BOARD OF DIRECTORS BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA

RANCH HOUSE Tuesday, December 12, 2017

6:30 PM

I. ** - Call to Order – Pledge of AllegianceII. Conflict of InterestIII. Approval of Minutes – November Business MeetingIV. Financial Report – November FinancialsV. Member Open Forum - Resident comments on subjects not on the agenda – 10 minutes’ maximum

total time allowed ***VI. Communication/Discussion Items

A. Discussion – Definition of a FirearmB. Discussion – Muddy trail closure programC. Request – To discuss Colony wall/fence replacement

VII. Action Items –Motion: “A” A motion adopting the 2017 Open Space Comprehensive Management Plan.Motion: “B” A motion appointing the 2018 Committee members and Board Liaisons.Motion: “C” A motion adopting the 2018 Budget and assessments.Motion: “D” A motion adopting the Equestrian Center Task Force job description.

VIII. Committee and Task Force reports by Board representativesIX. Manager’s Report – attendance signup sheetX. Executive sessionXI. Reconvene open meeting if the Board decides to take action.XII. Adjournment

*Individuals who require special accommodation to attend and/or participate in this meeting should call303.979.4070 ext. 136 to advise the ADA compliance officer of their specific need(s) 48 hours prior to themeeting.**Times are estimates and discussions are subject to begin before designated times and/or extend beyondthe designated times. Topics are subject to change and new ones may be introduced at the meeting.***Members who would like to address the Board in more detail than is possible during the 10 minuteresident comment section are asked to submit their thoughts in writing to staff the week prior to the Boardmeeting so it may be included in the Board package and scheduled as a part of the agenda.

MINUTES OF THE MONTHLY BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

KEN-CARYL RANCH MASTER ASSOCIATION

HELD Nov. 14, 2017

The regular business meeting of the Board of Directors of the Ken-Caryl Ranch Master Association was held on Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2017, at the Ranch House, 7676 South Continental Divide Road, Littleton, CO 80127.

Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by President Seth Murphy.

Attendance Board: Chris Figge, Dan Mullins, Erlinda Stafford, Seth Murphy, Angela York Staff: Chris Pacetti, Victoria DeSair, Sean Warren Others: Connie Grieshaber, Heidi Werth, Rilla Reinsma, Jim Fodor, Cathy Packard, Ruth Sundberg, Bill Lipsteuer, Kayla Kirkpatrick, John Soukup, John Fosholt, Mark Beelaert, John Brant, Scott Sargent, Judith Burkholder, Dianne Clark, Sandra Devin, Robert Brudenell

Conflicts of Interest Seth Murphy requested any Board member who may have a potential conflict of interest disclose said conflict prior to any discussion at the meeting. No other new conflicts had been discussed prior to this meeting and all prior conflicts were hereby incorporated into these minutes by reference.

Approval of Minutes There were no amendments to the minutes of the Oct. 10, 2017 regular meeting of the Board. Motion: Motion to approve the minutes made by Chris Figge Seconded by Dan Mullins Motion was approved unanimously

Financials The September and October financials were included in the Board Packet. Dan Mullins said the Contract Trail Maintenance and Trail Construction line items were put in the same budget line item by mistake. Those items will be adjusted in the financials. Motion: Motion to accept the financials made by Erlinda Stafford Seconded by Dan Mullins Motion was approved unanimously

Member Comments Not Related to Agenda • Jim Fodor: Discussed his concerns with the new Open Space Management Plan.

Recommends a task force of people who are environmentally conscious review the plan.

III.

The Ken-Caryl Ranch Master Association Board Minutes November 2017

2

• Cathy Packard: Discussed her support of a Resident Directory and discussed the ResidentSurvey results regarding the Directory. Seth Murphy recommended the Board discuss theDirectory and the survey results at a future Board meeting.

Communication/Discussion Items • Treatment of Manor House Prairie Dog Colony Land: Staff provided an update on the

prairie dog relocation and the restoration of the land. Volunteers will continue to moveprairie dogs, and staff requests $5,000 for noxious weed spraying. Connie Grieshaberspoke about the prairie dogs and the condition of the land.

• Future of the Equestrian Center Task Force: The Board recommends keeping the TaskForce in place and expanding its scope. Staff will draft a job description for review at theDecember Board meeting.

