Fwd: Backlot Drainage Causing Concrete Sinkage

[Andy Mowery]

John,

It appears that Mr. Hammond reads the document differently, which departs from past practices. 

Could you please encourage the Engineering Department to look into this issue?

The problem here is that POHOA is not maintaining the area, and now we have the PID stating that they have no intentions to maintain it either. This has become a "hot potato". 

I also don't appreciate being told to do the work myself. We just raised property taxes (and the PID taxes) by extraordinary amounts, and now we are told to do the work ourselves?!

What is going on here?

Andy

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Buck Hammond <buck.h...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Backlot Drainage Causing Concrete Sinkage
To: Andy Mowery <poho...@gmail.com>
Cc: Poudre Overlook at FtC <atftcpoud...@gmail.com>, Lora B 4POHOA <lb4p...@gmail.com>, Clay Jones <jone...@gmail.com>, Walker G. Flanary <wgfl...@gmail.com>, John Tunna <poho...@gmail.com>, Katie Beilby <beil...@co.larimer.co.us>, Monty Davis <foco...@gmail.com>, Keith W Knight <send....@gmail.com>

Dear Mr. Mowery:

Thank you for attending the meeting and voicing your concerns.  You have misinterpreted the document. The County Engineer clearly states "This document describes eligible maintenance activities for the PID. It does allow for maintenance of drainage systems as they relate to the streets themselves but the intent was not for the PID to maintain the detention areas which lie within HOA owned parcels. The PID fund balance is primarily set up to maintain the streets and sidewalks."

The PID is not responsible for maintaining the drainage areas in the open space (as I explained before and during the meeting) however I did walk the area behind your house and north to the drain and it does need to be cleaned.  I will be out there Monday morning at 7:30 with a shovel and weed whacker to clean it up and look forward to your help which should resolve any slow drainage.

Buck Hammond PID #30 President

On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 8:01 AM Andy Mowery <poho...@gmail.com> wrote:

To the POHOA Board and PID Board:

It appears there has never been a need for interpretation about responsibility for the stormwater infrastructure. A review of Exhibit B: Description of District Activities has plain language that determines that this is, in fact, PID responsibility.

I do believe that the POHOA Board needs to consider the contributing factors of timing of mowing, as well as the resulting large debris causing accelerating sediment deposits because the mowing is done by a contractor who is not mulching the grasses like had been done from 2004-2019. I believe we need to have a Landscaping Committee, and not control of these decisions by the Treasurer, Director Jones. 

The combination of PID Directors being unaware of the maintenance required by that group and the poor practices of the POHOA Board, we are seeing a problem develop that may have significant costs, particularly if there is continued inaction. I believe a maintenance plan needs to be written into the PID documents so there is continuity, as it appears that this has dropped off the radar since 2018. 

And, I think POHOA needs to have in its documents something clear for Directors to know and understand that their maintenance may impact the concrete drainage tiles.

My original purpose was to say, as long as you were doing concrete work, this should be added to the list. I'm sorry I had to go through the effort to prove first that it was PID responsibility. Please look into what needs to be done, and if there is concrete replacment (meaning it cannot be raised somehow from sinking), there's a good reason to only have to bring the concrete truck out once - fuel cost. Get as much done as possible on the day you replace concrete sidewalks, and add this to the list.

Thank you for considering the prioritization of this issue.

Sincerely,

Andy

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 5:53 PM Andy Mowery <poho...@gmail.com> wrote:

Follow up:

I recalled that the PID Minutes had references in several years to who is responsible for the drainage areas. While mowing is the responsibility of the HOA and has not been in dispute, the drainage itself appears to be the responsibility of the PID.

While there are some indications it was an open question in 2013-2015, it appears in 2018, the PID Board definitively took responsibility for the maintenance of clearing the drainage areas of "sediment":

"A decision was made to do minor maintenance on storm drainage areas. This will include keeping outlet drains clear of debris and removing sediment from concrete drainage structures next to the road. This work will be done by the Board members."

Source: https://apps.larimer.org/engineering/impdist/Poudre%20Overlook/MIN_07_16_18.pdf

 If the intention of PID was to only perform maintenance "next to the road", and not throughout the entire drainage tile network, then there appears to be an issue of communication between the PID and the POHOA Board.

In the 2014 Meeting Minutes, no such caveat is mentioned:

1. Old Business, d. Activities, #6:

"Performed minor maintenance to drainage structures to maintain water flow (sludge/debris removal).

Minutes from 2013 mentions "Responsibility for maintaining stormwater outlet structures", but has no details.

Minutes from 2015 discusses the topic of PID considering "petitions" to create "no mowing" areas in the drainage, including putting trees or shrubs in these spaces. If PID has no power or authority over the "outlots", it's odd this discussion would occur at all. Yet, there's a mention of "uncertainty as to which controls" - PID vs. POHOA. Again, the minutes lack detail to decipher.

What is clear is that there's no mention of maintenance of removal of debris or sediment in the minutes since 2018 (5 years ago), and it appears that we now have sinking concrete as a result of this oversight.

If there is still a dispute over whether the POHOA Board or PID has "control" or "responsibility" for these areas, the groups need to meet and resolve this once and for all. It would be a good idea for continuity to leave something clear about this for future HOA and PID Directors, whichever way the decision goes. If POHOA is responsible, it has not been budgeted for years. 

