The more Members know the more they will care,

The more they care the more they will participate,

The more they participate the more our Community

will reflect the lifestyle expected by the Members.

CLICK HERE FOR EXPLANATIONS of the ISSUES ON YOUR COMMUNITY BALLOT…

A Bill of Rights for Homeowners in Associations:  Basic Principles of Consumer Protection 

Section 100: Application and Definition

Section 101: The Right to Security against Foreclosure

Section 102: The Right to Resolve Disputes without Litigation

Section 103: The Right to Fairness in Litigation

Section 104: The Right to Be Told of All Rules and Charges

Section 105: The Right to Stability in Rules and Charges

Section 106: The Right to Individual Autonomy

Section 107: The Right to Oversight of Associations and Directors

Section 108: The Right to Vote and Run for Office

Section 109: The Right to Reasonable Associations and Directors

Section 110: The Right to an Ombudsperson for Homeowners

   2010 March 31 - Letter to Silver Springs Community from Concerned Neighbors

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SILVER SPRINGS COMMUNITY………

• You are hearing about these issues from a Community Group of neighbors seeking oversight of the “Master Association”. The MA has always operated in the dark, there currently is no General Member inclusion nor vote on important issues or assessments. Remember that your individual subdivision officers are also the Master Association officers. Having two levels of HOAs (local and MA) seated with the same volunteers splits the loyalty of the volunteers elected to keep our individual HOAs organized and is time-consuming for them and costly to the General Membership.  Two HOA levels create two sets of expenses for property owners to pay.

• Some would have you think that de facto participation has final clout, we are not going to dispute that now, we are simply saying we are exercising our majority right to dissolution of a twenty year experience that has not worked and we want it dissolved or restructured before the MA Board tries to collect or spends more of our money. And we want full accounting of the Income and Expenditures of the MA from the last twenty years.

**There has been much commentary that if the MA was not abolished but instead it was re-organized into 3 parts, Condos, Lake view, and General Membership, then each part would have different assessments, thereby not conflicting with individual subdivision Bylaws and CCRs that do not allow tiered assessments.  Also this is a good time to set up the 3 parts as the MA has allocated $24,000 in 2010 for attorney fees in order to revamp and amend, the 1990 Bylaws.  Amend the Articles of Incorporation instead and save lots of Association Members’ money and simplify the Community organization.

2010 April - Petition to MA submitted by a Community Member

2010 April 15 - Attorney Ted Barnes letter to Bill Noland; includes footnotes by Lucy Archer

2010 April 29, Response to the letter sent to the Silver Springs residents from Bill Gunter, the usurper of the 2008 SSSF Election.  Using the word in Gunter’s letter, Gunter’s “anarchy” ousted the duly elected, by the majority of homeowners, board members Dave Coehlo,  Ed Cody, Natalie Shein, Lucy Archer, and, Jan Zinn (who resigned in protest).  When Gunter was challenged to adhere to the HOA Bylaws he remarked that they were “just old pieces of paper” and that he would do things his way.

2010 - May 10 and June 11 Email Proposals for Community Remedies
2010 June 9 - Reply to Bill Gunter’s 2nd letter to SSSF Homeowners

DEFINITIONS:

“Member” — As specified in the SSMA Articles of Incorporation

ARTICLE IV
MEMBERSHIP

“Every person or entity who is a record owner of a fee or undivided fee interest, or is a contract purchaser for such interest, in any lot or condominium unit located within any of the following homeowners associations, to wit: Northshore Silver Springs 1-G Subdivision Homeowners Association; Silver Springs Homeowners Association; Silver Springs Townhouse Condominium (Silver Meadows Phase) Homeowners Association; Willow Bend West Homeowners Association; Meadow Springs Homeowners Association; Quail Meadows Homeowners Association; Meadow Wild Homeowners Association; Silver Springs Townhouse (Willow Bend East) Homeowners Association (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Member Associations”) shall be a member of the association. Any homeowner association or similar entity representing the interests of owners or property within the Silver Springs Subdivision which is subsequently formed shall be entitled to membership in the Association, upon consent to be bound by the authority of the Association, its By-Laws, and duly enacted rules and regulations.”  This same definition exists in each subdivision charter.