• 2018 Committees: The Board discussed the Committee appointment process and wants tofollow the Committee Appointment and Operating Procedure by reviewing all currentand new applicants.

Action Items

Motion: A motion authorizing an expenditure of $7,125 to replace the Ranch House front doors. Funding source 2017 Special Project Fund undesignated balance available $32,733. Motion made by Erlinda Stafford Seconded by Chris Figge Motion approved unanimously

Motion: A motion authorizing the Board President to execute the amended Cooperative Agreement RE: Prairie Dog Relocation. Motion made by Seth Murphy Seconded by Erlinda Stafford Motion approved unanimously

Communication/Discussion Items • 2018 Budget Discussion

o The Board supported changing the paper stock of the Life at Ken-Caryl paper.o The Board supported increasing the budget for trees from $5,000 to $10,000.o Cathy Packard requested that the Heirloom Park slide be fixed by the contractor.

Staff will look into the issue.o The Board discussed the shared Metropolitan District expenses for water and

bond project overages. The Board wants to budget $100,000 for water and$162,000 for bond project overages for 2018.

o The Board discussed funding for the Ranch House pool to supplement the fundingfrom the Plains Metro District lawsuit.

o John Brant spoke in favor of funding for Docmann Trail and said the Trail Clubcould contribute $12,000 toward construction costs.

o Robert Brudenell spoke in favor of funding for Docmann Trail and completion ofthe Trails Master Plan.

The Ken-Caryl Ranch Master Association Board Minutes November 2017

3

o Jim Fodor and Rilla Reinsma expressed their environmental and cost concernsabout Docmann Trail.

o Sean Warren discussed an email from Colorado Parks and Wildlife regarding apossible new recommendation for a buffer distance from the Golden Eagle nest.The Board wants to make sure the trail is in compliance prior to construction.

o The Board discussed the one-time project list and is interested in funding all ofthe proposed items with some modifications to funding levels.

o The new draft budget proposes a $3 per month increase in dues.

Committee and Task Force Reports

• No reports from the committees and task forces.

Manager’s Report

• No Manager’s Report.

Executive Session At 10:02 p.m. the Board entered Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter.

Adjournment No action was taken following the Executive Session, and there being no further items for discussion, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Victoria DeSair, Secretary of the Meeting

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1

Memorandum To: Members of the Board From: Chris PacettiDate: December 12, 2017 Re: Firearms

Occasionally staff receives inquiries about the use of pellet, air soft and paint guns on residents’ private property. They are clearly prohibited on Master Association lands by rule. However, the only direction we have for private property comes from the Master Declaration which clearly prohibits but does not define firearms. Sheriff’s Deputies will respond to call about a gun and if they determine it to be a “toy” they will allow. Up until this time we have relied on their interpretation however, I wanted to confirm that this is acceptable to the Board. I have provided two definitions of a firearm from the State for your review.

SECTION 3.10 No Hazardous Activities. No activities shall be conducted on any property and no Improvements constructed on any property which are or might be unsafe or hazardous to any person or property. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, no firearms shall be discharged upon any property except in the portions of Recreation and Open Space areas designated for skeet shooting or rifle or pistol range purposes by Grantor, or by the Master Association as to Association Property; and no open fires shall be lighted or permitted on any property except in a contained barbecue unit while attended and in use for cooking purposes or within a safe and well-designed interior fireplace or except such campfires or picnic fires in the portions of Recreation and Open Space areas designated for such use by Grantor, or by the Master Association as to Association Property. Firearm is defined in the Colorado statutes as: “Firearm” means any handgun, automatic, revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges.” The Colorado Bureau of Investigation rules and regulations define a firearm as: “(a) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (b) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (c) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (d) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.”

VI. A.

Ken-Caryl Ranch Master Association

Memo To: Ken-Caryl Ranch Master Association Board of Directors

CC: Chris Pacetti, Community Manager

From: Sean Warren, Open Space Manager

Date: 12/8/2017

Re: notification of proposed new initiatives to limit damage to trails during muddy conditions

The following memo outlines a new initiative intended to increase staff efforts to minimize damage to trails due to use during muddy conditions. It was presented to the Open Space Committee on November 29, 2017. The Committee agreed with the conceptual plan and directed staff to develop procedural and logistical detail. Implementation of the temporary trail closure will occur only after community notification of the new program.

