Minutes

2026 Annual Meeting

Recording

https://us06web.zoom.us/rec/share/b5FqFz_4P_HykbDy22NCB65nAwVHSJPhEEIInRQ2Cg-bfGM9qzC0saKgM1uAAC_Y.G2Rdo7LTM1TBjyc9

Passcode: jkZ8&V%8

Quick recap

The annual HOA meeting focused on reviewing and discussing the 2026 budget, which included updates to water rights and snow plowing costs. The board addressed the need to review and potentially revise the community’s CC&Rs and design documents, with several members expressing interest in forming a committee to examine these issues. There was significant discussion about transparency and the interpretation of existing rules, particularly regarding visibility requirements and guest house regulations. The board also confirmed the slate of candidates for the upcoming election, with Diana, Garret, and Keith running for positions. The conversation ended with a motion to adjourn after the board members met privately to select their leadership positions for the coming year.

Next steps

Summary

2026 Budget and Water Rights

The meeting began with introductions and technical setup for recording. Keith presented the 2026 budget, highlighting new items including a $4,000 lease for Trout Lake water rights and a $2,600 increase in snow plowing costs. He explained that the annual fee for water rights would be $3,200 per lot, which is $1,000 less than the previous year. The group discussed the completion of Trout Lake water application and hydrologist fees from the previous year. No questions were raised about the budget details.

Water Lease and Rights Update

The board discussed the water lease, explaining it as a backup measure to draw water from Trout Lake, owned by Public Services of Colorado, to maintain water rights. They clarified that the lease costs $2,800 annually and does not incur additional charges when used. The budget was approved with a motion from Garret and a second by Phil. The water rights status report was reviewed, noting that the process began in January and was finalized in October. The board also confirmed the completion of the Preserve Drive project, which stayed within the approved budget of $650,000, and the funds were transferred to U.S. Bank for better interest rates.

HOA Easement and ECC Updates

The board discussed Preserve Drive, clarifying that an access easement extends to several lots and is part of the HOA’s maintenance responsibility. Keith announced that Nancy had resigned from the Environmental Control Committee (ECC), and Robin Crow was appointed to replace her, along with Randy Nelson. The board is still looking for a third ECC member and will consult Chris Hawkins for any unclear rule interpretations.

Community Documents Review Initiative

The meeting focused on the review and potential revision of community documents, particularly the CCNRs, which are 35-40 years old. The board discussed forming a committee to review these documents, with the goal of updating them to align with current laws and regulations while maintaining the original vision of the community. There was some debate about the need to document past exceptions to the rules, with Chris suggesting this would be helpful for transparency, though the board expressed concerns about the time and effort required for such a task. The group agreed to gauge interest among members before forming the committee, with Diana emphasizing the importance of efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the review process.

Community Design Guidelines Review

The board discussed reviewing community design guidelines and violations, with Chris clarifying that he did not intend to create an exhaustive encyclopedia of all design decisions but rather focused on visibility issues. Garret shared his experience of having to fill in a pond due to county guidelines, and Keith noted that many rules have been applied inconsistently over time. The board agreed to consider forming a committee to review the documents, with Keith suggesting a straw vote to determine majority support for this initiative.

CC&R Update Discussion

The group discussed the need to update the CC&Rs, with Phil emphasizing the importance of collaboration and warning against potential legal interpretations. Garret shared his experience with litigators and agreed that compromise is necessary. Keith mentioned that Tom suggested starting with a state prototype to make the process more cost-effective, estimating a cost of $25,000 to $50,000. Chris pointed out that the main contradiction with county guidelines is the size and distance requirements for guest houses.

CCNRs Amendment Discussion

The committee discussed potential amendments to the CCNRs, with Chris suggesting a list of issues to address, including home site definitions and guest house regulations. Diana emphasized the importance of clear rules to prevent conflicts between neighbors. The group considered forming a committee to review and suggest amendments to the documents, with Garret proposing a focus on identifying areas for improvement rather than a complete overhaul. Mary suggested consulting with Josh and Matthew before making any decisions.

Community Rules Review Committee

The meeting focused on discussing community rules and the formation of a committee to review and potentially modify the CC&Rs. Joshua inquired about the approval process for such changes, which Keith agreed to look up and clarify. Mary emphasized the importance of following existing rules and expressed trust in the neighbors, including Josh and Matthew. Garret acknowledged the need for compromise and open communication, expressing pride in serving the community and his commitment to working towards solutions.

Community Issues Committee Formation

The board discussed forming a committee to address community issues, with Mary offering to host a cocktail party in late February or March to facilitate discussions. Keith noted that the board has the authority to create and appoint members to the committee, and he will review expressions of interest from Chris Keelan and others. The board then approved the slate of candidates for the upcoming election, with Diana, Garret, and Keith running unopposed. The conversation ended with a motion to adjourn, and the board members agreed to meet again to select the president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer in the coming week.

PRESERVE MEETING MINUTES – July 2, 2024

Attendance- In-Person Zoom

Keith Swanson/Nancy (7/10) Josh Anderson (1)

Robin Crow/Maureen (6) Garret Lacour (2)

Amir Neshat (11/12) Chris Keyland/Britney (8)

Chris Collard Randy Nelson (4)

Erica Cicero (3)

Keith/proxy Ed Suddock (9) Matt Fink (5)

Pat Gilhool/proxy Phil Sigel (13)

Keith Swanson opened the meeting with the announcement of the loss of two long standing Preserve Owners. Both Frank Cicero and Paul Anderson were instrumental in the early years of our HOA and remained dedicated to preserving the Preserve throughout their lives. They will be missed.

