December 7th, 2009 Covenant meeting to be held
Woodmen Hills resident Chuck Warne has arranged to hold an open neighborhood meeting on Dec. 16, 6:30 p.m. at Woodmen Hills Elementary School to discuss the process of changing covenants. He has arranged for his attorney, Jackie Gaithe, to be present to answer questions. While Warne’s experience is with Filing 8, Gaithe will answer questions from any filing.
In a letter to residents announcing the meeting, Warne said his proposed changes would “allow us to keep the power to deal with problem situations, yet return common sense to the application of the Covenants in this Community.” His suggested changes would return covenant enforcement to the residents.
Warne chose this route because he and others in the filing do not agree with way the assignment of rights is being handled now. He says three households in filing 8 “are now imposing their will upon the full 185 residents of this filing instead of allowing a vote that was promised by the builder….”
Gaithe represented Warne and a few other Filing 8 residents in a lawsuit against Woodmen Hills Metro District and the Woodmen Hills Covenant Management Board (WHCMB) earlier this year. Their issue involved legality of the transfer of covenant rights.
While covenants are a legal agreement between homeowners and a designated entity, such as the WHCMB, they can be changed by a percent of the voters in a filing. That percentage varies with each filing. The process for doing that will be discussed at the Dec. 16 meeting.
Additional information and documents are available on Warne’s website at http://woodmenhills.warneent.com.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Since I am not getting my questions answered on a different post, I will try to get an answer here because it has to do with Covenants.
Jan, can you tell the residents if you’re making any headway in your pursuit of “Getting the Covenants in line”? And if you are, could you please elaborate for us?
Do you know who it was that decided not to ask the 185 homeowner of Filing 8 and a Portion of 9 to vote on if they wanted a Covenant Management Company to take over covenants or leave it as a Home Rule Community?
Larry, can you let me know where to find the WHMD’s Charter/Purview? I would like to see where it states that the WHMD enforces covenants, all I can find on your website is: District Administration – The District provides the following services:
1. Street Lights
2. Parks and Recreation – Operations, Maintenance
3. Water – Supply, Treatment and Distribution
4. Wastewater – collection and Treatment
December 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I would like to clear one statement up. The covenants are not a legal agreement between the owner and the WHCMB, it is a legal agreement between the owner and the developer, which the owner agrees to be bound by when they purchase the property.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Now that I have addressed Falcon Lady’s comment, I’d
like to address Mr. Warne’s.
Mr. Warne states, “…three households in filing 8 are now imposing their will upon the full 185 residents of this filing instead of allowing a vote that was promised by the builder….” In actuality, the owners that assigned their right of enforcement to WHCMB are simply asking the board to enforce the existing covenants. The covenants themselves are actually the will of the developer, and every home owner in filing 8 signed paperwork at their closing promising to abide by those covenants.
I would also like to mention the fact that if home owners in filings 1-10 would like to see how enforcement is done, they are more than welcome to attend a board meeting. At the last board meeting, there was only one member from the community (excluding the board itself of course). In most meetings there is 1 or 2 community members. Perhaps more participation would help clear up misunderstandings of what actually happens with regard to covenant enforcement.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Grma Warne,
Section 32-1-1004(8)(a)(b)(c) C.R.S. gives Metropolitan Districts the authority to enforce covenants.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Thank you for the information Larry. I appreciate it. Have a good week.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I’ve been to the covenant meetings. Not much takes place in public view, so I don’t think that’s going to “clear up misunderstandings.” The community does not see the rationale behind the decisions being made in “executive session.” I have often been approached with stories from residents about enforcement that seems unfair and arbitrary. When I’ve asked for the WHCMB side, I am stonewalled. They don’t remember. Or that never happened. Where are the minutes that used to be kept? Why can’t you find a way to let residents know results? I’ve been told that the board is just making the rules up as they go along. I recognize the need for privacy, but there needs to be a balance between too much secrecy and providing information to residents. Let me reiterate that I moved here because of covenants. I’m not opposed. But I don’t see any common sense. There is a difference between those who can’t and those who won’t abide by covenants.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Hi Grma Warne–
You should read the entirety of that section of CRS…lots of other interesting things in there.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Thanks for that clarification.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
The minutes are posted on the Colorado Management website and decisions are not made in executive session. Every decision of the board takes place in public view.
