Lake Front Royal Property Owners Association, Inc.
Lake Front Royal Property Owners Association, Inc. Lake Front Royal Property Owners Association, Inc. serves as the governance association for the Lake Front Royal community
115 Lake Front Road Front Royal VA 22630
? /
Lake Front Royal Property Owners Association, Inc.

July 22, 2014

Digital Attachement

LFRPOA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes

Chester Gap Fire Department

42 Waterfall Rd. Chester Gap, VA  22623

July 22, 2014 7:00 pm

Call to Order: Meeting was called to order at 7:01pm

BOD In Attendance: Azlee Bates (Vice President), Betty Boyd (Treasurer), Dale Spurlock (Secretary) Elaine Ryan (Building, Grounds, Safety and Nominating), Keith Ogden (Architectural Committee)

Quorum Met: Yes

Minutes of Last BOD Meeting: Meeting minutes from January 30, 2014 BOD meeting accepted with minor changes as written.

Officer’s Reports

President: None

Vice President: None

Treasurer: There was discussion about the confusion on the by-laws about the rate a non-perkable lot is assessed with regard to community maintenance fees. This was based on a complaint from Kathy Neel. Azlee stated that she would be proposing an amendment to the by-laws that would explain this assessment more clearly and that the proposed rate would be $60.00.

There were three accounts that were turned over to the association attorney for formal legal action.

There are approx. $87,000 overdue with approx. $79,000 sent to collections. Currently the collection company has collected $19, 797.

There were $2,000 in legal fees that related to obtaining legal advice from the association attorney on the handling of several formal complaints that were received from residents.

 The Treasurer requested an apology for the comments and accusations that were made publicly on by members of the community in relation to a certified correspondence that was sent to the BOD.

The Treasurer requested the adoption of a Payment Policy for the payment of maintenance fees. This was in response to residents making deposits directly into the POA account without the knowledge of the treasurer. This also was in response to an altercation caused by a resident in which the Warren County Sheriff’s Office had to respond to the Treasurers house after a disorderly resident showed up at her house to pay their maintenance fees. The proposed payment policy was read into the record and there was discussion both among the BOD member and recommendations were also taken for the floor on the precise wording. The final wording was voted upon and was accepted unanimously by the BOD members in attendance.

There was discussion prompted by a question from the floor about the establishment of a community funded landline where community members could leave a message for the BOD. Daniela McAllister provided input and suggested a digital voice mail to email system. Daniela McAllister agreed to forward information about this type of system to the BOD in the future.

Secretary: Nothing for the record.

Committee’s Reports

Architectural: There was discussion about the county code and the by-laws relating to the fees required by the POA for additions and renovation type construction within the community. There was also discussion about the requirements for the set back for fencing and the need for permits. It was determined that based on the opinion of committee there would be no fees if no permit was required by the county for whatever a community member may be building or renovating.

There was a complaint regarding the ditch located at 29 Locust Tree. The ditch was completely filled in and the water was running down the road and effecting residence driveways. Keith sated he would talk to Ricky Singleton about the issue

Articles, Covenants, and By-Laws: Azlee stated that she will be discussing the annual newsletter with the BOD.

Buildings, Grounds, Safety: The dam has some necessary work to include the removal of stumps and the application of a weed killer to the face of the dam. Elaine is currently getting a quote for the last of the work necessary to bring the dam into compliance.

Elaine reported that there have been no new incidents at the dam and there has been significantly less trash and problems with vehicles at the cul-de-sac since the fence was installed.

There was discussion about the redesign of the walking bridge. There were of suggestion from the floor that included the use of “box culverts” and options for a “road bridge” combination. There was a suggestion form the floor that the BOD formally research the options and develop plan and cost for each possibility.

Roads Committee: Ricky Singleton was absent from the meeting. However he had provided a written update to be read into the record by the Secretary.

In Brief:

He is currently working on getting grading done within the community but is it difficult to find a contractor that is available or has equipment that is in working order.

He received a quote for repairs to the pavement but wants to get a second price from another vendor.

The culverts continue to be an issue and the BOD need to start enforcing the rule regarding the culvert clearing by residents. Also if a resident can’t do the work they need to let the BOD know.

Unfinished Business

The money was approved for the “Snake Sign” at the lake regarding a complaint from the community. The total funds allotted for the sign was $32.00.

The matter of the funds for the parking lots signs was tabled since Ricky was researching a price and was absent.

The letter for the culvert clearing was tabled pending changes to the Articultural Committee rules to clarify the dimensions that must be kept clear by a resident.

The walking bridge replacement was handled earlier in the meeting.

The discussion of a formal RFP policy was also tabled until after the election of new BOD members.

New Business

There were a number of formal complaint that were read into the record. These complaints included complaints from Daniela McAllister, Kathy Neel, and “An Anonymous Resident”. The details of each complaint was covered in brief due to the length of some of the complaints. Each complaint was answered verbally by the secretary based on information obtained from the CIC Ombudsman of from the POA Attorney. Each identified complainant was present at the meeting and was advised they would receive a written response from the BOD.

The POA received a notice from the CIC Ombudsman regarding an escalated complaint that had been sent to their office. It was found that the BOD was in violation of the State Code with regard the process we were using to respond to complaints from community members. The Secretary contacted the Ombudsman and received advice on how to bring the BOD into compliance and changes to the process had already been implemented prior to this meeting. The Ombudsman stated she was happy to see the BOD was taking the complaints seriously and trying to handle them as required by the Code of Virginia.

There had previously been confusion about the fee schedule as it pertained to the amount of days the BOD has to respond to a request for information. The Code of Virginia provides two distinctly different time frames for responses to informational request. The POA Fee Schedule on sited one of these which had caused some confusion. The Secretary recommended that the Fee Schedule wording be changed. The new wording would reflect wording similar to “ as required by the Code of Virginia” in place of a specific amount of days. This would allow the Fee Schedule to be a fluid document and would not require additional changes if the Code of Virginia changed.

There was a brief review of the complaint procedure that must be utilized if the resident desires action or a response from the BOD.

The matter of deposits by residents was covered earlier in the meeting.

Azlee request that all nominations be sent to her via email. There was questions about the nomination process and the issue with accepting nominations form the floor as detailed in the POS bylaws. Azlee stated that the specific legalities would have to be looked into. There was additional discussion about the nomination process.

Open Forum                                                                        

There was a question about the fee process for new construction which pertained to the matter that had been discussed earlier in the meeting.

No other comments or questions.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Meeting adjourned: Michael adjourned the meeting at 8:56pm