At the direction of the Ken-Caryl Ranch Open Space Committee (OSC), staff proposes the following actions designed to limit the damage to trails by visitor use during muddy conditions (for background on how other agencies manage muddy trails see memo from Ranger Oven regarding muddy trail education/signage, dated 10/21/17).

CLOSE SELECTED SECTIONS OF TRAIL Due to the occurrence of soils with high clay content, a greater range of winter temperatures, higher visitation, flatter topography and a variety of other conditions, the muddiest trails and associated damage occur in the Valley Open Space. Of these trails, the lower Cougar Trail Complex (Colorow Trail from Massey Draw to Cougar, lower Cougar Trail and Bluebird Trail) experiences the most damage. Therefore, staff proposes closing these trail segments when conditions warrant a closure.

Staff will implement the closure when a pre-determined “indicator section” is determined to be too muddy to sustain trail traffic. The Indicator Section (IS) for the Lower Cougar Trail Complex (LCTC) will be located on the north facing section of Colorow Trail between Massey Draw and Bluebird Trail.

The Rangers will monitor general weather conditions from mid-September through mid-May. When weather conditions during this period seem to favor mud formation, the Rangers will visit the IS and after inspection make a determination of whether to close the trail or not. Inspections may occur on a

VI. B.

daily basis depending on weather. When the IS is stable enough to sustain trail use the, the trail will be re-opened.

During a closure of the LCTC, the trespass gate at Valley Parkway will be locked and a portable barricade will be installed at the Colorow/Massey Draw intersection. Signage will be posted at the intersection of Cougar and Golden Banner Trails informing trail users that LCTC is closed and that access to lower trails is cut off. Signage will also be installed that informs the public that the trail is closed and that violators will be prosecuted per Rule #3 of the Ken-Caryl Ranch Open Space and Parks Rules and Enforcement Policy.

While other trail segments are also good candidates for closing, staff recommends starting out with the LCTC as a pilot project before expanding to other areas.

EDUCATION AND SOCIAL MEDIA Tent signs have been used effectively in the recent past to address this issue. The Trail Use Guidelines have also been helpful educational piece.

New messages, for signage and other educational media, will be developed that takes a more firm tone perhaps even arousing guilt in those that would think of using muddy trails;

• Muddy Trail Use Degrades Trails and Cost Big Bucks!• A Moment in the Mud Should Make You Feel Like Crud.• Keep Clean Respect Trails (KCR Trails)• Tough Mudder, Need Not Apply. Stay Off Muddy Trails.• Joe Dirt Says “All’s I Got To Do is Keep Bein’ a Good Person and Stay Out of the Mud”

The Rangers will notify the Community of the LCTC closure on Facebook and post closure notices at all of the trailhead Kiosks notice Boards

MEM

O

KEN-CARYL RANCH MASTER ASSOCIATION

OPEN SPACE DEPARTMENT

From: Matt Oven

Date: 10/21/17

Re: Muddy Trail Education/signage

Message:

I contacted Jefferson County Open Space and City of Lakewood regarding their procedures for education/closing trails due to muddy conditions. Their responses are below;

Jefferson County Open Space - They will definitely close trails based on the eyeball test. If we see a trail that is too muddy, we close it at the most logical intersections. We barricade it, sign it, and post on social media and website. We check it regularly and open up when dry. Rangers do not write tickets for people recreating on a muddy trail. If the trail is closed, rangers will write a ticket for being in a closed area.

10. Trails-Closures and Maintenance

10.1 Muddy TrailsSTANDARD:

Muddy trails are common within Jeffco Open Space. Heavy use on these trails leads to trail damage including: increased depth of tread, trail braiding, ruts, widening of trial tread, vegetation loss, etc. Periods of significant moisture can also lead to hazardous conditions for park visitors such as culvert washouts, water bar washouts, and depths of mud that will stop a bike immediately resulting in potential injury to the rider. The goal is to prevent trail damage and visitor injury due to moisture and trail use.

