In attendance: Silvia Gentile, Jonathan Machen, Paul Keaton, Kabir, Gene langlois, Alex Wilson, Roger Lewis, Etta Habegger, Barbara Navin.

The minutes from last month’s meeting were approved by Paul Keaton and seconded by Alex Wilson

Jonathan reiterated the need to have as many committee members attend the Public information meeting on 6/29 at Thistle (the meeting went well; click here to see the minutes).

Julie, the Resident manager, gave her report.

 RE code enforcement in the park: The resident manager has received inconsistent guidance from the city in this matter.  The MHA is resolving ways to get a clearer understanding from the city on this issue.

Solutions for a resident-clean up issue were discussed.

Report from Loretta Milcarek, Hast and Company

Collections issues were discussed in detail.  First stage letters have been sent out to the approximately 10 people who are past due in rent over $1,000 or have unpaid fees reaching that level. Actions are proceeding as planned.

Home replacement issue: It was discussed that one resident may not know that his home cannot be replaced, according to the site plan. This will be discussed with the resident.

Budget overview: A reminder - This budget is what is required by the bond financing. The current meeting’s objectives:

1)    To approve the 2004-=2005 budget

2)    Start projections for the next 15 or so years.

The budget for the current period and the coming financial year was thoroughly discussed, in addition, explanations were given on some unusual features of the budget:

Land Rent: Our highest cost, our debt. On the Master Lease, the debt on the land is riding with Mapleton LLC.

Land Property taxes: Thistle is doing what they can to reduce payments. It’s projected to be $20,000 – payments will be made by the Thistle controller and every month a certain amount must be put in to cover this. Fortunately, it won’t be based on sales price. Thistle will work on this. Also, Thistle is working on Legislative change to have a higher level of exemption without collecting taxes.

Audit costs on the budget: – about $3000/yr

CLT fee: $1250/month overhead of Thistle’s participation because resale fees are minimal. Typically the resale fees are capped at 3% of sales fee of the home, similar procedure for thistle’s other properties – this must be looked at every year. 

Replacement reserve: funds to respond to extraordinary replacement needs, like asphalt repair – retention wall – new maintenance equip - we need a cushion here so we don’t stress – want this fund to grow in future. Will grow once infrastructure is done.

Out of the entire budget, there is some money left over. The proposal was made for the remaining amounts to be split between Thistle and MHA.

Thistle’s contribution of the extra money they have spent on the park will likely not be paid back until ‘refinancing’, 17 years from now.  But it is not a huge burden, seen comparatively. It’s an ongoing discussion about how this will be paid for over the years.

It is hereby reflected in the minutes that we agreed on Thistle’s budget proposal.  For now, we have we have some money to play with as well as the chance to discuss what we want to spend money on for the next budget.

The proposal for replacement of a resident’s home was discussed. Etta agreed to take the materials to the site plan engineers for their feedback. This has all been approved.  The MHA board also approved the resident’s proposal on condition that the city also allowed the process, so the resident can now move forward with his project.  Jonathan is to be in touch with the home-owner.

A new application for the management committee was read and it was agreed that we needed action: Jonathan will send the person the current minutes and that person will come to a meeting after August –Jonathan heard a motion for the management committee to accept this application.  –

The confidentiality agreement was discussed and will be presented at the next large meeting.

The MHA requested being able to view a draft of a letter, being composed by Thistle, that is to be sent to a resident regarding his non-compliance with the park’s affordability agreements.

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