And, if PID is responsible, and we need to increase collections to cover the cost, then we have reached the limit of $40k without a vote from homeowners about future increases. Noting that in 2014 meeting minutes, the estimate to replace the "valley gutter" in 2015 (not sure what that means, exactly) was $16,000, it appears that this is a significant expense that was not presented in projected costs for PID at the December 2022 meeting. I am wondering if we have surprise costs around the corner if no one is paying attention to maintaining the storm drainage concrete/infrastructure.

Meanwhile, I think the problem on the East end needs attention as the water is no longer reaching the intended destination due to the missed maintenance.

Sincerely,

Andrew Mowery

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 4:36 PM Andy Mowery <poho...@gmail.com> wrote:

To the Board:

After some decent rains this afternoon, I went out to the drainage at the far East end of POHOA to take some photos and observe the water flow. I have previously sent emails to the POHOA Board about this issue in past with no substantive response. I believe the problem is accelerating.

As you may be aware, the drainage along the Western half of the South side of POHOA flows from Overland to an underground culvert near the center of the neighborhood. The Eastern half splits the flow, with some flowing Westward to the same culvert. But, the remaining flows East to the curve that then sends the water to a culvert that goes to a culvert that goes under the connection to Solar Ridge.

I have been observing for some time that the water is not really making it to that culvert, and is instead accumulating into standing water along the East End drainage tile. If one goes to the exiting section of the culvert, you can visibly see that the tube is dry (even on a day like today with significant rain - 0.16" so far today). I have observed the tube dry even on days with over 1" of rain.

I had planned on raising the issue at tonight's PID meeting because I did not see the work scheduled with the other concrete work. However, walking back from taking the photos, I ran into Mr. Hammond, who observed the condition with me, but said that this tile is not the responsibility of PID, but rather the POHOA Board.

While serving on the POHOA Board in June of 2022, I raised the issue with Directors Ballweber and Jones, but was unable to garner their interest enough to put it on the agenda of any of the 12 meetings between June and November of 2022. I believe that both indicate that they didn't think the POHOA Board had control or authority over this concrete tile. 

I believe that there are maintenance issues contributing to the problem:

1. The contractors chosen since 2020 for mowing the outlots do not use a tractor with a trailing set of mowers in an array. instead, it is a rigid Bobcat with the mowing out in front. The result is that the grasses (which are growing far too long because of delayed scheduling) are not mulched, and what is left behind are long thick grasses that do not break down for a long time. AS a result, they wind up in the drainage area and accumulate at the entry to the East end culvert tube. That creates blockage allowing standing water, which subsequently is causing the concrete to sink.

2. The accumulation of standing water has now led to the tile being permanently covered with sediment (dirt/clay/mud) that is then creating a barrier to the flow that persists even when the grasses have started to break down. It's a year-around problem, inhibiting the flow of melting snows as much as spring/summer/fall rains.

3. Because of the lack of maintenance (timely grass mowing, clearing of resulting grass debris, or clearing of mud/sediment), the standing water has led to the concrete at the SE corner now being lower than the tile going northward (towards the culvert opening) to the point where the water NEVER actually goes into the culvert except for extreme weather events - but not even when there is 1" of rain in 24 hours!

Because this problem has been ignored for several years, I believe the cost of repairing the issue is now increasing. And, because the Board has refused to allow other homeowners who want this put on the agenda to either participate (as Board members), or does not allow them to be raised at meetings due to tight control over meetings, there's no money budgeted for such a project.

Therefore, after learning that PID will not be addressing this problem at all from Mr. Hammond this afternoon, I believe it behooves the POHOA Board to attend this meeting at 7pm tonight, to address whose responsibility this really is. And, if it is the Association that must pay for such repairs, it may make sense to coordinate the concrete work being scheduled for sidewalks and roadways to minimize the expense of these repairs.

It may also be necessary to consult with engineers at Larimer County, and to address whether this may be a construction defect from the original builder, and whether there is any potential financial support for these repairs. Whether the POHOA Board has neglected to maintain the area properly causing the problem is a likely defense of pursuit of getting reimbursement from other parties - particularly since the builder went bankrupt before the HOA was fully built out.

I hope that someone finally puts this on some agenda and addresses the issue soon. As you can see from the photos from 3 successive years, the problem is only getting worse.

Sincerely,

Andrew Mowery

970-310-5296

JUNE 2021 - Showing water accumulation on a day where it had not rained for 2-3 days prior.

JUNE 2022 - Showing the sediment debris left when dry. Note, however, that in 2022, you could still see drainage tile concrete all the way to the culvert in the far distance.

JUNE 6, 2023 - Showing water accumulation and debris

The overgrowth literally covers the entire drainage now.

JULY 20, 2023 - Showing progression of water accumulation a month+ after mowing was completed in June. There's still many piles of dried grass blocking the flow.

Exit tube on 7/20/22 is dry - there is no flow through the culvert any longer.

[Andy Mowery]

Mr. Hammond,

Thank you for the follow up. Katie and I spoke today, and I understand that there is a uniform approach to drainage in all HOAs in the County. I do understand that the incorrect Exhibit B caused you to make comments about my misunderstanding, but I do think the ACTUAL Exhibit B remains problematic.