PROCEDURES:

RANGER RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Assess trail for hazardous conditions that will result in resourcedamage or personal danger

2. Notify immediate supervisor or ranger lead of your intention to closethe trail

MEM

O 3. Upon approval, place signage at all trail junctions that lead to that section of trail, all

trails leaving parking areas in associated park, and all associated kiosks4. Upcoming shifts should check on condition every 24 hours (minimum) until the trail

is suitable to reopen

RANGER LEAD AND/OR SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Grant approval or deny proposed closure2. If necessary, facilitate the production of closure signage3. Notify director, managers, trails staff, community connections, front desk staff, and

all rangers of the closure4. Update social media showing that there is a closure (if community connections is

unavailable)5. Have communications update the website showing that there is a closure

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Design, print, laminate, and distribute closure specific signage2. Update all social media indicating that there is a closure3. Update closures page on JCOS website

ADDITIONAL

For areas that are more commonly problematic, JCOS should have premade maps and signage for closures to place at junctions of trails, trailheads, kiosks, website, and social media. For example, areas such as North Table Loop should have pre-made signs, which will be stored in the clivus and ready to be placed immediately.

10.2 Trail Maintenance STANDARD:

The goal is to repair trail damage immediately if possible or report it to the appropriate people.

PROCEDURES:

RANGER RESPONSIBILITIES

1. While on routine patrol or upon request assess trail for damage or hazardous conditions.

2. Take photographs of the area in need of repair.

3. Note the location on the Trail Grid Map

4. Email Ranger Team, Region Coordinator, and Trail Supervisor with grid location andphotographs.

5. If the issue can be fixed by the ranger who discovers the issue an email should stillbe sent to Ranger Team, Region Coordinator, and Trail Supervisor to make them

MEM

O aware of the issue and how you took care of it. The Region Coordinator and Trails

Supervisor can determine if the repair is sufficient or if more work is needed.

6. If there is to be a trail closure, alert Community Connections and Ranger Leads orSupervisor.

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS RESPONSIBILITIES

1.Design, print, laminate, and distribute closure specific signage

2.Update all social media indicating that there is a closure

3.Update closures page on JCOS website

ADDITIONAL: For areas that are more commonly problematic, The Region Coordinator and Trails Team may want to determine if a permanent change is necessary.

City of Lakewood – We are not currently closing any trails due to mud. We have evaluated the idea, but the logistics would be very difficult with the number of access points we have at Green Mountain and at Bear Creek. We developed those signs (see attached) at Green Mountain about 5 years ago and try to keep them current and posted on Twitter as they change. I honestly don’t think it has been terribly successful at slowing down use of muddy trails, but it is worth a shot.

MEM

O

*Signs posted at main parking lots of Green Mountain

MEM

O Boulder County Parks and Open Space-

We have been actively closing trails due to muddy conditions for a number of years. We used to go and check entire trails to gauge if we should close them which was very time consuming. Now we check the “problem” areas which gives us an indication of how the rest of the trail is doing. We base our decision on the problem areas, take photos and post the closures on social media. We have received positive feedback from users and compliance has been pretty good overall. A combination of trails staff and Rangers are usually used to check the conditions of the trails.

We have tried to let users police themselves in the past by placing signage about using trails when they are frozen but most users were still using the trails in the warmer parts of the day. We have also tried partial closures where we leave a trail open to a certain point before it gets muddy but we found the majority of users will go around signage, continuing their way up the trail unless Rangers are there to turn them around.

We do have several trails that can be closed for multiple weeks at a time which may be an inconvenience but it is what is best for the trails, especially with the amount of use all the front range trails are getting.

Jerry Sullivan 11504 San Juan Range Rd. Ken-Caryl Ranch, CO 80127

December 8, 2017

VIA EMAIL:

Mr. Chris Pacetti, KCRMA Manager, to place in board packet and on Dec. 12th agenda; and

KCRMA Board of Directors: Mr. Seth Murphy, Mr. Chris Figge, Ms. Erlinda Stafford, Mr. Dan Mullins & Ms. Angela York

Re: Request to remove Valley Parkway Fence & Wall replacement from 2018 budget

Boardmembers:

The KCRMA Board should remove from the 2018 budget the combined $60,938 expenditure for the replacement of the Valley Parkway wall and fence in the Colony neighborhood, along Valley Parkway from Buckthorn to Buckthorn.

Introduction and background

The KCR 2017 resident survey listed both the Chatfield and Valley Parkway fences as needing to be taken over and replaced by the MA. KCRMA is proposing to increase dues by $3 per month to fund, among other things, the replacement of the Valley Parkway fence, and has placed the fence and wall repair in the 2018 budget for approval. The Chatfield fence has been disregarded.

