CCRS V.19 Bd. Final Draft
Quick & Easy Comparison between the
** CCR 2019 Home Owners New Declaration – Click Here for full text
and
** Board’s Final Draft for Voting Version 19 CCR – Click Here for full text
Vote “NO” on Board Version 19 CCRs
The Most Requested Owner Discussion Changes have not been included. Read information below.
EVEN IF YOU ALREADY VOTED “YES” YOU CAN SEND AN EMAIL TO [email protected] In the subject line please type: ”SSSFHOA Vote Change”. REQUESTING THAT YOUR VOTE BE MOVED TO THE “NO” TALLY.
WHY IS THE BOARD REPEATEDLY SENDING OUT MISINFORMATION OR HOLDING NON-PRODUCTIVE LAST MINUTE MEETINGS? AT WHAT COST!?
DO THEY WANT TO INCREASE THEIR POWER OVER US AND OUR PROPERTY? YES!
THEIR DRAFT CCRs WILL RUIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND COST MORE THAN THEY ARE TELLING US.
WILL CREATE CLOUDS ON OUR PROPERTY TITLES AND DIVIDE OUR NEIGHBORS.
THE BOARD CONTINUES TO USE THE 1979-1982 COMMUNITY DEVELOPER DOCUMENTS TO SHACKLE OUR ASSOCIATION.
VERSION 19 LISTS THREE PAGES OF DEVELOPER RECITALS ON PAGES 9 -11. IT WAS REQUESTED BY HOMEOWNERS THIS WHOLE DEVELOPERS SECTION SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE DECLARATION CCR doc.
The Board’s Version 19 continues to be incomplete and very much under the underdrain committee influence.
After looking at the V.19 FINAL DRAFT POSTED A COUPLE DAYS AGO WE FIND THE FOLLOWING:
- The document is still between 64 to 65 pages in length (same as the V.15, V.16, V.17), same size, same content. (Home Owners 2019 Version is 22 pages.)
- The underdrains are still in Article 4 Owner/Association Responsibility; 4.2 Owner UD Non-Interference; Article 19. Reserves. Article 21. Owner Liability for underdrains. This ignores the County Commissioners, County Attorney, and State Water professionals’ advice.
- “The newest draft transfers power wholesale from the Association Membership to the sole discretion of the Board of Trustees. No checks and balances are included.” VOTE “NO”
- The Bylaws remain within the CCR Declaration instead of being left as an independent , modifiable document. Most of the HOA Amendments, since 1985 when the SSSFHOA was established, have been to the Bylaws.
- Architectural Control, Review, Guidelines, Modifications remain within the CCR Declaration though the Homeowners overwhelmingly requested they remain stand-alone documents. Most recent Arc revision was in March 2017 compiled by a professional from Park City.
- Key points such as foreclosure Article 6; and capital improvements Article 8; and Assessments to the Owners found several places especially Articles 8 & 9.
- The rules/ guidelines for vacation rentals have not been modified to 90 days or any other change to Article 20.5.
- Even the simple fix to replace the term “Directors” to “Trustees” has not been corrected.
The DRAFT CCRs since Morris & Sperry’s 2015 Version 15, to Richard’s Law Versions 17, 18, and the FINAL VERSION 19 FOR VOTING , are a mockery to the process of negotiation and inclusion of Homeowner input. This Board has received more activity, more emails, Tickets, calls and attendance by Homeowners to Town Halls and ad hoc meetings than ever before. Involvement and commentary has been unquestionably high alert to the items listed above and many more. Why is all this effort ignored by the board?
How can Homeowners verify that the Homeowner’s requested and fervently discussed issues have been addressed in the board’s FINAL DRAFT? Compare the versions. Does the board respect us so little that they think we are lemmings ready to jump off the cliff by their “strong recommendation” even while they ignore our requests for specific changes?
Here are the links needed to really look into the documents we are being asked to accept:
LINK to Morris & Sperry version manipulated slightly by Richard’s Law as Version 17: https://www.silverspringshomeowners.com/editor_upload/File/Silver%20Springs%20Declaration%20-%20v15%2018-0907%20CLEAN.pdf
LINK to Richard’s Law Version 17 Annotated with Homeowners Commentary at Meetings and via emails: https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/our-community/silver-springs-sf/admin-rules-re-write/ccrs-v-17-draft-annotated/
LINK to Richards’ Law Version 18, represented by the Board as the FINAL DRAFT we are being asked to vote on: https://www.silverspringshomeowners.com/editor_upload/File/Revised%20Draft%20-%20v18%20Dated%2011_14_2018.pdf
LINK to Version 19 continues to be incomplete and very much the underdrain committees document.
https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/wp-content/uploads/Silver-Springs-Declaration-v19-FINAL-VERSION-FOR-VOTING-18-1121.pdf
LINK to Home Owners 2019 Version CCRs. This version incorporates the Owners suggestions and input.