I can’t attest to you being “stonewalled.” I only recently became involved with the board, and as I recall, the questions you asked were answered in a straight forward manner. Please raise your questions again if they are not answered as complete as you would liked.
I would advise residents to come to the meetings to voice their concerns instead of coming to you. That way their questions can be answered directly. I am unsure how often residents could have approached you with stories since there are usually only 1 or 2 residents and it is usually the same 1 or 2. I have talked with those that show up and they seem to have had their questions answered satisfactorily.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
S Mullen – Let me help clear your statement up. Per Colorado Statues, Covenants are between residents of said Covenant. A Builder or ‘Declarant’ may assign rights for enforcement as long as they hold property included in said Covenants or for a stated period of time in those documents. This is done so they can ‘sell’ property. They may also reserve certain powers for themselves for a specified period of time and for specified actions. At the point in which they no longer own property, the property owners under CRS become the owners of the document and have the right to change, amend, or cancel said document.
Since you are not on the list of residents of the Filing in question, I would like to ask the following:
Have you read our covenants?
What were WE (the residents) told when we purchased our property?
In the meeting the residents held to discuss Covenant Enforcement, what was the outcome?
I could ask these and many more questions, but since you do not live in this filing you are only making suppositions based on what YOU were told when you purchased your property.
Many of these answers can be found at whmd.warneent.com under the timeline along with the legal documentation. You may also wish to (as suggested by Dave Hightower) read the rest of the CRS to see why what you are doing could be considered illegal depending on another legal challenge.
At least our process is soliciting votes from the entire population of the filing – and as of now – more than 50% agree with me.
After a nice discussion with Jan Pizzi last night, there might even be a chance things could be resolved in a manner that would allow this community to come back together. It has become recognized by many people that the Covenant Enforcement being perpetrated by the current board is doing more harm to this community than any financial issues – that is what needs to be addressed.
And by the way – neither I, nor any residents ‘on my side’ wish to remove the covenants. We wish some common sense to be put in place for their enforcement.
Have a nice day.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I really appreciate your input, Shawn. I was under the impression that the board did not reconvene in a public session to make decisions after the executive session. I’ll try to stick around afterward. The minutes being on the Colorado Management Board website is another secrecy issue. Why can’t WHCMB get its own website?
We must not be talking about the same meeting. You don’t remember the butterfly garden question? And the answer was “I don’t remember that.” And the question about beekeeping? It appears that no research was done before making the decision to tell this beekeeper that his bees had to go. Bees are NOT livestock and do not pose a health threat. Less than 1/2 of 1% of the adult population is allergic to bees (I checked those stats). There is nothing in the covenants banning bees. One board member acknowledged that they were making things up as they went along. Then there is the story about the resident who was told to get another fencing contractor when hers was deployed to Iraq. You’re taking a job away from a vet and that’s OK? As long as covenants are enforced? C’mon…. that’s where common sense fails.
And is it really the job of the covenant board to make sure someone has a building permit? (that’s a legitimate question…I don’t know the answer, but it would seem not in an area without a DRC.) So it’s not the “same 1 or 2 residents” complaining about covenant enforcement. I probably sound like I’m on a soapbox and maybe I am. But there is a serious lack of information and communication. I was told recently that the covenant board “advocates” for residents. That was news to me. If that’s the case, that’s great. But that’s not what I’ve seen. And the residents in the above examples DID go to the WHCMB and that’s the response they got. That’s why people don’t go to the meetings. They feel the deck is stacked against them.