It creates the opportunity for HOA Board members (who are not trained, certified, or otherwise directed by any of HOA governing documents) to interpret Exhibit B in a way that leaves us in the situation we find ourselves in. Lack of specificity leads untrained volunteers to interpret documents without consequences because their actions are always protected by the Business Judgement Rule and a presumption that D&O Insurance will ensure no personal responsibility. This is a recipe for financial problems.

I therefore respectfully ask that Exhibit B be reviewed by the County and PID to see if there is a combination of words and maps/diagrams that makes it impossible for anyone to interpret them in a such a way as to presume PID rather than the HOA has responsibility for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the concrete and culverts in the drainage areas. I think this is a reasonable step to ensure continuity of understanding.

Meanwhile, the problem itself remains: We have at least one section where the slope of the concrete is upwards (negative slope), and water will not pass. As a result of the accumulation of water, it will continue to seep between the concrete tiles, and subsequently, we can expect them to sink further. This may be happening in other locations. This is called "undercutting" in the video linked below.

Furthermore, the fact that we have allowed weeds to grow over the edges of the concrete and create a sediment layer that extends up to 2-3" over the concrete in multiple locations along the approximately 1 mile of drainage tile will lead to weeping (water being pulled over the top of the concrete and around to under the substrate), as well as the effects of wet sediment being in contact with the concrete through freeze/thaw cycles leading to spalling of the concrete. 

It is clear that after a review of the minutes and agendas of POHOA from inception through current, no Board has ever acknowledged responsibility or taken action for maintenance of this drainage system. It is also a potential concern that due to a lack of maintenance, the culverts that go under Headwater (midway through subdivision starting at the South drainage outlet area), and the one going under the crossover paved section into Solar Ridge, have probably never been inspected or cleared in TWENTY YEARS. I've never seen it mentioned, never seen any indication on any budget or financial documents that a contractor be hired, and I question whether that particular activity is something that SHOULD be done by volunteers (for all we know, we have animals living in them, particularly if they have been dry for some time). 

Given that the PID did a cost estimate in 2016 for replacement of concrete in the large drainage pond ($16k), someone who has served on the PID certainly knows how to estimate the cost, and extrapolating that estimate and accounting for significant inflation of costs since that time, we can estimate that the value of the concrete and culverts is likely a large 6-figure number, if not over $1M. Again, we have absolutely no plan or reserves for maintenance, repair, or replacement of these infrastructure assets. The video below also emphasizes that lack of maintenance can lead to significant costs.

All FOUR members of the POHOA Board have been copied on this thread, and not one of them has spoken up to say "Yes, we know this is our responsibility". While it may not be the PID or County responsibility to tell them so, the fact that Director Flanary attended last Thursday's meeting and has previously described you as his "best friend" (and joked about sitting on your lap for lack of chairs at the meeting, underlining the closeness of the relationship), it behooves the PID to sit down with the POHOA Board to accomplish the following:

1. Advocate that the POHOA Board develop a Stormwater Drainage Maintenance Policy

2. Advocate that the POHOA Board perform an assessment of appropriate financial reserves (perhaps with the similar 40-year window PID uses) to maintain, repair, and replace the infrastructure as necessary. Planning should perhaps consider building reserves over a longer timeframe to avoid a sudden massive Special Assessment.

3. Advocate that the POHOA Board engage County resources to become trained on how to maintain the stormwater system and culverts, to reduce long-term costs and extend the life of the system.

4. Coordinate with the POHOA Board to possibly save money by doing the repair work on at least one section which no longer has a downward slope at the same time other concrete sidewalk and pan work is being done in 2023. The PID and POHOA have a history of cost-sharing, and this should not present any greater difficulty in coordination or accounting.

I would recommend that the POHOA Board add to its agenda a review of this website from Thornton, CO along with the educational video on the subject matter. The Board should also seek additional educational resources to learn more about this responsibility.

Thornton website: https://www.thorntonco.gov/government/infrastructure/streets/Pages/stormwater-maintenance.aspx

Thornton video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZvy2BXk-Qs&t=6s

It might also be a good idea to discuss Katie's personal experience with her own HOA and a stormwater detention pond that caused flooding due to uninformed actions by an HOA Board (with Kellison, our former manager, being involved in that HOA). An uniformed Board can cause problems, damage, and create significant expenses for homeowners if they are unaware of their duties and responsibilities. I think that Exhibit B gives POHOA Board members a confusing description that has led to neglect of required maintenance, and we are just seeing the first results of 20 years of neglect. We should nip this in the bud before we have an expensive situation in our own HOA. I would like to see PID explain this to the Board, on the record, at the next POHOA Regular Board Meeting so that it is an agenda item, on the record, and in the minutes.

I think it also behooves POHOA to check with American Family Insurance to make sure that this infrastructure is covered (I don't see it in our past policies), and what the requirements for maintenance are necessary to ensure coverage is not revoked because of negligence in maintenance. Perhaps the cost of repairing the section with the negative slope is covered under the existing policy (and explains why we have no budget). Again, this has never been discussed in a POHOA meeting and recorded in the minutes.

Homeowners in POHOA deserve to know if there is a surprise expense down the road, and future homeowners (buyers) should be informed of the status of such infrastructure and costs, as well as whether there is adequate insurance coverage or reserves.

Thank you for doing your part, and I hope to hear some response from the POHOA Board who has been copied on these emails.