In approximately 1986, a KCR developer erected a two-rail cedar perimeter fence along Valley Parkway, approximating the property line. Sometime thereafter, the area between the road and fence was landscaped. Landscape timbers (dimension 6"x6"x8') were placed in some areas along the fence as edging, or shoring to contain soil upon which grass turf and trees were planted. The landscape timbers were placed abutting the fence posts, and were secured at the ends to fence posts using 12" nails, bending heads over about 3" into the timbers. The timbers ("tie wall") were installed after the fence was built, and from the street side of the fence.

Sections of the fence now are in a state of disrepair and an eyesore. The fence is mostly original, built approximately thirty-one years ago in 1986. The fence dilapidation problem was not remedied by KCRMA attempts to enforce covenants in June 2016. Eight properties back to

VI. C.

the fence, but only five have fences in violation of covenants, according to Mr. Pacetti: in the summer of 2016, the MA sent covenant violation letters regarding fencing to the homeowners of: 6 & 7 Cliffrose, 4 & 5 Woodfern, and 4 Buckthorn.

There are about 70 sections of 8' fence, 40 sections with abutting landscape timbers, 1-2 layers deep. Most of the landscape timbers serve no purpose and are NOT necessary. Mr. Pacetti has stated the situation-dependant lack of need for "the wall" in a memo to the board.

ARGUMENT

REASON I

The KCRMA bears no responsibility for the failure of the fence

Historically, neither the KCRMA, nor the KCRMD, have ever maintained or replaced any perimeter or homeowner-owned fencing in the Ken-Caryl Valley. Responsibility has always been deferred to the homeowners.

It is not possible to establish ownership of the fence or wall. As on the Chatfield fence line, KCRMA maps clearly demonstrate that the property line weaves in and out of the fence and wall line. Both the wall and fence are on homeowner property in some places, MA property in others. Mr. Pacetti is in agreement on this: "In actuality I believe that the line meanders so it is not clear that the wall is always on one side of the line or the other."

Violator homeowners have asserted that KCRMA irrigation caused wall failure, and the wall failure subsequently caused their fences to fail. These arguments are specious, that is, superficially plausible but actually wrong. Mr. Pacetti's stated understanding of the fence/wall relationship and problem seems to be mainly a communication of specious homeowner positions and desires, as opposed to an independent and fully informed analysis.

There exists no evidence that KCRMA irrigation caused the alleged failure of the "tie wall"; or that the state of the tie wall is a cause of the failure of the thirty-one-year-old fence. The fence failed due to age, rot, homeowner neglect and the elements; the KCRMD Parks Supervisor, Mr. Pat Malloy, who is responsible for maintenance of MA-owned Plains fences, would so agree.

In fact, and to the contrary of homeowner assertions, tree roots on homeowner properties have caused tie movement in many places, with stumps demonstrating large tree growth around and through the fence. Homeowner failures to mitigate erosion might also be a contributing factor, and there is evidence of string-line-trimmer post damage on the homeowner side.

Due to homeowner failures to replace broken posts, the forces of severe wind loads and gravity have caused the broken fence posts to act as levers, slightly displacing the decayed, lightened timbers towards homeowner property and downhill. In some areas, homeowner-installed continuous weld-wire has prevented broken sections from separating, resulting in increased stress on the remaining compromised posts, ultimately breaking the posts, and allowing failed sections to pull over remaining upright sections like dominoes. It only takes a few pounds of pressure to knock down a rotted post. Each fence section presents about 20 square feet of surface area which receives significant energy transfer during high wind events, potentially hundreds of pounds of pressure.

Indeed, all along Valley Parkway, the same style of fence posts have failed in absence of a "tie wall" and in similar way to the subject area. The suggestion that failure of a "tie wall" is the cause of fence post failure is a disingenuous excuse designed to persuade the MA to pay to replace the severely neglected fences.

Notably, some homeowners have modified the fence: there are private gates in the fence for personal-use, indicating presumptive ownership.