I try to get to covenant meetings, but they are held on the same night as another meeting I attend for my job. The board should consider a town hall meeting devoted just to covenants and putting up its own website.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I find this whole issue to be a conflict by those who purchased their property, received a copy of the covenants and have violated covenant conditions now wanting to make changes to fit their personal wishes. The covenants were put in place by the developer and builders in order to maintain a clean, honorable community. We do not want to have a SLUMMY LOOKING place to live. If their are those who do not want to keep their property in neat order, then they should be honest with the rest of us, sell their property and go to Crowley county, buy acreage away from any town and let their property be junky. Why is it that the crumbs of life want to bring everyone down to their level of life? If you do not like our nice community, then be hones with all of us and move one.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I am involved with three home owner associations. The local one is Court Yard at Woodmen Hills. I own property in two others on the west side of I25. I have attended annual meetings of the HOA’s finding that the board members take a lot of complaints from those who seem to defy any kind of regulations. These complainers all seem to have a different agenda. We seem to have a society of people who are not concerned about their neighbors, property values and seem to keep their property unkept, yard messy with ugly junk lying all around. SHAME ON THESE PEOPLE FOR THEIR LACK OF NEIGHBORLINESS!
December 8th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
falconl1 – I didn’t say that the board reconvenes into public session directly after executive session. However, the board does convene in a public session once a month. I did say that no decisions were made in executive session.
I don’t remember the butterfly garden question because I was not there. I do not know the statistics on allergic reaction to bee stings for adults, but I do know 3 adults who are allergic. That being said I wasn’t there for that meeting either. Like I said in my previous post, I only recently became involved with the board. I wasn’t there for the fencing contractor situation either, but since deployments normally last 1 to 2 years, it does not seem unreasonable to hire a different contractor. (I am a vet, I do understand the strain).
I did not say it was the same 1 or 2 residents complaining about covenants. I said it was the same 1 or 2 residents that come to the board meetings. I do strongly believe that the board is an advocate for the residents. That does not mean that every person will always get the exact answer they like. It only means that the board is trying to enforce the covenants evenly in each filing. The board must take into consideration what the covenants state. Most people who bought their homes here expect enforced covenants. Over the last few months, there have been more complaints about the apparent lack of enforcement than complaints about too much enforcement. Of course, these do not make the news, the blogs or the courtroom.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
It appears as if someone is trying to have the covenants changed in acccord with actions and events which the parties have already finished in violation of the covenants for their filing. If this is true, it would be the desire of everyone who breaks the law to get the law changed after their violation to exhonorate themselves. Is this proper?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
“…these do not make the news, the blogs or the courtroom.” And therein lies the disconnect. Why do residents not feel comfortable approaching the covenant board? Why do I hear the stories and not the board? These are issues that should be explored and, hopefully, they will be over the coming weeks / months.
You may hear more complaints about lack of enforcement because that’s the job of the covenant board. Those on the other end of the spectrum complain elsewhere, such as in community events or to me.
I would like to think that this community can reach an understanding that we can all live with. Or at least the vast majority of us. Thank you for your comments. The fact that you posting here tells me that you are open to communication and working out these issues.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Al, I understand your concerns, but my opinion is that a covenant board also needs to show compassion. I don’t have a lot of sympathy either for someone who buys into a community knowing covenants are in place and willfully disregards them. On the other hand, military deployments, hardship in these economic times, illness and other extenuating circumstances should be considered. There is a difference between those who can’t comply and those who won’t.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Soooo, if the covenant board doesn’t meet directly after the executive session to make public decisions, then when do you meet to do so?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
C. Warne – There is language in the covenants regarding the length of time the covenants are enforceable, and I do realize that they can be amended by the residents. Since the word covenant is really just a fancy word for contract, I am unclear how a contract can be between a person and a contract. I’ll have to do more research on some of the statements you made in your opening paragraph.