Sincerely,

Andy

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 8:23 AM Buck Hammond <buck.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

Good Morning Katie:

Thank you for the clarification that the HOA parcels are private and the PID is not responsible for up keep.

Have a great day

Buck

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 8:00 AM Katie Beilby <beil...@co.larimer.co.us> wrote:

Good morning, 

I hope this email finds you all well! 

The PID can cover the costs for the maintenance of drainage systems as they relate to the streets and maintenance of the listed streets,  However, when the wording listed is public storm water facilities, that is for the public stormwater facility within the right-of-way. 

HOA parcels are private and are intended to to have upkeep from the HOA, not the Public Improvement District. This includes any detention areas that lie within the HOA parcels.  The storm water within the roads has the option to be maintained.

There are often times where HOAs and PIDs have a perceived overlap of responsibilities.  In this case, we stand consistent in our answer to all of our improvement districts. Also, the document online is the approved document, and I apologize that the description of improvements emailed out were not correct.   

Thank you and I hope you all have a great day. 

	Katie Beilby  Business Operations Manager
	Engineering 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, 80521 | 3rd  Floor W: (970) 498-5726 | M: (970) 219-4992 beil...@larimer.org | www.larimer.gov/engineering

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 7:09 AM Buck Hammond <buck.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

Andy:

Regardless of the creation date it, like the Constitution, is a governing document and clearly shows the PID is only responsible for the roads and sidewalks.  If you have other questions about that area, direct them to the HOA.

Buck

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 6:06 PM Andy Mowery <poho...@gmail.com> wrote:

Buck,

1. The document you have sent was created in March of 2004, which predates the formation of the PID.

2. According to the records obtained on the Larimer County website for Public Improvement Districts, the PID was actually formed on November 23, 2004. 

Source: https://apps.larimer.org/engineering/impdist/Poudre%20Overlook/Documents/Formation%20Resolutions%20-%20Poudre%20Overlook.pdf

According to that same document, the Board of County Commissioners voted to approve a Resolution forming the district on August 27, 2004. In both cases, these dates are substantially after the date of your document.

Some notable observations:

A. The Formation Resolutions include a reference to Exhibit A, but do not appear to include any reference whatsoever to Exhibit B. 

B. I would agree with you about an element of this document that states that the purpose of the district to maintain the roads:

However, that statement also excludes any statement regarding the sidewalks, which is a maintenance duty and obligation that the PID has clearly adopted by actually coordinating and paying for repairs last year and this year (per your vote on Thursday). Therefore, if we are looking for document originalism, there seems to be some departure from original documents and the actual practices of the PID. 

And, since we do not appear to have a dispute over the PID having a responsibility to maintain stormwater drainage that is actually attached to the roadways (and that isn't included in the purpose), it would appear that the PID has adopted policies and practices that include elements not in that original "object and purpose" statement. Therefore, while I acknowledge it aligns with your theory and narrative, it doesn't align with observable practices - particularly when reviewing the meeting minutes from 2013-2018.

C. While Exhibit A is mentioned within the resolution, there is no reference whatsoever to Exhibit B. I would like to learn more about exactly what "Exhibit B" is tied to, and when that document was attached, as well as the history of any revisions.

3. The current Larimer County website is the source of the Exhibit B document at this URL: https://apps.larimer.org/engineering/impdist/Poudre%20Overlook/Documents/Description%20of%20Improvements%20-%20Poudre%20Overlook.pdf

This raises some questions:

A. If the Engineer is stating that some "original" Exhibit B controls, why would there be an alternate version posted on the website? Wouldn't the website post the actual and current version? Why would some hidden "original" document control in this situation. It's very unusual to even suggest such an arrangement.

B. If we review the Properties of the document on the website, we can see that it is Version 1.3 of the document dated 6/16/20. While there appears no information on the Larimer County website explaining the update, it is noted that in April of 2023, Larimer County updated the Bylaws without any public-facing explanation either. It indicates to me that the County updated Exhibit B no later than 6/16/20, however, we would probably need to see versions 1.1 and 1.2 (or any sub-updates, not knowing the nomenclature used).

C. If we know that there is no public-facing record of the change from the one in March of 2004 to June of 2020, then I would recommend that you confer with the County Engineer and Attorney to learn about what is the CURRENT Exhibit B that controls the Description of Improvements. It is noted that the 2004 version says "plan", but since it predates the formation of the PID, that plan may not have been what was actually approved by Resolution. And, we don't seem to have a clear record of whether Exhibit B was actually part of what the Commissioners approved in August/November of 2004, or whether Exhibit B was a modification that occurred sometime later - and how that version actually reads.

4. Given these circumstances, I believe it is appropriate to request that Amy review the document on the current website, and research and report on the history of changes to Exhibit B. This should include who uploaded a modified document dated 6/16/2020, and who is the authority that approved of changing the current Exhibit B on the website. 

5. Also, if this is the final determination of the County, and the concrete is the responsibility of the HOA, then I believe there is an urgent matter as the HOA has never once adopted mainentance practices described in Exhibit B, has no budget for this maintenance, and also has no reserve funds to repair or replace the concrete. It would appear that the POHOA Board has been oblivious to this potentially huge cost since its inception (there's never been a meeting or agenda item mentioning such maintenance or repair/replacement cost), and is therefore going to be put in a position of a potentially large cost that could potentially create substantial Special Assessments at some point in the future. 