The landscape timbers were never intended to support the fence. All original fence posts were set in concrete below grade. The original thirty-one-year-old nails driven through the landscape timbers from the street-side into fence posts have held broken posts upright for years. The nails were driven through the timbers into fence posts only to hold the timbers in place. If there exists any liability in this situation, homeowners are liable to the MA for the damaged wall due to their failure to replace broken fence posts which then levered ties out of position.

In contrast to the pending Valley fence approval: At a Ranch House meeting on April 9, 2014, to which 65 property owners backing to the Chatfield perimeter fence were summoned, residents made claims that the MA caused fence post failure due to severe cutting by MA line trimming and misdirected MA irrigation causing rot and weakening. Those claims were true then, and are true today. Board members Dan Mullins and Chris Figge were present, along with Chris Pacetti. The MA dismissed and scoffed at those arguments made by a roomful of Village and Cimmaron homeowners. The general conclusion of the 60-some homeowners was that the Ranch House needed to take over and pay for the fences if they were to ever be in good, consistent condition. Ultimately, the Ranch House capped and tuck-pointed the brick columns but chose not to replace or maintain the community perimeter fence.

REASON II

The 2017 KCR survey results show that 66% of respondents oppose having their HOA dues used to pay to replace and maintain "Resident-owned" perimeter fencing

Both the Community Planning Chair, Kedra Hood, and the President of the KCRMA, Seth Murphy, have clearly communicated to me and the board that 66% of KCR resident survey

respondents clearly oppose paying to maintain or replace "resident-owned" fences, and that the MA should take no action on perimeter fences other than to enforce existing covenants.

The MA would disregard the will of its members and newly formulated KCRMA policy.

REASON III

The MA replacement of the fence will set precedent for residents to demand that the MA assume responsibility of all "resident-owned" perimeter fences

The approval of the fence replacement action will create immediate liability for approximately $1,000,000 in fence replacement throughout KCR, plus the cost of ongoing maintenance of all "resident-owned" perimeter fences.

Given the arbitrary action, KCR resident claims for fence replacement and maintenance, whether individual or group, should be honored by the MA, and, more likely than not, would be so honored and enforced by a court or arbitrator as a matter of equity. Any other result would be unfair.

REASON IV

The board should avoid any appearance of impropriety

No conflicts of interest have been disclosed by any board member in public meetings where this issue was placed on the "yellow sheet" as a potential one-time project.

The fence will benefit the appearance and property values in the Colony neighborhood, and has not been formally approved. It has been said that the Ranch House is a family, and this fence approval could potentially demonstrate that aspect of KCR politics.

Two KCRMA board members own homes and reside in the Colony: Board Member, Erlinda Stafford, at 10 Paonia, and Board President, Seth Murphy, at 4 Cliffrose. Mr. Murphy's home is located on a cul-de-sac abutting the fence line, and his next-door neighbors, Tom and Kathleen Thompson, own a home backing directly to Valley Parkway at 6 Cliffrose. The Thompson fence is the most dilapidated fence. Mr. Thompson is apparently an esteemed member of the community, honored this month by a glowing biographical article published in Life at Ken Caryl.

Another KCR homeowner of influence in the Colony is Elizabeth Dowdell, Community Planning Committee Member, at 11 Buckthorn. Notably, Ms. Dowdell's Community Planning Committee has advised the KCRMA that it opposes the MA paid replacement of perimeter fences based on perceived resident disapproval in the 2017 survey. Eagles Pointe resident and MA Board Member Chris Figge, owns a home at 49 Amaranth, located approximately 100 yards from the fence, with a line-of-sight view. Historical Society Committe member Gary Wambaugh owns 77 Buckthorn, and yet more HSC members, Vinny & Patricia Badolato, live at 5 Yellow Flax, across the street from the fence. An additional KCRMA board member, Dan Mullins, lives one-half mile from the fence at 3 Canyon Alder. Mr. Mullins home must be accessed via Valley Parkway, and the fence impacts the desirability of his neighborhood. Then, Mr. Mullins colleague in the KCR Trails Club, Jeffery Lyslo, owns 91 Buckthorn in the Colony. All the above individuals live within an area of approximately one-mile in diameter.

There might be many more connections, but since I am relatively new to KCR, having only lived in Ken-Caryl for the past four years, I do not know most of the people on Ken-Caryl Ranch.