I did read the covenants for filing 8. I do not know what the residents were told when they purchased their property, only what they signed when they purchased it. Now, I do realize that there could be circumstances where a purchaser did not sign saying they would abide by the covenants, however I believe that would be very unusual and unlikely. I am not “making suppositions” based on what I was told, I am basing them on what I read in the covenants for filing 8 and the by laws.
I am unsure how covenant enforcement by this board is creating more harm than good or more harm than the financial issues. The process for enforcement is not heavy handed:
1. Upon first violation a courtesy goes out to the resident notifying them of the violation. If it is corrected nothing else is done.
2. If nothing was done to correct the violation, a second letter goes out. This happen two weeks after the first.
3. If nothing was done a third letter goes out. This happens two weeks after the second.
4. If after two weeks, nothing is corrected, the violation is turned over to a lawyer.
So, it is at a minimum of 6 weeks after the first notice that anything substantial happens. However, if the resident contacts the management company, more time can be given to correct the problem if needed, and that extra time is usually given. If the resident does this upon receipt of the first letter, no other letters are sent regarding that violation unless the extended time elapses with no corrective action.
WHCMB does not fine. WHCMB does not put liens on houses. Rumors to the contrary, I believe, stem from filing 11, which WHCMB does not have any over-site of.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
falcon1 – The board meets the first Tuesday of each month.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
What you have not said, Shawn, is that if nothing is corrected after six weeks and the resident has not gone to the WHCMB to get an extension, that letter from the attorney is going to cost the homeowner. That’s what I’ve been told. True?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Didn’t you say that the WHCMH does not make decisions in executive session? Are you saying that items are discussed in Exec session are then voted on at the next monthly meeting?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I understand the basis of your statement, Al, but I think an argument could be made that having a haphazard array of covenants doesn’t make sense. If the intent were uniformity for the neighborhood, then why have different requirements? I can park on the street here, but a few blocks away I can’t. So I’m “breaking the law” in one place but not another?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
The decisions the board makes occur in the public session. The executive session is there for situations where addresses of residents have to be revealed or there is a violation that has gone into legal or is about to and needs to be discussed. Once violations go to legal there aren’t a lot of decisions to be made. Also a summary of the executive session is published in the minutes. Usually there are simply discussions of status and the like. Of course I can’t say decisions have never been made in executive sessions since I have only been on the board for a few months.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
I believe that once it gets to a lawyer, it will cost the homeowner. I did not explicitly state that previously because most people are aware that once a lawyer gets involved it costs money. The goal of the board is for the situation to never get that far. But, you are correct, if the homeowner does nothing, it will eventually go to a lawyer and cost money.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
This one is simple — indeed, has been for almost a year, had the Board listened.
On December 16th, Chuck Warne will have a meeting at Woodmen Hills Elementary School for the residents to discuss the way ahead. Get resident involvement; get the covenants amended the way the MAJORITY want; At that point, WHCMB and WHMD step out of the picture.
If a majority don’t want to go that route, then they can vote otherwise…but my information is the vast majority of the affected parties want the change things.
Being in Filing 11, my only concern is the funding issue–and I will be at the meeting to discuss that with the lawyer.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:49 am
As a resident of Filing 8, I will definitely be attending the December 16th meeting and I am going to bring as many of my neighbors as I can rustle up to go. Thank you Chuck Warne, for making the effort to bring sanity back to the covenants.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Being in filing 11 I oppose to funding all of this covenent enforcement. When am I going to get a refund check? I am being billed 2x for covenents.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
As I understand the funding of enforcement of covenants in all of the filings except Courtyards and Parkside is that their is not a special charge for this service in by the district, that the HOA is funded from the general fund. However, Courtyards and parkside have a monthly fee paid to their HOA in Courtyards case, $45.00 per month and in Parkside it is considerably more as that HOA also takes care of payment for yard work including water for the front yard. This being so, does this mean that those in Courtyards and Parkside are now contributing to the cost for the HOA’s in the rest of Woodmen Hills? That would mean that these two HOA area owners are paying for our own HOA and helping to pay for all the rest which does not seem right.