6. Your response has not addressed the fact that there is currently a section of this drainage tile with a negative slope. Water will not run uphill. There are two sections that have a lowpoint, and the tile before has a greater slope (towards the culvert) than those behind it in the flow, and those after this section. The next tile has an upward slope. Below are pictures using a 4-foot level.

7. Regardless of the PID and Larimer County Engineer deflecting responsibility for this problem, the fact of the matter is that due to the upward slope, even if the sections have now been cleared after up to 5 years of neglected maintenance (by whichever party is ultimately responsible), the upward slope now creates a section that will always have standing water when there is significant precipitation. And, because the low point is between two sections, the water then drains and continues eroding support (the problem will get worse). Therefore, action by SOMEONE is necessary. You can only play the "hot potato" game so long, but if it is POHOA responsibility and not PID, then someone needs to definitively tell the non-profit corporation that it is their responsibility to maintain, repair, or replace.

8. My original point is that as long as you are doing concrete work this summer/fall, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER REPAIRING THIS SECTION AT THE SAME TIME TO SAVE MONEY.

Sincerely,

Andy

Slope is negative on this section. The concrete line at the bottom of the photo is the low point where water is collecting. This shows a significant problem that should be reviewed by an engineer on site.

Slope on two sections following the negative slope section. 

On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 7:14 AM Buck Hammond <buck.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

Good morning Andy:

I see the problem you are having - you have the incorrect Exhibit (see attachment, provided by the County Engineer). Below is the email from the Engineer so you can clearly understand the PID is only responsible for drainage of stormwater away from the road surface.  Lastly, if you would like to join me in cleaning the area around the east drainage Monday morning I look forward to your volunteering.

Buck Hammond

atie, Kathy, Monty, Keith

Hi Buck, 

Attached are the description of improvements that were included with the petition documents when Poudre Overlook was originally formed. This document describes eligible maintenance activities for the PID. It does allow for maintenance of drainage systems as they relate to the streets themselves but the intent was not for the PID to maintain the detention areas which lie within HOA owned parcels. The PID fund balance is primarily set up to maintain the streets and sidewalks. 

I hope this helps. 

Thanks, 

Amy 

On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 5:13 AM Andy Mowery <poho...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Hammond,

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

1. You took Exhibit B and showed it to an Engineer at Larimer County, and you are quoting the response from them after reading that exact document? (below)

2. You insist that POHOA is responsible for nearly 1 mile of concrete used to "convey stormwater", even though, as a past Director  of POHOA, you are well-aware that POHOA has never once discussed the maintenance or expense of such responsibility, and you are also well-aware that POHOA has no financial reserves to repair or replace such concrete? And, you say this in spite of multiple PID Meeting Minutes indicating PID took responsibility for this work in the past? 

Do I understand that correctly?

3. By implication, you are suggesting that the homeowners who are adjacent to the stormwater conveyance are personally responsible to maintain the structures themselves. If that is true, will you be soliciting homeowners adjacent to the North edge of POHOA to clear those areas of sediment and debris? Example below.

I am requesting that you provide the actual email exchange with the quote from the Larimer County Engineer showing you asked them to review Exhibit B. I recall a similar situation where you asked the HOA General Counsel questions about CCR Article IX Section 7, and it took 3 times because the you asked a question out of context and the HOA Attorney was unfamiliar with the source document. Once shown the document, the answer was reversed. It is hard to understand how anyone could read Exhibit B and arrive at the conclusion you claim, but if it is true, there are significant effects for POHOA. 

Sincerely,

Andy

[Andy Mowery]

Katie, Amy, and John,

Thank you for your attention to the matter. 

I apologize in advance for a "long" email, but I believe this problem deserves a thorough brief on the matter for persons who may not have a reason to know or understand the problems arising from HOA volunteer management, the industry trade organizations (CAI/CLAC) that profit from the arrangement and prevent legislation intended to address these problems, and the potential need for County Commissioners to consider filling the gap in the interim.

I believe action is necessary, and as you can see, even with all 4 POHOA Board Members copied on this email (and one of them attending the PID Meeting on 7/20/23), not a single word in response has been issued accepting the responsibility that Larimer County engineers insists is theirs. I believe the language in Exhibit B contributes to the problem of Directors believing they do not have this responsibility, and a revision should be considered. This is demonstrative of the "hot potato" situation we find ourselves in. And, after Katie recountered her experience in her own HOA (flooding caused by an HOA Board deciding to put a sand walking path in a drainage channel/pond), I believe it is reasonable to predict that other HOAs in Larimer County are likely to have similar issues of neglect and poor decision-making regarding maintenance and general management of stormwater drainage channels and ponds. 

I think action by the County Commissioners should be considered by Resolution or other administrative action.

BOARD VOLUNTEER EDUCATION

It is my personal opinion that the problem is rooted in the fact that HOA Boards are volunteers who are not required to have any prerequisite knowledge (of any kind), nor are they required to participate in any educational program or be certified in having any knowledge. And, the Community Area Managers (CAMs) are also no longer licensed (program 2014-19 sunsetted), and there are numerous examples of unqualified persons being managers of HOAs - when the volunteer Board essentially turns over decision-making to such managers and/or the HOA General Counsel. None of these people have deep knowledge of engineering topics - and as a result, poor decision-making (or negligence of a need to make decisions, as is the case here) results in exposure and liability to very significant costs.