Member self -introductions were made and our newest owner, Amir Neshat was welcomed.

The meeting proceeded with agenda items:

1) The ECC report- Nancy Swanson shared that all lots have remained under the same ownership as noted last year except for Lot 11 &12. The ECC has received a proposal from Garret Lacour (Lot 2) for an accessory building and is presently under review as required for the approval process. Nancy also reminded all owners that changes in exterior appearance of homes, major landscaping changes or additional construction on properties must be approved by the ECC.

2) Financial report – The written report was circulated by email prior to the meeting. Keith Swanson reported the HOA bank balance as of 12/31/23 was $17,110 and the current balance is $25,280. Keith indicated there are some outstanding bills relating to Water Rights and the renewal of the 6 yr. conditional water rights on some properties.

3) Water Rights-A description of the water supply for the augmentation pond was explained. Chris Keyland added that the diversion box on Lot 5 for Spring 2 had been compromised and he asked that all members be aware that only the hydrologist has the authority to change the diverter.

– Keith shared that the Board is monitoring our HOA water and the possibility of purchasing additional water rights from Trout Lake in the future if needed.

4) Preserve Drive- Keith gave a brief history from a 2020 Committee formed to address upkeep and maintenance costs for the gravel road. The projected cost of maintenance at that time was noted to be between $5,000 and $10,000 per year.

-Recently, some owners requested the desire to have Preserve Drive resurfaced with asphalt. An informational phone meeting for all members was held on June 10th and Don Miller with Telluride Gravel (one vendor who had submitted a bid) agreed to answer questions and share his knowledge of the pros and cons of resurfacing our drive. Five HOA members attended.

– A discussion took place, and all members expressed their concerns and views varied widely. Some of the comments included: safety concerns, maintenance costs of both, high cost of paving, snow plowing and winter maintenance, environmental impacts, resale values of properties, effects of construction projects on the wear and tear, aesthetic of gravel vs asphalt, etc.

– A motion was made by Amir Neshat to pave the road with asphalt. The motion gave the Board discretion for accepting a bid of $600,00 plus or minus $50,000. Amir also generously offered to pay $200,000 for his portion of 2 Lots and pick up the cost of a Civil Engineer if required. This offer would reduce the cost for remaining HOA members.

Randy Nelson seconded the motion. The motion was passed by a 9 to 4 vote.

YES No

Randy Nelson Erica Cicero

Keith Swanson Josh Anderson

Ed Suddock (proxy) Chris Keyland

Amir Neshat -2 Phil Sigel proxy)

Robin Crow

Garret Lacour

Nancy Swanson

Matt Fink

Garret moved to amend the annual budget which necessitates an increase in our 2024 or 2025 member assessment. The money should be due according to the agreement with the contractor and consider deposits and balance due at completion.
Amir Neshat seconded the motion.
The motion carried 10 to 3.

YES NO

Garret Lacour Chris Keyland

Amir Neshat-2 Erica Cicero

Randy Nelson Phil Sigel (proxy)

Matt Fink

Robin Crow

Keith Swanson

Nancy Swanson

Josh Anderson

Ed Suddock (proxy)

5) Election of Board- The slate of officers was presented, and Keith asked for any comments or additions to the Board. There were none. The vote was taken, and the Board was approved unanimously. Board members for 2024-2025 are Keith Swanson-Garret Lacour-Ed Suddock

6) Old Business- Erica Cicero inquired about spraying thistles on her Lot. Keith will make the contact to Wesley Rushing (rushingsvegetationmgmt@gmail.com) and pass on Erica’s contact information.

7) There was no new business

8) Meeting adjourned at approx. 5:15pm

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Preserve HOA Annual Meeting – 7/7/2023

Present in person:

Keith and Nancy Swanson

Bill and Angie Zartler

Ed Suddock

Chris Collard

Garrett Lacour

Present via Zoom:

Chris and Brittney Keyland

Matt and Diana Fink

Erica Cicero

Patrick Gilhool

Minutes:

New Business:

Nancy reported on the current property status and related that there are no new property owners since last year. The updated contact information has been received and sent to everyone.
The ECC had received a preliminary proposal for construction from the Keylands (Lot 8). This will be the first home built at the Preserve in nearly 20 years.
The HOA and the ECC representatives contacted our HOA attorney, Tom Kennedy to discuss how to proceed with this process. Tom suggested that many of the area HOA’s hire a professional Planner to facilitate this process. He suggested Chris Hawkins, Alpine Planning. Chris Hawkins is experienced and well versed in local requirements and is presently working with both Aldosoro and Lawson HOA’s.
In Chris Hawkins’ initial review he indicated that many of our CCR’s and Design Review Guidelines (written in the late 80’s), are less restrictive than the present-day county rules. He alerted the ECC to some important county restriction changes. Review of the Keyland proposal has been suspended until their plan meets both our Guidelines as well as the counties.
A discussion followed: When our development was established there were certain restrictions in place by our developers in addition to those particular to the county. Since the 80’s the county has revised their codes and they are much more restrictive. At the meeting, our ECC advised that applicants be acutely aware of the Land Use Code County rules and our Low- Density designation in proposed planning. Keith mentioned that both Tom Kennedy and Chris Hawkins related that if a PUD or other documentation existed that was put in place at the time of development, it could circumvent current restrictions. Both Tom and Chris researched this possibility with county records and nothing to-date has been located. Keith also reached out to John Lifton, one of the original developers and asked if such documentation ever existed. John has not responded.
Keith addressed the makeup of our Director’s Board and ECC committee indicating that with only 11 Lot owners, any building impacts most owners. For example, the review of the Keyland proposal (Lot8), has four of the six members of the ECC and Board owning adjacent properties. As Tom Kennedy pointed out, Chris Hawkins will bring an unbiased perspective. Tom also recommended a process if applicants disagree with the ECC or Board ruling and wish to object. It has been determined that the issue will be presented to the membership and a vote of each Lot owner will take place for resolve.
Chris Keyland asked if precedent determines future property building and use. He said he believed that some existing homes presently have guest houses and questioned if this should be considered with his present proposed plans of a guest house. Nancy reported that Chris Hawkins and Tom Kennedy made it clear there are not grounds for precedent regarding current county restrictions. They reported that both HOA present design guidelines as well as current county Land Use Code must be met and the most restrictive trumps the other for compliance.
Garret Lacour (Lot 3) gave the ECC an informal notification that he is planning construction of an accessory building and a proposal will be forthcoming. No timeline has been determined.
The Finks (Lot 5) will be in town in August and have requested walking their property with the ECC to address potential future building sites and the impact any construction by adjacent homeowners might have on their development.

Financial Status:

The Budget against actual through the 23rd of June has been disseminated to all and questions can be requested of Keith at any time.
Lot A (owned by the HOA) has been maintained by the Andersons. The Board approved a non-budget item of $5000 to do tree work on Lot A.
A brief discussion of tree maintenance ensued. The West Region Wildfire council is available to owners to assess fire risk on individual properties. The Swansons (Lot 7), reported that they recently had a representative walk their property. One thing to note to all is that it was highly recommended that it’s advantageous to remove ALL downed timber within 100 feet of any homesite. A variety of vendors were mentioned by those who address tree maintenance yearly, and Angie suggested that a possible group discount might be available if several employed the same vendor.

Preserve Drive Maintenance:

Keith reported that dust and washboard mitigation treatment was done in 2022 and the contractor had said it would last two years. ACM was dissatisfied with the wear and partially refurbished sections of need. Keith feels we may need to do upkeep on the road more often and the budget may need an added line item to address this.

Election of Board of Directors:

Keith Swanson, Ed Suddock and Garrett are current Board Members.
A motion was made by Bill Zartler to retain the same Directors and was seconded by Nancy. The motion was passed.

Old Business:

Colorado has made new policy adjustments on HOA governance. Tom Kennedy rewrote board governance and it was reviewed, voted by membership and passed by all members. All updates have been added to the website and are available to all.
It was discussed that there are some inaccurate or outdated references in our CCR’s and that some work for revision could be done in the future. It was noted that if the Board of Directors does undertake this task, and rework would be discussed with the entire membership.

Ed moved to adjourn the meeting, and it was seconded by Bill. The meeting was adjourned and a brief social hour took place.

To: The Preserve Homeowners

From: Paul F. Anderson

Cc: Pam Shifrin

Date: August 28, 2022

Subject: Minutes from the Annual HOA Meeting on Aug.4, 2022

The 2022 Preserve Homeowners meeting was held at 8011 Preserve Drive on Thursday, Aug.4. The meeting was a hybrid one with all of the owners represented either in person (4), via Zoom (4) or by proxy (5) so a quorum was clearly present at the meeting. The meeting generally followed the agenda provided in advance. A summary of the discussion along with the decisions reached follows.

Current property status- No lots were reported as currently being on the market. Owners of 3 vacant lots have indicated their intention to build in the foreseeable future although none of these lots are at the review and approval stage. But we can anticipate some possibly heavy construction here in the foreseeable future.
Financial Status- We are currently in good shape financially. We should end the year with a balance of a few thousand dollars in the bank which is our normal target. And at present, the board does not foresee any major expenses that could require a special assessment- although that condition can change on relatively short notice.
Preserve Drive maintenance project- The general consensus of the owners is that Preserve Drive is in as good shape as it has ever been for this time of year. So it appears that the major investment we have made recently in the application of mag chloride is paying off. The real test will come once any major construction begins but, hopefully, we will have at least a couple of years of a good road with only minor maintenance needed,
Internet Service- As agreed at our last annul meeting, two of our owners have been experimenting with an internet service called Starlink. This is a satellite based service that can be installed at individual homesites rather than one which would require wiring The Preserve. Both owners reported that they were generally satisfied with the service, particularly when the cost was taken into account. So we have again decided to follow a strategy of “watchful waiting” with regard to improving the service to The Preserve. It is quite possible that in the foreseeable future one or more attractive options will become available to us as the technology and local infrastructure continue to evolve. But for now, the owners concluded that an option like Starlink will probably serve us adequately. If you have any questions about the performance and cost of Starlink, you should contact either Keith Swanson or Garret Lacour about their experience.
Other Business- There was a discussion about The Preserve’s policy of allowing anyone to serve on the board or any committees, including the Environmental Control Committee, provided they are duly elected. Some owners had raised the question of whether such a policy was in our interest, After a serious discussion, it was decided that the current policy has not caused any difficulties for The Preserve over now a 30+ year history and occasionally has served us well by allowing non-owners with particular capabilities to serve. So it was agreed that no effort would be made at this time to change our policies in this regard.
Election of Officers- This is the big news. After too many years, I have asked to step down as president the HOA Board. Keith Swanson, the owner of Lots 7 and 10, was duly elected as the new president of the board, Garret Lacour was re-elected to the board and Ed Suddock, the owner of Lot 9, was elected as a new member of the board. Frank Cicero and I were were both recognized appropriately for our long service on the board, In addition to the new board members, we have one open seat on the Environmental Control Committee. Our hope is that another of the new owners will agree to serve on the ECC but stay tuned on that issue.