As relates to the differences in the HOA contracts for the different filings, it is my understanding that each of the builders created its own HOA agreement. These HOA agreements are filed of record at the county on each property. When receiving a Title Committement, title companies include the HOA agreement as filed with that committment. Thus, the recorded HOA agreement is the one legally in effect. It is my understanding that by law it takes a two-thirds majority vote of all the owners in the HOA to change the agreement. Ravencrest HOA has been trying to make a change, probably a good one, for a number of years but has not been able to achieve the legal number of voting participants. In Courtyards it takes 99 votes in favor of the change where we have 147 homes. We get two or three to a meeting and not even enough proxies to hold an annual meeting without doing a lot of leg work. This seems to mean to me that the majority of people generally are happy with their covenants.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
I have read the “Proposed Changes to the Covenants” that Mr. Warne has released. This does not make a lot of sense to me. There are currently covenants for filing 8, and from what I have seen and in my opinion, Mr. Warne does not follow those. So, if Mr. Warne asks his neighbors for a variance (as defined in the proposed changes) and those neighbors says no, evidence suggests that Mr. Warne will do it anyway. The only thing the “Proposed Changes” would do is remove any realistic recourse for the neighbors. Right now there are a number of neighbors that have said no to Mr. Warne and asked him to abide by the covenants (enforcement rights sign-over), yet he continues to ignore those neighbors.
Currently filing 8 does not have Design and Review. It was removed by the developer. It seems a better approach than Mr. Warne’s proposed changes would be to vote to install Design and Review.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Chuck Warne’s covenant change differentiates between what a neighbor is and what the community is. He defines a neighbor essentially as the people living directly around you (with propety bordering your own). If it is true that the peope who have signed over enforcement right to the WHCMB do not have property bordering that of Warne, then according to his definition they are not neighbors. (To be honest, what someone who lives three streets away thinks is immaterial to my way of thinking.)
I agree with Warne’s assertion that as adults we should be able to work out issues with our neighbors without having to sign over our rights to a third pary to enforce them with strong-handed tactics.
I emphatically vote NO on a Design and Review for Filing 8. I refuse to give the WHCMB more power over our filing after seeing how they abuse the power they already claim to have.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Just to clarify…There is NO special charge anymore for covenant enforcement. The district decided to pay for it out of O & M funds, with the concurrence of The Lawyer. Never mind that this is probably against the statutes…I expect we will find that out in court soon.
Regardless, this means that all filings- including Parkside, Courtyards, our commercial customers, and filing 11 (which also has a seperate HOA that we pay directly) – are paying for covenant enforcement in filings 1-6 and 8-10. I beleive the total is over $28,000 so far out of O & M…counting the $10,000 the WHCMB received at the start…but since the billing is so intertwined it’s hard to tell. For example, how much of the $211,000 the district has paid in the first 10 months of this year went to covenant legal defense? And what about how much was spent in 2008 setting this whole thing up?
The only party coming out ahead on this is The Lawyer.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
S Mullen – I do not believe in personal attacks, especially in material issues of importance. The fact that you purport to know what I would do and why I do things shows me you have not taken the time acquaint yourself with me or the case/issue at hand. As a person who stands to lose a position of power with the purposed changes, it does not surprise me that the changes do not make ‘a lot of sense to you’.
However, if you look at the basis of the change, it simply makes each of our own neighbors our Design and Review Committee. This streamlines a process and puts decisions in the hands of those most impacted. It seems extremely relevant (at least to me and those I have spoken to) that those who live by and with things should be the ones making the decisions. These decisions and actions should not be made by an aloof, outside group, wishing to impose their vision of things regardless of the reality.