It therefore makes sense to me that the County, which has created these Public Improvement Districts (or Metro Districts, as they are sometimes called), has an obligation to step in when they know there is a problem. Homeowners are paying property taxes calculated by the County, and this includes the expectation that basic infrastructure will be maintained and functional. To have every individual HOA responsible for maintaining stormwater drainage systems without having any required education or certification when the Board members have zero personal responsibility or accountability (other than to be voted out by homeowners), leads us to situations where the problem develops right under our noses, and the homeowners who give notice about such issues are then treated as political enemies. This is unsustainable.

When each and every homeowner purchased their home in Poudre Overlook HOA as it was being built, the builder required that they get an education about "Colorado's Expanding Clay Soils", and that they SIGN a document acknowledging that they have received this information and understand it. The purpose, generally, is to prevent homeowners from allowing stormwater to drain from their roofs too close to the home, or to use irrigation too close to the home, thereby causing the clay soils to expand and damage the home's foundation. It prevents the homeowner from using private litigation against the builder or HOA when there is damage to their home caused by these expanding soils - so the burden is on them and they are responsible for the costs.

If a homeowner is required to sign a document stating that they know and understand the importance of stormwater drainage, why wouldn't the HOA Board of Directors be given a similar document that is literally the next part of that flow of water - the drainage channels and culverts surrounding the homes? 

The status quo gives the individual Directors legal cover for their actions (or negligence) via the Business Judgement Rule which allows them to be ignorant of requirements or duties as an affirmative defense in private litigation. Furthermore, Directors are protected by Insurance Companies who have D&O policies that make any attempt to recoup costs to repair or replace when damage is caused by negligence exceedingly difficult to near-impossible because of the legal economics.

FUTURE CHANGES IN PID MANAGEMENT OF STORMWATER DRAINAGE

It is my opinion that the County should consider, at least in new developments with PIDs or Metro Districts to manage the stormwater drainage systems - including those channels and culverts that HOA Directors are unlikely to manage properly (or at all, in our situation). This infrastructure is similar in materials to streets and sidewalks (poured and pre-cast concrete), and the knowledge about the proper maintenance is somewhat technical. The PID is backed by County engineers, while the HOA has no such resources.

This isn't just about what is running down the streets and sidewalks (the purported purview of the the PID). The PID has the benefit of having engineers on staff at the County to inspect and evaluate decisions made on the streets and sidewalks, as well as forecast expenses. The water flowing through the HOA, however, is subject to the whims of Directors who may have zero interest or prioritize arguably petty matters at their meetings. There is no standing resource, even if the HOA has a CAM (as Katie's does). These problems are predictable in such a situation.

CALL TO ACTION: COUNTY RESOLUTION ADVOCATING HOA BOARD EDUCATION PROGRAM

Therefore, I would like to suggest that the County Commissioners consider a resolution that mimics the educational requirement for home-buyers to know about expanding clay soils, and if they are truly to be in charge of stormwater drainage channels and culverts, that the County require that all Directors take some sort of class and sign off (WITH PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IF THEY DO NOT) that they know what they should and should not do - and in particular the issue of maintenance of such stormwater drainage systems. The high cost and burden falls squarely on homeowners, who have little to no recourse, as the only avenue is private litigation against the HOA, which is then characterized by HOA Directors as "suing your neighbors"

REVIEW OF PID MITIGATION OF EAST END POHOA DRAINAGE ISSUES

Since this thread is an example of a type of issue, if we review the remedial action taken by Mr. Hammond, we can see that it is insufficient to resolve the issue. While he volunteered to personally clear a section of the channel on his own, it does not address the issue of negative slope in the channel (leading to pooling of water which will further exacerbate the undercut concrete). But, he has only removed debris and sediment down the center of the concrete channel, which is at least 40" wide. I've measured the overgrowth on the concrete along that section that remains, and it is at least 6-12" over each side, reducing the overall width of the channel by more than half in some places. There are many sections with well-established large weeds (with dense root structures) living ON TOP of the concrete throughout the entire mile or so of concrete throughout the stormwater drainage areas.

Not only is Mr. Hammond and the PID disavowing any responsibility, there's literally zero response from the Poudre Overlook HOA. And, given the fact that removal of this sediment is likely a large project beyond the capabilities of even a team of volunteers working full-time for a week or more, it is apparent that decades of neglect are suddenly this hot potato where, due to the fact that HOA Board Members are more concerned with their political futures, have an incentive to treat a homeowner who is giving notice about such issues as a "harasser" or some other derogatory term. Colorado has no protection from retaliation by HOA Boards, CAMs, or HOA General Counsel (like the State of Nevada does, for instance), so to rely upon a POLITICAL process to cause an HOA Board to accept responsibility and take action is for a homeowner to put themselves in harms way both socially and financially. 

As a result, these situations become deadlocked for years or even decades at a time - with the end result being ALL homeowners sent either a Special Assessment or a sudden inflated budget to deal with the costs - which would be much lower over time if regular maintenance were to occur.

On top of the City of Thornton web page and Youtube video explaining proper maintenance of stormwater drainage channels and culverts, there are numerous sources that explain what an HOA Board in Larimer County can and should do. Another example is below.

https://megamanual.geosyntec.com/npsmanual/drainagechannels.aspx

Maintenance

The maintenance and inspection schedule should take into consideration the effectiveness of the drainage channel. Inspect drainage channels the first few months after construction to make sure that there is no rilling or gullying, and that vegetation in the channels is adequate. Thereafter, inspect the channel twice a year for slope integrity, soil moisture, vegetative health, soil stability, soil compaction, soil erosion, ponding, and sediment accumulation.