Mary and I concluded recently that I have served on the HOA board for something over 20 years- time really does fly when you are having fun. This service has been both educational and rewarding in some interesting ways. It has given me the opportunity and the need to get to know all of our fellow owners, it has caused and allowed me to meet and interact with many professionals who are part of and serve this community, it has provided a real education in the challenges of managing an HOA, even a small one like ours, in the mountains of Western Colorado and I have even learned a bit about human nature. For the first time in our 25 years here I feel that we have a group of owners today who understand and value what The Preserve is- our commitment to protect the wildlife who view this as their home too and the primacy placed on privacy for the owners. From my perspective, all of the current owners want to live here- not just invest here- and that is a very reassuring feeling. So thank you all for giving me and our family the opportunity to enrich our Telluride experience.

Paul

To: The Preserve Homeowners

Cc: Pam Shifrin

From: Paul Anderson

Date: August 9, 2021

Subject: Notes from the 2021 HOA Meeting

The 2021 meeting of The Preserve homeowners was held on July 16, 2021 at the home of the Swanson’s. For the first time, the meeting was held in a hybrid format- owners of 7 lots were present, owners of 4 lots were on Zoom, one owner submitted his proxy and one owner, whose lot is under contract, was not represented. Thanks to the assistance of Pam Shifrin, this format actually worked rather well. Whether we use it again for future meetings is TBD. A summary of the issues discussed and conclusions reached follows in the same order as they were shown on the agenda for the meeting. And my apologies for taking so long to get these out to you. There were a couple of bases that had to be touched and I have been doing a bit of travelling.

1. New owners and property status- Two new owners joined the meeting- the Fink’s from Lot 5 and the Keyland’s from Lot 8. At the time of the meeting, four lots were listed- Lot 6 which is expected to close within a week or so and Lots 9, 11 and 12 which are still on the market. So we may well have a couple more new owners by the time of our meeting next year.

2. Financial status- Because of some economies YTD and the fact that we have not had to use the contingency included in the annual budget, we should end the year with a small surplus in the bank. This is our typical strategy and it appears to be working this year. At the moment, we do not anticipate any unusual expenses for the foreseeable future so, hopefully, there will not be a need for a special assessment next year. Stay tuned.

3. Preserve Drive- Two subjects were covered here. Keith Swanson and Chip Dyer explained the rationale and process for the major work that we undertook this year to stabilize and reduce the dust on the road. At present, we are very satisfied with the quality of the work and the condition of the road. By this time next year, we should know whether we have finally identified a longer term solution for maintaining Preserve Drive in a drivable condition. Fingers crossed.

The second subject covered was our policy regarding a reimbursement assessment on an owner during a period of significant construction activity on their property. This is a policy that was adopted by the board about a dozen years ago and has been applied 4 times. Since we anticipate some major construction activity over the next few years, it was felt appropriate to reconsider the policy and make any adjustments that seemed appropriate. The changes that were approved were to (1) increase the amount of the reimbursement assessment from $500/mo. to $650/mo. (2) to apply the same assessment to every owner regardless of where their property is located and (3) to specify the timing of when this assessment would begin and end relative to the construction itself. Based on some professional advice, the assessment will commence with the start of the permitted construction and end with receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy.

As with the initial policy, these changes will be recorded with the county in the form of a resolution of the board. A copy will be sent to all of the owners at that time.

4. Policy on Recreational Vehicles- The CCR’s, design guidelines, etc. that govern life in The Preserve make very little reference to recreational vehicles, e.g. dirt bikes, ATV’s, snowmobiles, etc. The references are principally related to storage, visibility, etc. and say little or nothing about the use of these vehicles for recreational purposes in The Preserve. This past year, an owner requested permission to use a snowmobile principally to transport his small children around his lot for sledding and other recreational purposes. After considerable discussion involving the ECC, the board and some of the other owners it was decided to deny this owner’s request. The principal reasons for this decision related to noise, pollution and possible disruption to the animal life on and near his property. At this time, a commitment was also made to discuss this issue at the HOA meeting to get a fuller sense of the attitudes of all of the owners.

After a pretty full discussion of this issue from several directions, it was the clear consensus of the owners that (1) owners were entitled to house RV’s on their property, (2) that the road could be used by these vehicles for exiting and entering The Preserve and that (3) motorized vehicles could not be used for recreational purposes in The Preserve. There was discussion about using some RV’s, e.g. an ATV, for maintenance purposes on one’s property and about the possibility of reconsidering this decision if electric RV’s change the noise and pollution considerations significantly so this issue may be addressed again by the owners. But for the time being, the consensus of the owners is that no RV’s can be used in The Preserve for recreational purposes. Based on counsel from our lawyer following the meeting, this policy will be codified as a board resolution and filed with the county and a copy will be sent to each owner.