MA Bylaws state the following: Article III. Meeting of MEMBERS, Section 5A. Quorum. Fifty-percent (50%) or more of the Members, either present in person or by proxy, shall constitute a quorum for any and all purposes, except in special assessment circumstances, in which the express provisions require a sixty-six and two-thirds (66 2/3%) percent vote of the members present [either in person or by proxy].”This Bylaw Article should not be confused to be instructions to the board trustees as “members” of the MA board because Article V provides instructions for the Meeting of TRUSTEES. This separation of Articles between board trustees/ officers and General members provides a description of Member types: - Association General “Members” - and Board Trustee “Members”. The 512+/- General Association Members are required to vote on capital improvement assessments.  The MA board has never held or requested such a vote. The 2010 Capital Improvements totaling $135,000 have never been approved by the General MA Association Members and are therefore, unauthorized and non-collectable until 66 2/3% of the General Association Members votes to approve it. Also see the same provision in theNorthShore CCRs and the SSSFHOA 1994 CCRS. Article V. Section 4. Special Assessments for Capital Improvements. This provision is also in the NorthShore, SouthShore, and SSSFHOA 1982 and 1985 CC&Rs. See other individual subdivisions’ docs.

MASTER ASSOCIATION HISTORY:

Can the MA prove it is an authorized and legitimate organization?  Click here to read.

The Silver Springs Community has two quasi-legitimate documents by which to govern itself as a group.
-The 1989 Developer-Homeowners Agreement and
-The 1990 Articles of Incorporation.
The Articles, signed only by the 3 incorporators, establish the Master Homeowners Association as a Corporation and provide in Article II: Duration of Corporation.“The corporation shall have perpetual existence unless dissolved or terminated according to law.”

1989 - October 3 - DEVELOPER-HOMEOWNER AGREEMENT SILVER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION MASTER ASSOCIATION  (SILVER SPRINGS COMMUNITIES) Entry # 318770 Book 550 Pages 111-131 Signed by the developers and seven subdivision presidents states that Developer, at its expense, shall provide general draft form documents to assist the individual associations to establish a Master Association representing all Homeowners with respect to the common use and access, maintenance, improvement and administration of the common areas within the Subdivision….The individual associations have never produced final documents to establish the Silver Springs Master Association.  This means that the MHOA does not have legitimate powers beyond those given to it as a corporation.

The Articles of Incorporation of the Silver Springs Master Association provide for this action: Article X: DISSOLUTION:  “Upon the dissolution of the corporation, the Board of Trustees, after paying or making provision for the payment of all liabilities of the corporation, shall dispose of all the assets of the corporation in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah, and the appropriate provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.” http://www.silverspringscommunity.com/master-association/ma-docs-index/

1990 - January 11 - The Developers provided Draft Bylaws as they were obligated to do in the Developer-Homeowner Agreement.  The Community HOAs were to  provide input and a ratified final set of Bylaws. The HOA never completed their part of this Agreement.  That is why Article XIII Adoption is incomplete. See document at: http://www.silverspringscommunity.com/master-association/ma-docs-index/1990-ma-by-laws/

—”Developer’s obligation in this regard shall be limited, however, to providing organizational documents in general draft form only, with specific details as to the nature and extent of improvements; cost thereof, procedure for levying common expense assessments, and method for the enforcement of such assessment authority, among other things, being the obligation of the individual associations acting as a group to provide, and not that of the Developer.”

No meeting of the subdivision General Members,  Boards or the MA Trustees was held provide specific details, neither was a vote of adoption ever taken. This was confirmed in conversations with the Developer, the assisting attorney, and former MA board members.  Aside from the difficulty of getting each HOA to provide specific language or organizational changes, the last step proves to be problematic as no vesting of authority from each HOA trustee was ever given to bind its HOA to the MA.  That is, there was never a vote to adopt finalized MA Bylaws. On April 20, 2009,  the MA board voted to accept and to follow these 1990 Draft Bylaws until they are amended or new ones are written then approved by the General Membership, and signed by the subdivision presidents, and again recorded at the Summit County Recorder’s Office. Nancy Samson seconded the motion. All present were in favor, the motion carried.

**On April 12, 2010 and again on April 13, 2010 - a long-time and domineering member of the MA board angrily shouted out during both these meetings that the 1990 Draft Bylaws had been recorded by a Community Member, and by so doing had “removed deniabllity from the board.”   This revealed a very disturbing possibility.  Was he saying that the board had intentionally operated without Bylaws in order to control the MA without rules and without General Member involvement or votes?  Was he saying that by not forming the MA with establishing documents that was the preferential way to deny culpability for MA board actions?

In 2005 the MA had proposals from member subdivisions to amend the MA Bylaws with language to:

– allow the addition of other Silver Springs individual Associations to join the MA.  Only 7 subdivisions are considered “charter” members.

