In attendance: Jonathan Machen, Kabir, Gene Langlois, Alex Wilson, Loretta Milcarek, Julie Morris.

Clean up letters have gone out. Kabir/Jonathan modified the letters and they have been sent out.

Insurance for uninsured workers/volunteers: A motion was made by Alex, seconded by Kabir, for Hast to research getting insurance for volunteers or uninsured contractors who might do work in the park. It looks like this will cost roughly $300/yr and has already been figured into the budget. (note: as of 7/30 it appears that it will be difficult to impossible to get insurance for volunteers, and the volunteer waiver idea has not been deemed legally sound).

Background on the insurance issue: (From Loretta): We already have liability insurance. A worker's comp policy won't solve all our problems, but it is beneficial - if someone is hurt, then it does cover us. We shouldn't use the policy as something we are counting on. but it's a back-up.  Etta pointed out that if we have a policy in place it makes it easier if we want to do a fall cleanup etc. Since the park is private land, not city-owned anymore, if someone volunteers (or is an uninsured contractor), it is up to the MHA, who rents the property, to get insurance. The City was self-insured, without some of the constraints that we now have. - Hast and Company's philosophy is that they don't allow anyone to work on a property they manage that isn't covered by worker's comp. The MHA essentially takes on liability for the park if a person working or volunteering does not have worker's comp, in case they do get hurt for working on common areas, etc.  If someone volunteers in our park and is hurt, the MHA is responsible. (Loretta gave the example of the guy cutting the lawns whose toe goes gangrenous - leg is cut off - he can’t work - and is encouraged by his lawyers to sue the association).  Getting such a policy will make it easier to do fall cleanups, group cleanups, etc.  The cost will be about $300/year.  The procedure for the workers' comp insurance:  an audit is made every year over the invoices collected from vendors and then there is confirmation about those who are not covered by their own workers comp. Hast is then charged for those who are not covered by their own workers comp and tax is then based on those uncovered vendors. (In the laws of Colorado individual owners, officers of corporations, sole proprietors, members of an LLC, etc, are not required to have worker's comp, but employees of a company must be covered.

Common areas: The related and somewhat unresolved issue was discussed of 'exactly what areas are considered 'common area' and not a renter's responsibility? It was suggested that we need to take an inventory of all plots of land and come to an agreement about what areas constitute ‘community areas’ and what do not.

The proposal for a resident’s replacement home was discussed. See management minutes from 6/27 for full accounting of this.

Clean-up letters written by the management committee were discussed. Jonathan and Kabir to work on this. (as of these minutes, the letters have been re-written and sent out already).

Revised Lease: Etta gave an update on the revised lease materials that would be sent to residents - a cover sheet, copy of rules and regs, revised affordability addendum, home site map. An agreement was made that we would sign the lease letter together to show we are all working together. A discussion was made of who could be at the meeting. (At this point, 55 of the leases have been returned). Also discussed was the meeting on June 29 for anyone with questions.

Unfinished work: Gene brought up the issue of the city contractors' work that has not been properly finished.  Loretta was asked to speak to Douglass Sullivan with the City of Boulder Public Works Department about the issues that remain unfinished.  Those include fencing promised yet never installed, gravel near lot 35B, repair of a sidewalk near Gene and the returning of functionality of the sprinkler system in power-pole island, currently with dead grass. The city replaced the grass once already, and now it is dead again.

Budget discussions: The budget was discussed by Etta and Loretta. - we are trying to merge two different fiscal years as well as combining the debt service Thistle (Mapleton LLC) has incurred plus the historical expenses/income. Etta, Roger, Silvia  and Loretta has all been working on this.  Etta points out that the 15-year projection is 'the schedule' which you provide to bond people. The bond people don't look at the details - they look at the long term - cover expenses, reserve - The new category of 'land rent' was created to allow Thistle to be able to record it for the bond people  - Every month, Hast will pay the mortgage directly. Because the bond documents are in Thistle's name, Thistle has to show they are collecting an escrow for taxes, insurance on the land, all the requirements they have to show they have funding for. Because of these different needs, Hast will write two checks -  one to the bank, and one to Thistle. The first check will be the mortgage; the second will be a check to Thistle that will cover everything but the debt service - taxes, audit costs, land liability, CLT fee.

This structure has been built into the pro-forma for several years. The CLT fee helps defer cost around processing applications, work that the accountant does, all the different costs - sort of like a management fee.

Other cash disbursements will require a special discussion - what do we do with net cash flow with the park.  (see exec/management meeting 6/27). There are certain needs - capital improvements, infrastructure work, MHA's funding, etc., that will be taken up in larger meeting on 6/27

Etta also mentioned that since Thistle is part of Neighborworks they may be able to get quote of insurance down - we may be replacing what Taggart currently covers if this happens.

Wells Fargo grant: Jonathan mentions submitting a grant with Wells Fargo. Etta suggests that we can submit an incomplete version, if that will help us – we can start off with something simple and turn that in. (Update: Jonathan did turn this in on time).

Infrastructure notes: on the 6/9 good news/bad news email of Bill Windsor's – The city made a first response about doing the southern half of infrastructure first. : We should be able to get the City to accept the base design and slopes of the sewer system.  In addition, the City should accept the variance for specific conditions that result from this slope.  The area that the city appears to be holding firm is in regards to trees.  Without a variance approval, nearly every tree along the roadways will need to be removed.  We are asking that the city allow us to evaluate the trees on a case-by-case level with the help of an arborist. So, this is the city's current (rigid) assessment of the overall work. The MHA is concerned with preserving as many trees as possible. Perhaps there are old trees that can go, and new ones can be planted? - (Gene mentions) Etta mentions that the city won't fund planting new trees - such a decision would be made by MHA and Thistle, not the city.  The city is being hard-nosed about this but we, as reps of the residents, would like to ask for individual variances.  In this light, we have a list of questions that can be taken back to Bill Windsor:

Why does the city feel it needs to take out more trees when we were under the impression that doing the work all at once will save trees?  - We thought the most damage would have occurred if we had dry utilities coming later, in a second trench - we should be saving trees!

Etta agreed to ask Bill to give an update on further conversations with the city, if any, and any ideas on his approach and we want to reaffirm that we want to save as many trees as possible...We want to talk to a tree specialist.

Submitted by Jonathan Machen

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••