December 10th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
- I have no position of power to lose.
- If, at some point I’m not on the board, it will be because I resigned not because of your proposed changes.
- My comments about your behavior were based on my observations.
- What a person does to their property effects more than just the person next door.
- The board is neither aloof or imposing. The meetings are public and the decisions are based on the covenants for the filing in question.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:04 am
Mr. Mullen brings up an interesting position:
“What a person does to their property effects more than just the person next door”
setting aside spelling errors, this begs the question: What is the radius of “effect”?
How Chuck keeps his property would have no bearing on my property or property value…so what is the range? 1 house? 2 houses? Folks in Filing 11 could say that the rest of you are bringing our property values down, as in many cases we have to drive through your neighborhoods to get to ours–and in some cases there are dramatic differences in architectural requirements, house and lot sizes, landscaping…some of the other filings don’t have sidewalks, and allow different fencing styles.
Perhaps Filing 11 should sue WHCMB for not supporting our property values…but then, we would be applying our own standards and enforcement illegally on another filing.
Hmmm…sound familiar?
December 13th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Has anyone asked Rusty Green, I think he was the developer for Woodmen Hills, why there are so many different sets of Conveniences and not just one set?
January 20th, 2010 at 11:50 am
I may be barking up the wrong tree, but I live on Oakmont road and like many people have transferred here and have been hit with job loss and health issues and I am one of the people that have not been able to meet my landscaping responsibilities. However I am very confused that the HOA is demanding that I landscape the backside of my property that borders Judge Orr/Meridian, when there is only a handful in our area that have done it. Now they tell me I owe close to $1,000 in lawyers fees?
Can you anyone enlighten me?
Thanks
January 20th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
What filing are you in?
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Hi Darren,
You are unfortunately in Filing 11. They are separate from the Metro District and the Covenant Board. I have heard lots of bad things about how the Management Company in Filing 11 is handling the covenant situations. They have no compassion or common since when it comes to dealing with the residents. For your backyard landscape, if it is not all dirt, and you have some vegetation on the ground, isn’t that considered “Zero Scaping”?
You should check out Dave Hightower’s website, http://woodmenhillsinfo.com, he also lives in Filing 11.
Hope this helps.
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:04 pm
To Al Kreps:
Al, I won’t be voting for you. You make black and white assumptions about why many folks have issues with the covenenats. Very few folks who paid in excess of $250K will let their yards or property values go to pot – nor do I believe they want the covenants to go away so that they can. Their issues are with the perception that their rights to assign enforcement were trampled and with the inflexibility to gain variances to covenants – in other words – when it makes sense, logic, to give a homeowner a variance – nobody can – because its not allowed per the covenants. Your comments, “These complainers all seem to have a different agenda. We seem to have a society of people who are not concerned about their neighbors, property values and seem to keep their property unkept, yard messy with ugly junk lying all around. SHAME ON THESE PEOPLE FOR THEIR LACK OF NEIGHBORLINESS!” overly generalizes and is flat out insulting to many. However, it clearly serves to demonstrate your position and willingness to hear (or in this case not hear) issues from the community since you have obviously already made up your mind. Thank you for helping me to vote accordingly.
August 16th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
LRUMAR Publications listed as 11605 Meridian Mkt Vw 124-380 in Falcon—seems to be a RIP OFF!! Anything you can do ???
The company is all over the states scamming–giving Falcon Co the worst reputation ever.
August 19th, 2010 at 9:23 am
I didn’t know much about this organization until you posted. They sell magazines door to door. It appears to be Buyer Beware. The website is NOT interactive and their message is very defensive. I did a Google search and found other complaints (see http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/lrumar-publications-llc-c306341.html). The Better Business Bureau says it is NOT a BBB accredited business nor rated at all because BBB doesn’t have enough information about them. If you can give me more details, Jennifer, I can look into it further. You can email me direct at falconlady80831@yahoo.com.