– Another proposal was to amend the Bylaws to allow for Graduated Assessments now that the lakes had been transferred from the County.

– The third proposal was to confirm and acknowledge the Lakes Conveyance Agreement.

This document is not considered binding because the signatures were not notarized and the Community Membership, again, was not informed, neither did they vote.

RESTRUCTURING INEVITABLE - DISSOLUTION POSSIBLE:

Residential owners in Silver Springs are preparing the dissolution or restructure of the Master Association Corporation.  For twenty years, 1990-2010, the MA boards have failed to formally form the MA or to include the Community in its activities.  We must learn from our own history that continuing to follow the same path we have been on for 20 years will garner us the same result, the same condition in the future that we are in today.  The same possibility for more increased assessments without accountability.

In 1990, Lynn Stevens, who was then president of the Willow Bend West HOA, as well as manager of the Silver Springs Water Co, acting in concert with the Developers, created a draft of the MA Bylaws as they were obligated to do. However, the constituent HOAs never provided input or ultimately ratified the draft. This has been confirmed by the Developer, the assisting attorney, and Silver Springs Members involved at that time in the process. That explains why MA Bylaws Article XIII Adoption is incomplete.  No meeting of the Board of Trustees was held and no vote of adoption was ever taken. [Again, confirmed by conversations with the Developer and the assisting attorney.]  Aside from the difficulty of getting each HOA to provide specific language or organizational changes, the last step proves to be problematic due to there never occurring a vesting of the authority of each HOA trustee to bind its HOA to the MA.  The trustees never prepared the specific details required to complete final MA Bylaws. Therefore the trustees never voted to adopt, nor ever signed any MA Bylaws, therefore they never submitted themselves to the authority of the MA…under the governing charter and/or Bylaws of the Master Association. This therefore supports the resignation of the constituent HOAs from the MA. (1989 Developer-Homeowner Agreement, Section 4, last paragraph.).

There are a number of Condo/Townhome individual subdivisions who are bantering the idea of resignation from the MA.  There was a significant development to support this option at the April 13, 2010 MA Meeting. Precedence has been established that for non-payment of MA assessments an individual subdivision is to be removed from MA membership.

The president of “The Springs” subdivision asked the question of whether or not his subdivision was still part of the MA.  They were told they were not Members of the MA.  Rusconi asked how that came to be because The Springs was a member (approximately from 2000 to 2006), attended meetings and paid dues, and then suddenly they were not members.  A former MA board member recalled that because The Springs had been developed on what had been zoned as a commercial parcel, then a residential parcel, that it had been decided that The Springs would be ejected or excluded from the MA.  In 2008 the MA “manager” was quoted as explaining that The Springs had not been paying their annual assessments so they were dropped from MA Membership by the MA board.

On April 13, 2010 “The Springs” membership situation was finalized.  A quorum of The Springs residents were in attendance and stated that since the MA had eliminated “The Springs” from membership based on delinquent fee payments that they chose not to be reinstated to the MA.  The MA board president invited The Springs to re-join, the reply was, “Yeah, I bet, now that you want that big $357 assessment from each of us.” The Springs residents finalized and confirmed their non-member status and left the meeting.

The removal of this subdivision from MA participation also took place in the “no rules environment” and has provided support to the proposition that the MA cannot keep an individual subdivision in its clutches, and that membership is and has been a very undefined process.  It would appear that if any of the subdivisions want to be out of the MA, then by merely withholding payment of MA dues/assessments they can be released from MA participation.

The 2010 Master Association Board recognizes that the MA is basically dysfunctional and is based on untenable documents.  Here is a quote from their  Feb. 16, 2010 MA Board Minutes:”Budget Deficit – [Dissolution of MA]:  Anthony is worried that the board is $10,000 behind in the 2010 budget. Bill Noland (SSSF) asked the Board to consider if it was important that the structure of the MA be maintained. Bill Gunter (SSSF) said that we have common properties that take money to maintain [and can be deeded to the single subdivisions who owned them before the MA was created]. Is the MA structural integrity worth going to the mat over? Anthony Sands (QMII) asked that we rewrite the old Bylaws to collectively agree. Gaylynn Mooney (NS) stated that the founding documents are outdated. Steve LoRe (SOS) confirmed that they are a mess and out of date but that is not what Bill Noland was asking. He explained that this could be the tip of the iceberg; we could be closed and sold off.  Gaylynn said that this issue would be a membership issue. The board should not make these kinds of decisions. Bill Noland stated that all of our documents need to be rewritten. Are we willing to defend the MA and are we willing to go to court to do it…..Anthony said that the 504 homes should get to vote on the matter. He stated as a past president he doesn’t know who is a member and who is not . Gaylynn said that we can change our documents to use tiered assessments. There are a lot of emails going around Silver Springs and a lot of emotion….Anthony stated that the private enjoyment easement agreement makes it so we don’t have equal access to the property. He believes that both lake front owners and condo owners have valuable yet differing opinions.”  See link for full Minutes.