Regular maintenance tasks include mowing, fertilizing, liming, watering, pruning, weeding, and pest control. Mow channels at least once per year.

Do not cut the grass shorter than three to four inches. Keep grass height under 6 inches to maintain the design depth necessary to serve as a conveyance.

Do not mow excessively, because it may increase the design flow velocity.

Remove sediment and debris manually at least once per year. Re-seed periodically to maintain the dense growth of grass vegetation. Take care to protect drainage channels from snow removal procedures and off-street parking. When drainage channels are located on private residential property, the operation and maintenance plan must clearly specify the private property owner who is responsible for carrying out the required maintenance. If the operation and maintenance plan calls for maintenance of drainage channels on private properties to be performed by a public entity or an association (e.g. homeowners association), maintenance easements must be obtained.

REVIEW OF POHOA MANAGEMENT OF DRAINAGE CHANNELS

POHOA is not doing these things, and we are waiting for the problem to develop before we take action. We are failing to prevent the damage that regular maintenance can help avoid, and there is absolutely nothing in the POHOA Governign Documents that DIRECTS Board Members to take action. Therefore, their actions are discretionary, which is the root of the problem. If someone has no knowledge or education on the subject, what discretion can we expect them to excercise? 

This, I believe, is why the County, if the PID is to remain detached from responsibility for HOA drainage channels, ponds, and culverts not physically attached to streets (and we truly need to know where that line really is), then the County needs to change the dynamic regarding knowledge and education by requiring a program to obtain it, requiring that the program be annualized, and requiring that every HOA file a compliance document annually to ensure that at the very least HOA Boards are aware that they need to prioritize management of this infrastructure. 

As for funding such activities, we know that efforts at the state level to require Reserve Studies, let alone actual Reserve Funds is difficult to impossible. However, part of the education program should be guidance to HOA Boards in how to go from zero (where POHOA currently is) to a functional annual maintenance program, combined with perhaps some help with sourcing qualified contractors. Small HOAs in particular have difficulty attracting small contracts, which is yet another reason this may be best managed directly through PIDs and County-certified contractors (in the long run). In the interim, HOAs are poorly educated and financed to handle this important infrastructure management.

Below are some pictures from today of the problem at the East end of POHOA. After Mr. Hammond's volunteer effort, which is appreciated for at least clearing the blockage, demonstrates that we have a section with negative slope leading to ponding that is at least 2" deep. By scraping back growth near the ponding, we can see that there is 6" of overgrowth and sediment remaining on top of the concrete. Further down towards the end, we can see 12" (or more) overgrowth close to the culvert. I believe that we need to remove this overgrowth and sediment throughout, and no one from the POHOA Board is even responding. I believe the County may need to contact the POHOA Board directly, as Mr. Hammond and the PID have so far not accepted the responsibility of formally telling the Board they need to take responsibility for this drainage issue.

CALL TO ACTION: LARIMER COUNTY NOTIFIES POHOA BOARD OF DUTY TO MAINTAIN STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM

Furthermore, I believe the County may need to inform the POHOA Board, which has chosen to let one Director, Clay Jones, make ALL (as in 100%) of Contractor decisions by decree, and refuses to allow the formation of a "Landscape Committee", and has thus far refused to allow for a process to update the Landscape Policy (or create any new policy) that would incorporate this responsibility for the drainage canals being maintained, as recommended above and by many organizations, keeping the grasses to 6" length. Mr. Jones has preferred to allow growth through May and June to has high as 5-6 feet (in some cases preventing access to fire hydrants), while he directors contractors to keep the areas behind his (and other current/prior Directors) homes trimmed and neat like a golf course. 

This overgrowth is part of the issue leading to the drainage channel concrete becoming covered in grasses, weeds, and sediment - and there is absolutely no program advocated or acted upon by Mr. Jones to address this situation. He and his wife have had absolute control over the contractors since at least 2019, and attempts to address this by joining the Board, attempting to have issues added to the agenda, or by sending correspondence have been characterized as "harassment", which has resulted in attempts not only to remove me from the Board (I resigned in January), but to change our Bylaws to make removal an automatic 3-year ban on further participation - which is a power reserved by CRS 7-128-109 (Non-Profit Act) for a State or District Judge. This HOA retaliates in ways that are extreme, and interfere with the concept that any HOA political process is a path towards resolution. 

We cannot have negligence defended with retaliation, and the State Legislators under influence by Community Associations Institute and the Colorado Legislative Action Committee (CAI/CLAC is effectively a TRADE ORGANIZATION masquerading as "homeowner advocacy") vociferously fight against, year after year, any changes to CCIOA or other state law that would protect homeowners that simply want their basis infrastructure managed with expertise and integrity. If we cannot get action in the State Capitol, the next stop is the County.

Thank you for considering the actions recommended, and I hope to hear back on these proposals.

Sincerely,

Andy Mowery

970-310-5296

Water pooling at East end, approximately 2" Deep

Concrete covered by sediment and grasses/weeds 6" near area where pooling is occuring

\

Sediment and weed/grasses overgrowth is at least 12" near the culvert. The drainage canal concrete is approximately 40-42" wide (unknown because there is no area without overgrowth and sediment!"