5. Dog policy- Because of an issue that arose this past year in connection with the potential sale of one of the lots, we agreed to review The Preserve’s dog policy and determine whether any major changes should be considered. Some of the owners were considering this issue for the first time so there was some tentativeness in discussing major changes. However, the sense of the discussion was that (1) there is no appetite for considering major changes to the policy at this time, (2) there seemed to be some support for building more flexibility into the policy, e.g. to accommodate guests or resident caretakers, but no decision was taken in this regard. As several new owners settle into life in The Preserve, we may want to consider some of the specifics of our dog policy in the future.

A question was raised about Aldasoro’s dog policy. Their policy can be found on their website in 10 pages of rather dense language. Basically, they allow two dogs but with some flexibility to accommodate visitors and guests

Following the meeting, I consulted with our lawyer about the process for making minor adjustments to our current policy. Since the dog policy was specifically addressed in the original CCR’s, his counsel was that any changes, even seemingly minor ones, would require a vote and the approval of 2/3 of the owners.

6. Broadband/internet service- The installation of improved internet service seems to be progressing in this area although there still appear to be a number of unknowns or moving pieces. First, the technology and the technical options seem to be evolving at a pretty rapid pace. Second providers are appearing, disappearing, going bankrupt, getting sued by their clients, etc. Third the cost of cable installation to individual homesites continues to be a major constraint. And fourth, none of the HOA’s of which we are aware seem to have found “the answer” yet. So by doing nothing, we may actually be making progress. We continue to search for and consult with people who purport to be knowledgeable in this field- even though our results to date have been unsatisfactory. But at the meeting two of the owners- Keith Swanson and Garret Lacour- reported about installations they have made recently with a firm called Starlink which offers a satellite-based service. While Keith and Garret report that these installations are still in something of a shake-down mode, their initial experiences have been positive in terms of capacity, speed and reliability, and the costs seem to be reasonable. So we have asked Keith and Garret to give us a report at some point about their experience with the Starlink system so each of the other owners can decide whether they want to try it. And in the meantime, we will continue to search for someone who can give us an answer about what approach is likely to be most suitable for The Preserve.

7. Gatehouse Lot- Because of issues raised and concerns expressed by some of the owners, the owners of Lot 1 decided to withdraw their proposal to acquire the Gatehouse Lot at this time.

8. Election of officers- The owners unanimously agreed to elect Keith Swanson, Garret Lacour and Paul Anderson to the board for this next year. This action represents a major change in the composition of the board because Frank Cicero has decided to step down. Frank was essentially “present at the creation” of The Preserve- his name is on many of the original documents going back to the 1980’s- and he has served on the board for, I believe, over 30 years. The service that Frank has provided to The Preserve over this period of time has been invaluable and, while he is not able to be here much these days, he has continued to provide both a valuable historical perspective on what we do and why we do it and important counsel to the board on difficult issues. So he will be missed. Thanks, Frank.

9. Noxious weeds- Noxious weeds- or invasive species- are a major problem in this area and in The Preserve. As an illustration, the county has a noxious weed specialist on their payroll. For several years, The Preserve’s policy has been to contract with a weed specialist to spray any obvious concentrations of these weeds that are visible and accessible from Preserve Drive. The owners in turn have been encouraged to take responsibility for infestations on their property. Some have addressed the need by pulling the weeds, some by spraying and some by doing nothing. We have considered the option of engaging a weed specialist to treat the whole of The Preserve and just adding the cost into the annual assessment. However there are a number of factors which make this option not very attractive or maybe even feasible at this time. So the decision was made to continue our present practice but to encourage the owners more strongly than we have in the past to treat any infestations on their property aggressively. The Preserve has worked with one contractor for several years and I would be happy to provide you with his contact information. But each owner is free to choose their own option.

10. Fire danger and mitigation- As agreed at the meeting, Mary has contacted the West Region Wildfire Council by email to request a survey of the whole of The Preserve to assess our overall fire risk and to identify possible remedial measures.

Their website indicates that they have had a spike in demand recently which has impacted their ability to respond to these requests. We will also try to reach them by phone to see if we can get any more clarity on the possible timing of their visit but this could take a while.

If any of you want to contact these people directly to arrange a visit to your property in which you might be able to participate, the West Region Wildfire Council can be reached through www.COwildfire.or g or by phone at 970-615-7300.

As you can see, we had a rather full and rich agenda for the meeting which adjourned at about 6pm. If you have any comments or questions about the meeting or any of the above, please let me know. Otherwise, enjoy the rest of the Summer and hopefully we will see you around the neighborhood.

Paul Anderson

To: The Preserve Homeowners

Cc: Pam Shifrin

From: Paul F. Anderson

Subject: 2020 Homeowners’ Meeting

Dear Fellow Owners,

The 2020 meeting of The Preserve Homeowners Association was held on August 4 at the home of Keith and Nancy Swanson, Lot 7 in The Preserve. The meeting convened just after 4pm and concluded around 6pm. Nine owners where represented either in person or through signed proxies so a quorum was present for the meeting. The discussion generally followed the draft agenda distributed in advance and a summary of the discussion and the decisions taken follows.

1. Property Status- One lot was sold this past year- Lot 8 which was previously owned by Andre Schwartz, a longtime owner. The new owner is Chris Keyland, who resides near Austin, Texas. Chris was not able to attend the meeting so we look forward to meeting them and welcoming them to The Preserve. Lot 10 remains on the market. Some serious interest was shown in this lot recently but, at present, we are not aware of any pending action relating to this lot. Otherwise, it was a relatively quiet year in The Preserve on this score.