-ARE WE WILLING TO CONTINUE WITH A MA BOARD THAT SPENDS COMMUNITY MONEY ON ANY PROJECT THEY DEVISE WITHOUT PROPERTY OWNER KNOWLEDGE, APPROVAL OR VOTED CONSENT, CONTRARY TO CHARTER RULES?

- ARE WE WILLING TO ABOLISH THE MA AND RETURN THE MANAGEMENT OF COMMON AREAS TO THE MEMBER SUBDIVISIONS?

- CAN RESTRUCTURING THE MA ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL OF FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY?

- CAN RESTRUCTURING THE MA ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL OF COMMUNITY MEMBER INCLUSION AND VOTING RIGHTS?

- HOW CAN THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS GUARANTEE THE CONTROL OF UNAUTHORIZED MA ASSESSMENTS?

- THIS MOVEMENT IS AS MUCH ABOUT THE UNAPPROVED ASSESSMENT AS  ABOUT CHANGE, PROGRESS, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND SETTLING THE LONG EVADED COMMUNITY LAKES ISSUE.

• Dissolution of the MA will eliminate a nonessential layer of governance, reorganize the MA to reflect its original purpose- to manage the Common Areas.
• The MA has been dysfunctional from the onset in 1990. 
• The MA documents include seemingly conflicted instructions and are probably untenable.
• The MA has spent thousands of dollars on non-essential legal advice.
• The MA board has failed to establish Master Association documents.
• Trustee attendance is erratic, and not always legitimate. 
• Votes on MA board issues by attendees who are not elected trustees are counted.
  
• The MA will be better served by dispensing with the “manager” and the “office” support. Officers should fulfill their duties.
  
• Three subdivisions have already resigned their membership and participation in the MHOA, others may soon follow.

The MA board does not have the last say on the repeal or restructure of this dysfunctional “corporation”, the power is with the majority of the “Residential Unit Owners”, a.k.a. the General Association Members, “to amend, alter, change, or repeal” the MA within the Silver Springs Community.

We expect that the 54 lake view owners and the former and current board participants will disagree with us.  We have the Member majority on our side.   Read the MA Board Minutes to verify who attends these meetings and how decisions are made.

If you agree and would like to assist your neighbors in this matter write to sscommunityut@gmail.com.  Your comments and input are important.

ASSESSMENTS:

During an era when everyone is tightening their belts and reducing expenditures, this board has issued a 200% assessment increase.  Talk about out of touch with your constituency!

1990 - Articles of Incorporation - Article III Corporate Purposes states:  “In addition, the corporation is authorized and directed to generate sufficient funds for the maintenance of the common properties by levying fees and assessments against the homeowners and guaranteeing the payment of such by liens, actions at law and such other legal and equitable remedies against the individual properties or the owners thereof.

Click here for twenty year draft compilation of MA Income and Major Expenditures. The MA has collected over a million dollars from the Community.

DEVELOPER’S DRAFT Bylaws –accepted by Board vote in April 2009 - Article III Meeting of Members, Section 5A. Quorum. Fifty-percent (50%) or more of the Members, either present in person or by proxy, shall constitute a quorum for any and all purposes, except in special assessment circumstances, in which the express provisions require a sixty-six and two-thirds (66 2/3%) percent vote of the members present.

The Proposed 2010 Budget was presented on Feb. 9, 2010 to attendees. There was Member protest of the 200% increase.  No vote was taken to pass this budget.  The Master Corporation has made it a practice to act without Community Member approval.

At the February 9, 2010 MA meeting, attended by many of the 54 lake view owners, there were several non-lake view resident owners who discussed the inequity of this situation and how the MA Corporation board with their 200%+ lake assessment increase was creating even more division and discontent.  The SSSFHOA letter received March 17, 2010 by the Members shows that Silver Springs 2010 assessments of $462 per household is two times to 4½ times what our neighbors pay to their HOA. http://www.silverspringscommunity.com/wp-content/uploads/2010-budget-letter.pdf

 This chart was included with the SSSF 2010 Invoice to its Members.