THE BEGINNING: THE OPPOSING POINT OF VIEW OF THE MAJORITY
This is old news from 1979, the board and UD committee continually hold these up stating it supports their claim. As you read the Board’s CCR you will learn the opposite it true.
UNDERDRAIN COMMITTEE’s “PRIME DIRECTIVE” IS CLOSED D.I.A. CONTRACT:
The Development Interface Agreement (DIA) between the Silver Springs Developers and Summit County followed the July 6, 1979 “Special Notice” recorded as Entry 157606 to builders and investor lot owners to ensure successful planning and completion of the contract’s subsurface water disclosure meant as a tool and record of what is expected to be completed by each party and specifies the exact means (return of bond funds to the developer) and 1982 as the date for completion of the Agreement. Summit County considers it closed.
This Agreement does not relate to SSSFHOA, we were not organized until 1985.
The DIA Agreement between Summit County and the SS Community Developer RDF Associates, Inc. aka HOA President Ray D. Fry of the SSHOA aka Silver Springs East Community Association.
Entry 193367 recorded July 6, 1982.
“1. Responsibility. Association hereby acknowledges and agrees that [Developers’] Association is and shall be solely responsible for maintaining the underdrain system in Silver Springs Subdivision Phases 1A and 1B, and such future phases of such Subdivision, as may be approved by County hereafter.” Summit County considers the underdrains matter closed since 1982 after they released the underdrains bond to the Developers‘ successor Ray D. Fry.
Amended Declaration to Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Silver Springs Development Subdivisions. dated October 14, 1985. Further more, Stringham and Winder & Haslam made the separation even more complete within the SSSF CCRs Recorded on January 16, 1986 as Entry 244975 Book 370 Page 273 by including this statement: “All Declarations relating to the Silver Springs Development Subdivisions were herein repealed”
Commission Minutes March 31, 2004 – Kevin Callahan reported on drainage issue in Silver Springs subdivision. Although this is an individual homeowners responsibility…there are attempts being made to address the issue… Chair Woolstenhulme cautioned that, if the County and the HOA, has no liability, they should be careful about taking action to resolve the problem.
Commission Minutes June 1, 2005 – SSSFHOA Pres. Domenick told Commissioners “it is not practical for the homeowners association to maintain the drainage system. Commissioner Woolstenhulme commented that the problem is a homeowners’ problem… Commissioner Richer pointed out that the proper procedure is to inform all the homeowners for their disposition on the situation and to ascertain whether the homeowners are willing to accept a special assessment to get the work done.”
The SSSFHOA vast majority voted to accept the 2008 Articles of Incorporation that explain the separation of the Community Developers HOA from the Homeowners HOA.
Letter from Summit County Deputy Attorney Dave L. Thomas to Lucy Archer and Rick Hovey: “In discussing this with Derrick Radke [Public Planning Director], the ownership and maintenance of the underdrains is a private matter between the land owners within the various subdivisions [of Silver Springs East] and the owner’s association. What the County can definitively state is that such underdrains are not public improvements owned or maintained by Summit County.”
THERE ARE NO UNDERDRAIN MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS EXCEPT THOSE IMPOSED BY THE UD COMMITTEE!!!!
On January 27, 2014, Abandoning better judgement when representing SSSF Subdivision, SSSF Board members disregarded the State prerequisite oath,” this recording was adopted by the members and the number of votes cast for the amendment by each voting group entitled to vote separately on the amendment was sufficient for approval by that voting group.” Bill Gunter and Rick Hovey, without notifying the Homeowners and without receiving the required majority vote from the Homeowners, asked PMA’s Kate Khaleel to go online to the Utah Department of Commerce, Division of Corporations to claim they owned the terminated Hardman and Fry SSHOA Entity 726027 and redevised its closed status to open. Secondly, they changed the SSSFHOA Entity 8926368 aka the SSSFHOA stand-alone Non-Profit Association status to that of a DBA of the Developers Association. Also without Homeowner knowledge, authority, or voted consent.
What was their goal? To shackle the SSSFHOA Homeowners with the 1979-1982 Developers Agreements, CCRs and Amendments for their misguided objective of making the Homeowners responsible for the forty year old underdrains that has lain 8-10 feet below the surface of half the SSSF privately owned lots; feigning fiduciary duty without the knowledge, authority or consent of the Homeowners.
