore and maintain access across the lake as indicated in agreement of 2004?
– are they selling water storage rights currently?
– are they generating any income (easement/licenses, other?)?
– are they seeking additional donations through licenses from HOA members and non-HOA (shoreline owners)?
– other?

b. 2019 and beyond:

– what is their obligation beyond 2019 to our HOA and what are their goal/intentions?

E. Who should decide what to do?

– entire board?
– board without Bob Lembke (conflict of interest)
– membership at large?
– role of non HOA owners who purchased a license.

Leave a response »
« Page 1 »