To help you decide whether to pay the MA assessment read this: “The individual residential property owners are not the members of the SSMHOA, the subdivisions would have been the members had the subdivision trustees finalized the Bylaws in 1990. Today the subdivisions are considered de facto members.  This is confirmed by the fact that the assessments for the MA are sent to the subdivisions who in turn then assess their members; this is further confirmed by the lack of any exception on property owners title insurance policies acknowledging the SSMA.  Also the MA board has never included the individual property owners in a vote regarding membership, or on policy, budgets, or incorporation of additional common areas (lakes), or for the election of MA officers.  Any effort by the MA to collect individual property assessments or filing of liens on the individual property owners will constitute a slander of title and expose SSMHOA, its directors, and officers, to personal liability.” 

There has not been a MA audit since 1990, and little disclosure has been provided to inquirers.  See MA’s meager Budgets disclosures at: http://www.silverspringscommunity.com/master-association/budget-master-association/

The MA has not been audited for twenty years.  Financial records have been requested by a number of entities over the years yet the MA manager has not complied with full disclosure. See the scantily detailed MA Budgets.  The board has discussed spending $5,000 to request Wells Fargo Bank to search and compile the last several years of MA financial records.

Some pond/lake view owners compare Member access to the old argument that everyone has to pay taxes for schools whether they have children enrolled or not.  That is a “public good” scenario, and if you do gain children, your own, grand kids, foster care, student exchange, adopted, they are eligible to attend the schools.  In regard to the pond/lakes, a private property issue, no matter how much you pay in assessments it is unlikely you will gain more access than you and your children have now. (Unless the pond/lake becomes a Park, then water is not an issue.) To put it another way, paying taxes/assessments gives you something in return; school taxes give you an educated populace and potential for enrollment. MA assessments do not give you equal access and use of these man-made Common Area (yet private) water amenities, though supposedly maintained for all residential unit Members.

COMMON AREAS:

The MA was established with one responsibility: the Common Area properties.  The 1989 Developer-Homeowner Agreement, written for the benefit of the developer, signed by seven named subdivisions, dated October 1989 states:  “And whereas, it was intended by the original developer of the Subdivision and was provided certain of the initial master planning documents that a master homeowners association would be formed for the purpose of representing all property owners [for developer ease of communicating and assessing the property owners] within the Subdivision with respect to maintenance, improvement and administration of Subdivision common areas.” 

Nowhere is it written that the MA has power over the individual Silver Springs subdivisions, the opposite is true.  The “Master Association” can only function by the attendance and votes of the individual subdivision board presidents and by the collection by the individual subdivision boards of assessments from the MA for Common Area maintenance.  Therefore, to call this group a “Master Association”  is a misnomer.  The “Master Association” should actually be named the Property Management Non-Profit Corporation, for that is all it truly is.  The MA has Articles of Incorporation but no finalized Bylaws and no CCRs.

The Master Association is responsible for these Common Areas: the 2.01 acre Park south of the lake; the .67 acre portion with one Tennis Court (the second Tennis Court belongs to Meadow Spring and Meadow Wild as shown on the Section map).  There are other miscellaneous parcels owned by the MA, and also undesignated, undeveloped parcels, within the Silver Springs Community that are listed at http://www.silverspringscommunity.com/master-association/ma-common-area-parcels/

The MA dissolution proposals included these comments: 

• The Little Lake and the South Berm should be deeded back to SouthShore.  
• The one Tennis Court deeded to the MA should be returned to Meadow Spring, Meadow Wild, and Willowbend West, to join the other Tennis Court they already own, and that are situated side by side, to be managed by a mutual “socialized” agreement among the condos and the SS subdivisions who choose to participate.
• The Park would be managed by the SSSFHOA as originally established see SSSF CCRs July 16, 1979 and the May 8, 1979 SSSF Articles of Incorporation.
• The Large Lake would be managed by the 29 lake view owners.

The $357 X 126 Condos = $44,982.  This annual MA assessment would go far for annual Tennis Court upkeep. If it is not paid and the Condo owners take over their management the annual fee would be more like $25 a year.