SSSFHOA Notes for August 5, 2014: This is a misquote by the underdrain committee posted in the Board Minutes: “Underdrain System: Bill Noland and Bill Gunter met with Derrick Radke, Summit County Public Works Director, to discuss the agreement in place between the County and SSSFHOA. The goal was to affirm the agreement signed on the 25th of June, 1982 (Entry 193367 Book M225, Pages 191-193) was still considered the prime directive in regards to the underdrain responsibility. It was affirmed that this agreement is still valid. The HOA is responsible for the maintenance of the underdrain system. The discussion did involve the possibility of cost sharing with the County infrastructure. A proposal needs to be written and submitted to the County for consideration.” The above quote does not represent the actual discussion.
2014-08-07 and 09-02 RESPONSE FROM DERRICK RADKE REGARDING THE ABOVE MINUTES ENTRY ….. THIS IS HOW DERRICK DESCRIBED THE MEETING:
“I have not looked at the documents referenced in your email in a long time, nor did I look at anything (documents/agreements) other than a couple of the maps Mr. Noland rolled out showing the estimated location of the underdrain system. I spent a lot of the meeting listening to Mr. Noland and Mr. Gunter and not offering a lot of comment.”
“I have searched the office on a number of occasions and found nothing about the Silver Springs underdrains. Nothing in the office computer files and nothing recorded. I did not give them any documents or letters of any kind because I did not find anything.”
“It was my understanding that the previous Public Works Director, Kevin Callahan, worked through the issues on the underdrain system with the HOA(s) at the time.
I do not recall the statement of, “discussion did involve the possibility of cost sharing with the County infrastructure”, other than if work is required on the underdrain in the street network, that we coordinate it so that someone is not digging up new pavement within a few years of it being placed, whenever that may occur.”
I am sorry I cannot be of further help regarding the Minutes assertions, or the other questions in your email. Good Luck. Let me know if you have additional questions. Derrick”
The Silver Springs Single Family Homeowners eliminated mention of the underdrains in their 1985 Initial governing documents. In 1994 the Association went through a great deal of effort rewriting the CCRs again they eliminated mention of the underdrains. In 2008 an overwhelming 82% passed new Articles of Incorporation to describe the separation of the Developers HOA from the Homeowners HOA, and to eliminate the underdrains; in 2014 our community met in home groups to provide the board a plan for the three kinds of water issues in our neighborhood, the board ignored our plan and the Homeowners majority voted to “Ignore the underdrains”. The board has never put the underdrains on the ballot for the Owners to show their support or opposition. This year, 2018, Owners have prepared their own Home Owners 2019 Version CCRs with key covenants for making much needed improvements to governance in Silver Springs. The board talks about compromise but the Homeowners are the ones expected to give in on all topics. Be part of the movement for positive change. Vote “NO” on the Board’s draft V.19 CCRs. Questions? Call 649-4663.
“These entrenched people are willing to go to great lengths to force the underdrains into our CCRs and in turn force the CCRs into our HOA. They don’t care what the majority of Homeowners want to have done, they think they have the power to interpret the HOA Governing Documents in any manner their attorney can figure out will thwart the established spirit, practice and interpretation of the documents we depend on for fairness, protection of rights, and to support the authority of the Homeowners.” Quote from another Homeowner.
____________________________________________________________________________
There are so many other references that can be added to the above list. They are all posted on the https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/our-community/silver-springs-sf/index-hoa-docs/2014-dba-filing/
https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/our-community/silver-springs-sf/sssf-meeting-minutes/
The board posted the attorney’s white paper on their website, indicating the few changes from V.17 to V.18, to 19. Few of the changes represent Homeowners’ input or requests. See Annotated V. 17 for Homeowner input and requested changes. Most of the attorney’s seven page letter has to do with the 1982 Developer’s agreement with the County. If you compare his paper’s content and links to our message you will see much of importance has been left out by the underdrain committee’s attorney and from the board’s website. Remember this is the attorney that on November 5, 2018 told the audience that if it was up to him he would take the entire underdrains issue out of the CCRs.
___________________________________________________________________________
https://communityassociations.net/utah-resources/
Shared pipes leave lowest owner stuck with mess, (UT) September 25, 2018 If somebody else was responsible for damage to your home, who should have to pay for it? A Roy woman was stuck with the repair and clean-up bill after she says her condo complex pipes left her home flooded , her unit sits at the lowest elevation of the subdivision.
If the board forces the underdrains under the auspices of the HOA who will be responsible for the root rooting and unclogging of the underdrains? You the Owner. Another consideration is that the underdrain “maintenance” increases the flow of groundwater as it is gathered from the upper elevation Phase 1A lots 1-64 (leaving them dry and trees are getting more stressed each year from annual climate temperature increases). The ground water is quickly routed to Phase 1B lots that are lower in elevation. Phase 1B underdrain lots that are receiving the brunt of this increased flow are: 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, also lots along the center of Willow Loop, etc. for a total of 94 lots. Look at the underdrains map we sent to you last month to identify the trouble areas.