So, there are multiple MA board members and committee members, whose home values and neighborhood aesthetics will receive the benefit of the fence replacement. Although Valley residents will generally benefit from the improvement, the lion's share of the benefit falls on the immediate neighborhood, including those owners described above.

Meanwhile, the idea of replacement of the Chatfield fence, a longer-standing and more dire need in the Plains, has been abandoned by the MA, leaving homeowners to fend for themselves, and the fence an eclectic patchwork of post-Chinook windstorm repairs, buttressed by 6"x6" posts, 4"x4" diagonal braces, steel T-posts, heavy steel post-mending plates, and stringers attached and re-enforced with steel Strong Tie plates and straps, secured with 3" screws, in hopes that it will withstand the next windstorm. New fences built to guidelines do not--and cannot--withstand the most severe windstorms. There are no homeowners from the Village, Cimmaron or the Spread, all neighborhoods backing in part to Chatfield Ave., on the KCRMA board.

Moreover, there has been no formal motion to approve the fence expenditure, and inadequate notice and opportunity for public comment and debate. The $60,938 combined expenditure was inexplicably moved from the potential "one-time project list", the "yellow sheet" into the draft budget, within the past 30 days.

There is no indication, nor am I suggesting that any person mentioned above has exerted any undue influence whatsoever in obtaining a new fence for their neighborhood. I understand that many residents are sick and tired of looking at dilapidated fencing. However, in light of the circumstances, the MA board approval of the Colony fence replacement, potentially, could be

construed to constitute violations of ethics rules pertaining to boards and HOAs in general, and possibly various Colorado Statutes, because, among others, board members would benefit. And, approval could possibly create the appearance of favoritism and/or self-dealing.

REASON V

The expenditure is not necessary

On properties where owners have taken measures to maintain the fence as needed, the fence is acceptable in condition.

The KLI landscaping bid in the amount of $43,000 includes the re-landscaping of each affected residence all along the resident side of the property line. The fence costs an additional $17,000.

The cost of a 6"x6"x8' pressure-treated landscape timber is approximately $30.

There are simple and inexpensive solutions. The "tie wall" could be removed without consequence. It is not necessary to remove the fence in order to remove the landscape timbers. The fence, where timbers have been nailed to it, can be severed by cutting the rusty, 32-year-old nails with a Sawzall, if not possible to simply lever the nails out of the decaying landscape timbers. Residents should be notified in advance to secure their posts. The MA can secure broken posts by driving in a steel T-post behind them, and securing with fasteners. The landscape timbers were installed from the street side after the fence was erected; so the removal process is the reverse procedure. The timbers can be lifted or excavated from the street side of the fence, as well as replaced, if deemed necessary, after the residents replace fences as necessary.

This work can be done in-house. All the removal could be done in just one day by two to three laborers, leaving homeowners their dilapidated fences, of their own making, to replace at will.

The MA need do nothing other than demand that homeowners repair their fences within reason. Indeed, as Mr. Pacetti stated in his August 15th memo to the board, the wall is not necessary in many places, and not all homeowners need a new fence.

However, I believe that the right course of action would be for the KCRMA to step up and assume financial responsibility for all KCR perimeter fencing, beginning with the development of a fence master plan, and the Chatfield fence. Perimeter fencing is a common element, it belongs to the community and impacts the overall community appeal. It seems that most communities surrounding KCR recognize this fact, and so have attractive, standardized, well-maintained perimeter fencing, rendering KCR one of the outlying and seemingly neglected communities in Southwest JeffCO.

In conclusion, I respectfully request that you please be mindful that KCRMA board actions must be fair to all KCR homeowners.

DISCLOSURE:

I own a KCR home backing to Chatfield Ave., and I believe that it is in the best interest of KCR property owners, for the benefit of appearance and property values, to favor that the Ranch House assume financial responsibility for all community perimeter fences. I do not believe that Writer, the builder of my Village neighborhood, or any other developer, ever contemplated that the community's HOA (the KCRMA) would ever abandon a common element, particularly perimeter fencing which clearly by design was never intended to be owned by individual homeowners. The Chatfield fence is built in 8' sections which do not remotely align with lot property lines, nor do the brick columns correspond to individual lots. Corner posts and markers do not exist.