2. Financial Status- We ended 2019 with a bank balance of about $9,000. We have not incurred any unexpected expenses yet this year so we expect to end 2020 with some reserve as well. If you want to receive a copy of the one page financial status report that was distributed at the meeting, please let me know.

3. Preserve Drive- We had a long discussion about the condition and maintenance of Preserve Drive. As you will know if you read any of our financial statements, between maintaining the road in the dry months and snowplowing in the winter, the road represents the largest component of our annual budget.

The dry months- With regard to the basic condition of the road, the owners again confirmed that they prefer a gravel road to any other practical surface, e.g. asphalt. In confirming this position, the owners also recognize that because of the steepness of the road and the normal traffic on it, it is difficult to maintain the road in a smooth condition, i.e. with minimal wash-boarding, for extended periods of time. We have searched for solutions in the past which would provide a strong, stable surface for the road but, so far, with no success. However, our problem is not unique and technology continues to advance so we will continue to search for a solution which will allow us to maintain the road in an acceptable condition for longer periods of time and, hopefully, at an acceptable cost. To this end, we have formed a “Road Committee”- currently consisting of Keith Swanson and Chip Dyer- who have been tasked with researching alternatives for maintaining the road and minimizing the impact of wash-boarding for sustained periods. Stay tuned on this issue.

The winter- We have had an agreement with Telluride Gravel for some years to plow the road in the Winter. Some of the owners also have individual contracts with TG to plow their driveways. One of the owners suggested an alternative to TG which we have explored. So far our discussions with this other provider have not yielded anything that looks attractive, principally regarding cost. These conversations may continue but, for the present at least, we do not have plans to consider an alternative to TG for the winter plowing.

Finally- The owners confirmed our policy of charging owners a fee for road maintenance during periods of heavy traffic caused by construction or comparable work on their property. For some years, our practice has been to assess an owner living near the bottom of Preserve Drive a charge of $500/month during periods of heavy traffic. It was suggested and endorsed that we consider raising this fee going forward although no decision was made as to what fee was appropriate. So we will have to address this issue, probably through our new Road Committee, when we next confront this situation.

4. Broadband/Internet Service- It is clear that there is a growing interest/demand for improved service from a number of the owners. Since our 2019 meeting, we have had some discussions with potential service providers. One important conclusion we have reached is that, contrary to our historical situation, there are a growing number of potential providers of improved service emerging in this area- all good news. There are a number of factors involved in this issue- technical, capacity, timing and economics to list a few. We therefore concluded that none of us have the time- or possibly the technical qualifications- to sort through the current and emerging options to find one that works well for us. So it was decided to hire, if possible, a consultant who could help guide us through the emerging service options and reach a decision on the best approach for The Preserve. We have now engaged such a consultant and are in the process of creating an Internet Committee, currently populated by Cathe Dyer and her son Chase, to oversee this process. My guess is that, given the current flurry of activity in this domain, we will be in a position to have some thoughts and recommendations on this issue before the next HOA meeting.

5. Water meters- In recent years, we have considered the possibility that the state will impose a requirement on all owners to have water meters on their wells to record the amount of water they are drawing each year. We have explored possible sources and costs of these meters. However, while this issue has been pending for some time, the state has not taken any action yet. So the decision was made to shelve this issue until we have better evidence that the state is going to impose such a requirement on us.

6. Gatehouse Lot- There is a half-acre lot right at the entrance to The Preserve which was originally intended to accommodate a person who would take care of certain needs in The Preserve on an ongoing basis. This lot is bounded by Hwy #145, Preserve Drive and property that is part of Lot 1. This lot has never been used for the intended purpose and, at present, there are no plans, or apparently any interest, on the part of the owners to make use of this lot. This lot stands right at the entrance to the Lot 1 driveway so that any structure on this lot would be a constant presence in the life of the Lot 1 owners. In addition, the well that serves Lot 1 is located on this gatehouse lot and The Preserve’s covenants stipulate that the gatehouse lot has the rights to one-third of the water allowed to be drawn from this well. The owners of Lot 1 raised the question of whether The Preserve HOA, which is the owner of the Gatehouse Lot, would be willing to sell this lot to the owners of Lot 1 and, if so, under what conditions. Without prejudicing the view of any owner, the consensus expressed at the meeting was that the owners present understood the reasons that the owners of Lot 1 would make such a request and would be willing to consider such an offer. No question of a potential price was discussed at the meeting. It was agreed that the owners of Lot 1 would explore the legal ramifications of such a transaction, e.g. what could a specific offer look like and who would have to approve what before any transaction could take place. It was also suggested that any such agreement include provisions to ensure the safety of The Preserve as it might relate to use of some of the land involved, e.g. to provide for a gate or surveillance cameras. The Lot 1 owners have contacted Tom Kennedy, who is The Preserve’s lawyer, and asked him to initiate such an investigation at their expense. If any of the owners not at the meeting have questions or comments about this issue, please let me know. And, if not, stay tuned.