The Large Lake can be funded and managed by the lake view owners, OR it can be drained, again, and its 20.84 acres converted into a Park contiguous not only to the existing 2.01 acre Park but also to Parcel R (the north berm parcel containing 5.21 acres) to develop a larger Community Park and playing fields that all residents can enjoy.  This would eliminate the concern by NorthShore residents below the lake and built in its “inundation flood plain” from much worried flooding damage and liability.  

LAKES AND EASEMENTS ISSUE:

 In 2004, the then president of the MA Corporation signed a Lakes Conveyance Agreement transferring the maintenance and liability of the Little Lake and the Big Lake from Mountain Regional to the MA.  This was done without notification, approval, or a vote of the General Association Members.  Klinefelder Engineering and Cross Marine had given Summit County’s Mountain Regional Water an assessment of the extent of work necessary to take these bodies of water up to State standards.  Rather than doing the necessary work Mountain Regional off-loaded their problems to the SSMA along with $32,000 to be rid of it.  In 2005-2006 the Large Lake was drained, the “dam”, which is actually the entire north bank of the lake from NorthShore Lot 1 to Lot 12, and now the private property of those homeowners, was reinforced at a cost of $145,000.  Though only 29 homeowners around the “lake view” area benefited from this work, the remaining 475 homeowners paid the brunt of this expenditure.  Each year the lakes take the majority of assessments collected, either for facility repair, chemicals to control milfoil, coon grass, and other vegetation, liability insurance, management, etc.

In 2008 the MA board discussed that they had accumulated $80,000 and by the end of the year would have accumulated $120,000 for the work necessary on the “dam” along the north bank of the Little Lake SouthShore Lots 1 through 13.  At the February 9, 2010 MA meeting, the board members did not account for these funds, yet they proposed a 2010 Budget that would include a second assessment for the same repairs of the Little Lake “dam” raising the MA assessment by over 200%.  See aerial photo indicating the locations of these “dams” at:  http://www.silverspringscommunity.com/lakes-in-silver-springs/

On this same meeting it was discussed that the exclusive “Private Enjoyment Easement” precluded any association member from access to the Little Lake, and the Large Lake.  You can read the original 1989 Agreement at: http://www.silverspringscommunity.com/wp-content/uploads/1989private-enjoy-easementagree-exh.pdf

The result is that 29 Large Lake view owners and 25 Little Lake view owners have exclusive access and benefit of the 1980 man-made ponds a.k.a. lakes.  The original 1980 Enjoyment Easement around the perimeter of the Large Lake and the access parcels for General Member use have been absorbed by the contiguous lake view lots.  Before the existence of the MA and the 2004 Lakes Conveyance Agreement, the Silver Springs Water Company and the Silver Springs Single Family HOA administered the functions and use of the ponds/lakes with SSSFA annual dues.  

ALTERNATIVES — DISSOLUTION OR RESTRUCTURE 

-Greatly restrict the powers of the MA to the maintenance of newly agreed Common Areas.

–Set up three MA’s, 1) Condo MA with the Tennis Courts, 2) Lake View Lot Owners MA to fund and manage the two lakes, 3) The Park MA with the remaining Associations participating in its maintenance, etc.

- Set a spending cap.  Publish all Income and Expenditures on www.silverspringscommunity.com website.

- Annual General Membership meeting to vote on Budget, Improvements, Officers, Amendments.

- General Member Committee to Amend the 1990 MA Bylaws.  General Members to approve by majority vote.  Record and post them on website.

- Undeveloped/Undevelopable Common Area Parcels be deeded to the contiguous Member Subdivision(s).

- Lakes to be maintained and funded 90% by lake view owners, 10% by General members (calculated by individual residential unit).
The Little Lake is entirely surrounded by the Private Enjoyment Easement  therefore is not accessible by the General Members.  Transfer ownership Deed to SouthShore subdivision.
The Large Lake perimeter is approx. 4,221.71 linear feet with a 15′ wide easement, of which only 443′ (approx. 10%) are accessible by the General Members.
The 2008 Poll of General Members indicated less than 5% actually use the Large Lake, 0% of non-lake view Members use the Little Lake.

 Having conferred with a number of attorneys regarding our MA situation, it is obvious they all have a different take. One was very dismissive of the fact that the General Members are looking for a better solution than the twenty years of dismal governance now in place. His opinion was to live with it.  He clearly missed the heart of our dissent.  Other attorneys interpret our situation by focusing on various Articles, Sections, and legalese.  There is as much consensus among attorneys as there is among factions of Members. It is all opinion, and wouldn’t we all prefer that the final opinion is one germane to our Community and not one contrived by attorneys or the court.