Additionally, I dispute the interpretation of the 2017 KCR resident survey results pertaining to fences, as well as the formulation of questions and survey implementation. Community perimeter fences were described as "Resident-owned" which is false and impossible to determine. The fence question was the only question directly tied to a dues increase; and my household never received an invitation to complete the survey until I contacted the Ranch House and inquired.

Still, 33% of respondents approved of the Ranch House taking over and paying for fences, along with a dues increase tied to that measure, which was a strong showing of support. I am unaware of any other situation where KCR residents have agreed to that extent on a specific project.

Respectfully submitted,

Jerry Sullivan

KCR resident and property owner; KCRMA dues-paying member, and KCRMD taxpayer

.

Homeowner trees in fence

Homeowner installed gate

Typical, weathered, unmaintained 31-year-old fence and post

A landscape timer displaced from supporting timer by attached and broken fence post levering action (view from owner side)

Original 12" nails securing timbers to posts, no remaining wood around rusty nail

Homeowner installed weld wire causing rotted, broken fence posts stress and dominoe collapse

fence posts broken at base, levering landscape timbers

A landscape timber clearly uplifted by tree root of homeowner property tree

Homeowner installed gate, levering, trees along fenceline

Committees 2018

Community Planning Committee Number of Members: 7 (Can have 5-11 members) Number Seeking Re-Appointment: 6 (Kedra Hood stepping down) Number of Applicants: 3

Current Members Elizabeth Dowdell Chris Figge Chris Hice Kedra Hood (stepping down) Michael Miro Melinda Sanders Valerie Walling

Applicants Benny Dix Beatriz Lynch (also applied for Architectural and Open Space) Ryan Rogers

*Liaison Recommendation – Reappoint all current and applicants

Covenant Committee Number of Members: 3 (Can have an odd number up to 7) Number Seeking Re-Appointment: 3 Number of Applicants: 4

Current Members Emma Figge Janet Raban Matt Thomson

Applicants Christina Niemi Matt O’Brien Cheryl Schaal Bob Siegel

*Liaison Recommendation – Reappoint all current and applicants

VII. B.

Architectural Committee Number of Members: 5 Number Seeking Re-Appointment: 5 Number of Applicants: 2

Current Members Peggy Coen Wade Cummings Brian Daigle (Consultant) Chris Figge Kieran Hardesty

Applicants Beatriz Lynch (also applied for Open Space and Community Planning) Courtney Gasperson

*Liaison Recommendation – Reappoint all current except Chris Figge who becomes the BoardLiaison and appoint Courtney Gasperson to Arch. and Beatriz Lynch to Community Planning.

Election Committee Volunteers Peggy Coen Susan Priest Diane Jones Annette Chavez

*Staff Recommendation – Appoint all

Open Space Committee Number of Members: 7 Number Seeking Re-Appointment: 7 Number of Applicants: 4

Current Members Mark Celusniak Colin Crotty Sean Devin Brian Lee Tim Moriarty David Schmude Bruce Stover

Applicants Joe Breheny Tom Kienning Beatriz Lynch (also applied for Community Planning and Architectural Philip Varley

*Liaison Recommendation – Reappoint all current members

VII. C.

November 2017

EQUESTRIAN TASK FORCE JOB DESCRIPTION

PURPOSE The Equestrian Task Force shall review current policies and programs listed below and develop recommendations for any updates to be presented to the Board.

RESPONSIBILITIES • Equestrian Center Policies and Practices.• Boarding wait lists.• Resident /non-resident boarding.• Resident/non-resident fee schedules.• Changes to the mixture of horses that board in the pasture, barn, pipe pen, and

shed row.• Independent trainer roles, responsibilities, benefits, fees.• Adding a part time maintenance person to the Equestrian Center staff.• Community outreach programs.

ORGANIZATION • The Equestrian Task Force shall be comprised of five to seven members of the

community, a Board liaison and staff representation.• A chairperson and secretary shall be appointed by a majority of the members.• Potential members shall apply and be appointed by the Board following the

committee approval process.• The Task Force has no financial authority and no authority to commit the MA

Board to any expenditure.• No action or implementation of any recommendations may be taken without

approval from the MA Board of Directors.

OPERATIONS • The members of the Task Force shall determine the meeting date, time and

location.• All meetings will be held in an open session. Members of the Association will be

encouraged to attend and participate.• Meeting notes/minutes will be maintained in electronic form.

VII. D.