Minutes

These are the APPROVED Minutes of the Annual Meeting

Annual Meeting Minutes

January 17, 2010, 2:00 – 4:00 PM

1. Call to order
2. Roll Call (quorum achieved with 16 units/owners represented)
3. Introductions
4. Approve Minutes of 2009 Annual Meeting
1. Motion to approve the Minutes: Joan Stephens
2. Second: Connie Billings
3. Motion Carried.  Minutes approved.
5. President’s Report
1. Available online at http://wba.elmdesigns.com/docs/Presidents_Report.doc or wba.elmdesigns.com and follow the link to the President’s Report.
6. Treasurer’s Report
1. Reminder that Dues are the backbone of our Association and its ability to pay bills, keep the Community beautiful, and the buildings maintained.  Paying Dues is a responsibility of ownership in Woodbridge.
2. Tricia has worked tirelessly to pursue delinquent accounts, and communicate account status to Owners, and will continue to do so as she works to reduce the amount of Accounts Receivable.
3. She encourages all owners to consider automatic payment of dues through their banking system.  This can be done through your bank’s online banking system or by contacting a bank representative to set up regular monthly payments.
4. Tricia presents the Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Report
7. Presentation of the Proposed Budget
1. Motion to approve the Budget as proposed: Sybille Saunders
2. Second: Craig Kansky
3. Motion approved.  Budget passed.
8. Proposal to (continue to) set aside $9,072.00 ($21/unit/month) for the next fiscal year earmarked “roof”.
1. Motion to designate earmark: Craig Kansky
2. Second: Jörg Mellmann
3. Motion carried.  Earmark set.
9. Establishment of 2010 Monthly Condominium Fee
1. Motion for the dues to be $150: Connie Billings
2. Second: Carolyn Gillis
3. Motion carried.  Dues set at $150.00
10. Nomination and Election of Board Members
1. Craig Kansky volunteers for the one-year term.

• Motion to elect Craig Kansky to a one-year term on the Board: Jörg Mellmann
• Second: Connie Billings
• Motion carried.  Craig Kansky is elected for a one-year term on the Board.

2. After some discussion and some strong encouragements there are no additional Association members willing to step up to fill the other TWO open positions (both are two-year terms).  This Board will be functioning with 40% less staff.  Please understand that this will inevitably impact the Board’s ability to address homeowner issues in a timely manner as we have been accustomed to in the past.  Your patience will be expected, and appreciated.
10. Other Business
1. Should we bury the two propane tanks?

• History: In 2008 there were (and continue to be) concerns about the safety of the above-ground propane tanks, located along the edge of Woodbridge property near the train tracks.  In February 2009 the Board reviewed the discussion and agreed it was an issue worth digging into more deeply.  In addition to the safety question are issues of aesthetics.  We considered the possibility of having individual tanks for each unit (not an option because of distance requirements between tanks, windows, doors, electrical meters, air intakes, and other such items) or relocating the tanks to other areas of the property (not practical due to geology and pipeline requirements – this may also be an issue with burial as the land where the tanks sit now is leased land from the railroad so we wouldn’t be able to bury them where they are).
• Research: Tank purchase: $3,000 per 1,000 gallon subterranean tank (we have 2) (includes regulator, bladder, and delivery, but does not include installation which is 8 hrs x 2 men x $87/hour *estimated = $1,392).  Excavating: estimated cost is $2,300, assuming no blasting or extremely difficult terrain and includes backfilling with sand (as required by Amerigas) and hauling away leftover soil.  Total (estimate) is $10,000 (based on 2009 rates) to buy and bury two 1,000 gallon tanks (assuming we can find the land where these tanks can be buried).
• Questions: Do we want this to be part of the long-term capital expenditures list?

Discussion:

• Burial doesn’t seem to be a popular choice, despite the questions of safety near the tank.
• It is important to remember that this land that the tanks sit on does not belong to the Association and is rented from the railroad.  Any effort to bury the tanks would require a complete relocation of the tanks to somewhere on the grounds of the Association.
• Someone shares that there are some efforts, on the railroad’s end, to improve the rails near us.
• Aesthetics seem to be a greater concern.  Owners seem interested in a visual barrier to the tanks (although pursuing having them painted by Amerigas – as they said they would – would still be nice).
• Motion:
• Sybille Saunders moves to have a fence added for aesthetics.
• Carolyn Gillis seconds the motion.
• Motion carried.
• Jörg Mellmann suggests that Covered Bridge Apartments (owner of 5,7,9, and 11 on Ledgewood Court and 17 Woodbridge) would be willing to make this a company project to add value to the community.  They will pursue this idea with a contractor and will plan to use the same kind of fencing that was used along the railroad.
• The Board will continue to pursue the tank painting option with Amerigas.

2. Safety around the mailboxes

• History: In May 2009 there was a lengthy discussion about parking lot safety, in particular with regards to the area around the mailboxes and how the kids tend to congregate there while drivers tend to speed around that corner.  It was suggested that perhaps we should install a speed bump to slow people down as they come around that corner, and there was a general consensus among those present that this discussion that a speed bump would be a good idea, or, at the very least, that more discussion was necessary around the safety of the kids in the parking lots.
• Research: A reasonable speed bump solution would be available for roughly $100 depending on how many bumps we wanted to install.  It is important to realize that snow plow operators will object to any speed bumps or other obstacles.
• Questions: Is this an issue we wish to discuss further?  Are there alternatives to the speed bump that would slow drivers and improve kid/bike safety?