7. Election of officers- The owners voted to reelect Paul Anderson, Frank Cicero and Keith Swanson as board members for another year. While not required for approval, the owners acknowledged the appointment of Cathe Dyer, Nancy Swanson and Randy Nelson to the Environmental Control Committee (ECC). We also had a discussion about succession planning for the board since Frank and I have been around for a long time and are not getting any younger. It was generally agreed that we should anticipate further transition in board membership over the next few years and should be identifying potential candidates, in addition to Chip Dyer,

8. Other business (finally)- Two other subjects were raised at the meeting. The first related to the role and actions of the ECC. It was agreed that the developers of The Preserve had done a good job of providing clear and enlightened guidance for the future development of The Preserve through the various documents that were created at the outset, including the CCA’s and Design Guidelines. It was strongly recommended that the members of the ECC (and by implication the board as well) should be well acquainted with these guiding documents and that the rules laid out in them should be followed and enforced faithfully.

The second issue related to security. There is concern on the part of some owners about the physical safety of the property of The Preserve and of the people residing therein. This concern extends to the presence on Preserve Drive of “sightseers” who have no business here. While no one is ready to propose that, for example, a gate be installed at the entrance, we did discuss the idea of some form of surveillance at the entrance. As a first step, it was suggested and agreed that we should install an easily visible sign near the entrance that stated something like “Camera Surveillance Present”. So we will see if we can find a suitable sign and then undertake to install it where it is clearly visible from the road.

End of report. Sorry for the length but we did cover a lot of ground at the meeting. As always, if you have any comments, corrections or questions about the report, let me know. Otherwise, stay safe.

Paul Anderson

To; The Preserve Homeowners

Cc: Pam Shifrin

From: Paul F. Anderson

Date: August 5, 2019

Subject: Notes from the 2019 HOA Meeting

The 2019 Preserve HOA meeting was held at 8011 Preserve Drive on Thursday, July 18. Owners of 11 of the 13 lots were represented either in person or by proxy so a quorum was present at the meeting. We were pleased that both of our new owners, the Swanson’s from lot 7 and the Zartler’s from lots 11 and 12, were present. The meeting generally followed the agenda which was distributed. A summary of the discussion along with the decisions reached follows.

1. Property status- As noted, three lots were sold over the past year. The Swanson’s purchased lot 7 and are currently renovating the house and the Zartler’s purchased lots 11 and 12 and are now occupying the property. Lot 8 is currently on the market and is being represented by T.D. Smith who was present at the meeting representing the owners. T.D. is optimistic that the property may move fairly soon. Lot 10 is still on the market although we are not aware of any pending transaction.

2. The Paul’s property- There is an 85 acre parcel just South of The Preserve on Hwy.#145 owned by Glen Pauls which has been on the market. We were informed that the property was under contract to a man who intended to develop it into a “mountain resort” to accommodate perhaps 70 guests. I had just met with the intended developer and been shown a sketch of the proposed development which I described at the meeting. After extended discussion, it was unanimously concluded that The Preserve should strongly oppose this proposed development. I subsequently spoke with both Meg Whitman who, with her husband, owns all of the land on the East side of Hwy.#145 from Skyline Ranch to Raspberry Patch and with Meg’s lawyer here. They also were intent on opposing this development. A hearing with the county planning commissioners was scheduled for Aug.14 to consider this proposal and we all planned to attend. However we have been recently informed that the property is no longer under contract to this developer and is back on the market. So we appear to have dodged a bullet at least for the time being. Possibly more to come.

3. Financial situation- We ended up last year with a surplus and, unless we get some unpleasant surprises from the pond work, we should end up this year in the same position. We are managing to control expenses well enough that we have not had to increase the annual assessment for several years now and hope to continue that string. If any of you want to see details on the financials, let me know.

4. The pond- Last year we had a special assessment for work to improve the drainage system for the pond to enable us to better respond to water calls from the state. This work was to have been completed last Fall but, for a variety of reasons, the work was not done then. The work has now been completed and we are waiting for all of the final invoices to see how close we came to our budgeted figures. Reportedly, the state water people are very pleased with what we have done so hopefully they won’t harass us too much in future low water years.

5. Water meters- We have been told that in the foreseeable future the state will require water meters on all wells that are in active use. What that means for us is that, on those lots where there is a dwelling and an active well, a water meter will need to be installed in the dwelling unit to measure water usage from the well. We are in contact with a specialist in water meters and have asked him to visit The Preserve and give us both a recommendation on how to proceed and an estimate of the cost of installing meters in each dwelling unit. The HOA will pay for the cost of this first visit. Any owner who subsequently decides to install a meter will have to bear the cost of their meter. Stay tuned.

6. Enhanced internet/broadband- there is considerable interest among the owners in substantially upgrading the capability of the internet service we receive. Apparently Ski Ranches is in the process of installing new internet capabilities there and we have been approached by one service provider offering their services. At this point, we have no idea of what would be involved in significantly upgrading our internet service or of the potential cost. Keith Swanson generously volunteered to investigate the issues involved in such an undertaking, including possibly talking with the president of Ski Ranches HOA about their experience. This is an issue which could take some time to resolve but we are now taking the first steps. More to come on this.

7. Other business- We agreed to install the NO DOGS sign that we had prepared some years ago near the entrance to The Preserve.

8. Election of officers- Beth Gage resigned from the board when their property was sold. Keith Swanson volunteered to fill this vacancy so the owners unanimously agreed to elect Frack Cicero, Keith Swanson and me to the board for a one year term. We also had a discussion about board succession. Frank Cicero and I have served on the board for too many years and neither of us is getting any younger. So we feel that it is in the long term interest of The Preserve to begin planning for a further transition in board membership. As a first step, Chip Dyer has agreed to serve as a “director in waiting” which means that he will now be treated as a full director in terms of information exchange, participation in board discussion, etc. even though he is not eligible to vote on any issues. This move will position two owners- Chip and Keith- to begin to learn the ropes of the board’s functioning and, hopefully, enable a smooth transition of Frank and me off the board in the not too distant future. If any of you would like to volunteer to serve either on the board or on our one committee- the Environmental Control Committee- please let me know.