Discussion:

• What about an inverted speed bump – a dug out piece of the pavement that a snow plow can just plow over.  The concern with digging into the pavement would be whether or not this would lead to rapid degradation of the pavement surrounding the “dip”.
• What about reporting the license of offenders (Tricia tells her story of a recent incident where she did just that and the Police went after the “perp”.)?  The Middlebury police have been very responsive to such steps when those efforts are made.
• Can we invite the cops to come and sit there once in a while, to police the area for traffic violations (speeders, in particular)?
• What about a good, handmade sign that says “17 children play here…please slow down”?
• Install a flashing light?
• Speed bumps are not off the table, but there are many other good alternatives suggested here.
• The suggestion is made that we continue this discussion by talking to the Middlebury police and ask for advice.
• Should we be in contact with the Pinewood management about addressing their speeder tenants.
• Community education should continue to be part of this discussion and whatever plan we make.
• Signage is ambiguous there by the bus stop…can we work with the Town to improve signage.  Could we add a stop sign on Pinewood, at the spot where Ledgewood is…drivers must stop before they even enter the community…that might slow some people down.

3. Ledgewood Parking, Dumpster Relocation and/or Dumpster Fences and General Aesthetics

• Preface: This is a large discussion about the overall appearance and “flow” of the community of Woodbridge.  It has several parts (location of dumpsters, visitor parking, fences around dumpsters, community aesthetics, etc.) and requires a big-picture perspective and discussion.
• History: In May 2009 Craig Kansky approached the Board with an idea to create some extra parking on Ledgewood Court where there are no visitor spots, and where parking had become an issue.  His suggestion, after doing some measuring, is to relocate the dumpster and put in three parking spaces where the Ledgewood dumpster current stands.  The dumpster could be relocated to the area at the end of Ledgewood by where the park bench sits (we would put a fence around the dumpster to improve visuals).  He also suggested that an extra visitor spot could go next to his parking space at the end of the parking lot (it’s mud there now).  That would give the community four more visitor spots.
• Research: It would cost approximately $3,000 to create these four parking places.  It would cost a bit more to relocate the dumpster to the entrance of Ledgewood and give it an eye-friendly fence surround.
• Questions: Do we want to consider the possibility of four additional parking spots on Legewood?  Do we want to consider relocating the Ledgewood dumpster?  Do we want to put a fence around the Woodbridge dumpster in its present location?  Do we want to consider relocating the Woodbridge dumpster to the entrance of Ledgewood (one large combined dumpster for the entire community)?  (Note; there is an estimated benefit of $300/year for one large dumpster instead of two smaller ones.)

Discussion:

• (Craig) This issue came up when Ledgewood was experiencing higher-than-normal traffic flow due to a tenant that no longer lives there.  The need for extra parking up there is no longer an issue. (although extra parking throughout Woodbridge continues to be an issue).  So that leaves the aesthetics and location of dumpsters.
• Moving to one dumpster location at the entrance to Woodbridge doesn’t seem to be that popular.
• What about a fence around the dumpster on Woodbridge?
• What about making every resident take the responsibility of cleaning up around the dumpster on their road for a one week period?  Education.
• Two things seem to be of interest:  a fence around the dumpsters and having every resident take responsibility for cleaning up, however this would be difficult to enforce.
• What about a reward for those who DO take care of the clean up?  Craig and Joan regularly and consistent clean up around the dumpsters and haul away non-dumpster debris to the transfer station – often at their own expense.
• A suggestion is made that we add dumpster maintenance to the job description of whoever is doing the landscaping (like Cindy Dodds).  People are skeptical that this would fly – unless we’re willing to pay dearly for it – but it never hurts to ask.
• After quite a bit of discussion a motion is entered.
• Motion to reward those who help clean up the dumpster, at the end of each fiscal year: Jörg Mellmann
• Second: Sybille Saunders
• Motion carried.  The Board will reward those identified as regularly cleaning up around the dumpsters and hauling away non-dumpster debris to the Transfer Station, a stipend from the Budget, assuming a budget surplus for the year.

4. The light on the corner of Pinewood and Ledgewood stays on all the time or during daylight hours. (Connie)
5. The yard light in front 7 & 9 Ledgewood comes on and off all night. (Craig)
6. Unit 12 Woodbridge has had water in the basement three times over the past years and she would like to have it sealed (they have a sump pump) like we did for Amira, or do whatever it takes to resolve water in the basement. (Sunita)
7. Owners’ work vehicles in the parking lot; there are some owners and tenants who drive their company vehicles home and leave them in the parking lot.  These are often large vehicles and the drivers don’t  always park in their own spots…usually parking in visitor spots.  The worst offender/s are at Jihad’s place (there is a tenant there) and Yvon with his Town truck.  It’s less about the work vehicle and more about the use of visitor spots.  Also, there is lots of idling going on.  The village limit is 3 minutes for idling. (follow up note…according to the Middlebury Police, the 3-minute idling limit is a RECOMMENDATION not an ordinance and not a law.  They can’t issue tickets for it.  Keeping the idle time down to three minutes is a matter of neighborly-behavior and environmental friendliness.

 

12. Adjournment
1. Motion to adjourn: Connie Billings
2. Second: Craig Kansky
3. Motion carried.  Meeting adjourned