All in all, we had a very productive meeting. As a director, it is very gratifying to see so many fellow owners take such an interest in our shared community. Have a good year.

Paul F. Anderson

To: The Preserve Homeowners

From: Paul F. Anderson

Date: July 31, 2018

Subject: Notes from the 2018 HOA Meeting

The 2018 Preserve HOA meeting was held at 8011 Preserve Drive on Monday, July 23. Owners of 10 of the 13 lots were represented either in person or by proxy so a quorum was present at the meeting. The meeting generally followed the agenda provided in advance. A summary of the discussion along with the decisions reached follows.

1. Debbie Dinkins- Debbie, who was our bookkeeper for over 20 years, passed away on July 15 somewhat unexpectedly. For those of you who are interested, there was a lovely story about Debbie in the July 22 edition of The Daily Planet. We discussed several possible candidates to replace Debbie. We agreed that I would write up a short set of specs for the position and that Beth Gage and Cathe Dyer would do some preliminary screening of a short list of candidates. We obviously want to fill this position as soon as possible and, based on some further developments since the meeting, feel that we may be able to make a decision within the next week or two. So stay tuned.

2. Property Status- No transactions have occurred within the past year. As usual, a number of lots are on the market although no transactions are thought to be imminent.

3. Financial Status- We ended 2017 with a small surplus as is typical. The budget for this year was projected to show a deficit which would have eaten up much of this surplus. However, developments year to date on both the revenue and expense side of the ledger now suggest that we may end up with a break even for the year. So from the standpoint of normal operations we should again end the year with a small positive balance in the bank. The owners did approve a special assessment for work on the pond as forecast in my earlier notes to you. More on this below.

4. Governance Documents- The board approved the new governance documents which had been circulated to you earlier so these documents are now in force and can be found shortly on our new website (see below). One point was emphasized in the discussion. These documents provide- as do the CCR’s- for charging interest and legal fees to owners who are significantly in arrears on payment of their assessments. It was agreed that these provisions will now be enforced in any situations in which an owner is both in arrears and has not responded to requests to either pay their assessments or enter into serious discussions regarding such payments. This has not been an issue for The Preserve historically but has surfaced within the past year and it was agreed that these policies should now be enforced when appropriate.

5. Website- Based on the advice of our lawyer, we have established a website to hold documents and other information that is required to be made public. This should be a convenience for the owners and also enable interested parties, e.g. real estate brokers, to access information without needing to go through one of the owners, our bookkeeper or the board. The website has not been populated yet and you will be informed of how to access it as soon as it contains the necessary information. FYI, no information about individual owners, e.g. names, addresses, etc. will be included on the site.

6. The Pond- As many of you know, we have been wrestling with the problem of how best to respond to what we expect will be an increasing number of calls from the state for water from the pond. FYI, the pond exists not just as a decorative feature but primarily to protect the owners from calls from the state directly on the water from their wells. We have been exploring a number of options for responding to deficiencies in our pond drainage system for several months. Remember that the pond apparatus is roughly 30 years old and, in addition to some deterioration, requirements and expectations from the state have escalated rather substantially over this period.

The owners discussed and approved a specific proposal for work on the pond and authorized the board to proceed to solicit bids for the work and select a contractor. The owners also approved a special assessment of $3,000/lot for this work. It is hoped that this assessment will be more than adequate to cover the cost of the work and, if this turns out to be the case, we may consider reducing the annual assessment for next year to avoid building up unnecessary reserves. In any case, each owner will be receiving a notice of a special assessment of $3,000/lot as soon as we resolve our bookkeeper situation.

The proposed plan for the pond includes raising its level to provide some additional capacity to respond to calls from the state. In this connection, a question was raised about the potential impact of this additional weight of water on the holding capability of the dam which contains the pond. This issue has now been discussed with our engineering consultants and they believe that the dam should be more than adequate to handle the additional water. A few other issues were raised regarding the proposed work and are currently being addressed by our advisors.

7. Election of Directors- Our new by-laws and governance documents

specify that the owners elect the directors and the directors in turn elect the officers of the association. The following were unanimously elected as the directors of the association for one year terms- or until the next HOA meeting:

-Paul Anderson- chairman

-Frank Cicero- vice chairman

-Beth Gage- director

8. Other Business- A question was raised about the need for flow meters to measure the flow of water from individual wells. This is caused by a growing expectation that the state may begin to require this information for individual wells to ensure that owners are not exceeding their maximum allowance for water. This situation could only apply to those lots where the wells are actually being used although there was some speculation that this requirement might apply in some form to all wells over time. In any case, the Dyers volunteered to contact a possible supplier of these meters to enquire about the process for installing them and the possible cost per lot if we were to contract for several of these meters to be installed at one time. More to come on this issue.

These were the issues of substance discussed at the meeting and the decisions taken. We are sorry that all of you were not able to join us but, if you have any questions or comments, please let me know. For what it’s worth, I think that The Preserve is in pretty good shape- physically, financially and emotionally. We are hoping that, before long, the market will once again begin to appreciate the value of living with privacy and nature as we do.

Paul F. Anderson (pfanderson1138@gmail.com