\

[Poudre Overlook HOA at FtC]

Your email has been received.

Poudre Overlook HOA of Fort Collins

Board of Directors

[Andy Mowery]

Katie, Amy & John,

The Poudre Overlook HOA Board has not responded in a week on this matter. I would think that if it was known by the Board that they were responsible, at least one of the 4 members would write back to take responsibility (and begin the process of dealing with the physical problem that is developing). Ultimately, one of the two parties/organizations needs to say "We've got this." So far, it's a hot potato.

While I accept the sincerity of your opinion that PIDs are either traditionally or by design not supposed to address any infrastructure costs beyond the streets and sidewalks, the fact remains that the "original" Exhibit B document from 2004 was changed to the current document, no later than in 2020. I reiterate my interest in getting answers to who made the changes, whether there is any correspondence about why the changes were made, and whether the Larimer County attorneys interpret plainly written language about stormwater drainage as excluding PID coverage of the expenses for maintenance, repair, and replacement.

Specifically these lines are difficult to interpret as partial coverage of the infrastructure in the drainage channels or culverts:

A. "It shall also provide for the maintenance and upkeep of all public stormwater facilities within the subdivision."

B. "Maintenance may also include, by example and not limitation, . . . cleaning or replacement of culverts, inlet pans, and pipes to provide for proper drainage of stormwater drainage from the road surface. 

C. "Maintenance may also include construction or maintenance of improvements constructed to provide for conveyance of stormwater within the subdivision."

In each instance, the phrases includes either a "shall" (a legal absolute), "all public stormwater facilities", and "within the subdivision." Each of these phrases indicates that PID would be responsible and accountable. But, accepting your interpretation of this Exhibit means that the responsibility and accountability falls upon the HOA - and they don't seem to be accepting that after weeks of contemplation.

And, the constant rains are making it worse.

The problem is therefore twofold: We need the physical defect repaired or replace, and we need to understand which organization is responsible for the costs. The latter then tells us who is responsible for the regular (1-2 times annual) clearing of debris and sediment.

If the HOA is responsible, the problem is exacerbated by a Board that has chosen to give one individual (Treasurer, Clay Jones) absolute power over all activities that either require a contractor, or when the HOA chooses not to have a contractor, a strange "gift-card" program whereby certain volunteers get gift cards for doing labor (but others do not, even upon request). 

Does it make sense to have such important infrastructure in the hands of volunteers who set up odd arrangements like this? Does this serve the interest of taxpaying homeowners the best? Or is a recipe for what we are observing, which is two organizations treating the issue like a hot potato.

Did the person(s) who changed Exhibit B fail to understand how such language would create the dilemma?

How do we get off the sandbar?

Please let me know if we can get the background information about Exhibit B, as we are likely heading for an issue that the homeowners of POHOA need to contemplate. And, with the Exhibit written the way it is, it is not reasonable to expect that some will not read it the way I have originally interpreted. Again, I accept that you are firm on your decision, but apparently, the POHOA Board has not yet accepted it. 

Again, I just think that this one repair job would be best done while you are already doing other concrete work in the neighborhood and would like that scheduling coordinated. Unless Director Jones plans on volunteers doing the job and him reimbursing them with gift cards, which is absurd as it sounds.

Sincerely,

Andy

[Buck Hammond]

Good morning:

I thought a little context would help.  I took these photo's, one this morning following a significant rain storm last night (~2") and the other yesterday morning, and as one can clearly observe the drainage is working properly and has flow as it is designed to.  I am not a civil engineer and have not seen an engineering study on this drainage but from a strictly visual view there doesn't seem to be an issue which would require any repair.

Buck

[Andy Mowery]

Buck,

Thank you for taking a look. This still doesn't address the fact that POHOA isn't stepping up or responding. And, while your photos make it appear as if everything is fine, photos from the reverse angle reveal that we already had significant sediment deposited in the spot where the concrete is sinking. And, there was debris accumulated after just one storm at the culvert - because the grass is allowed to grow so long, and it is accumulating EASILY after just ONE storm. Who is maintaining this?

Below is about 1" of sediment (where the concrete is sinking) that accumulated after this storm.

This is showing that the grasses accumulated to about 2" thick after just this one storm, which then led to several feet of concrete covered in sediment. While your photo shows "no problem", I see a problem developing if there is no maintenance in the long term. 

If one storm can cause it to accumulate over the first rung, it is a strong indication that SOME maintenance is required on some regular scheduled by SOMEBODY. And, I believe that sufficient evidence that regular maintenance of drainage channels and culverts is part of the fiduciary duty of one of the two organizations. Please see the materials from City of Thornton and others that illustrate what should be done and how frequently. It appears you are arguing against the advice, likely sourced by civil engineers, about proper maintenance.

It is also worth noting that we have a LARGE FLOW of water that has been coming down the channel from Overland into the culvert that is about halfway down the South edge of POHOA. This flow has been noted by many, including Mr. Portilla, who emailed POHOA in 2020 with a concern about this area - because the flow went on for MONTHS.

Do we really think this should be a flowing river for weeks at a time?

Who owns/pays for this culvert that goes under private property?

The source of the water is a culvert that appears to run parallel with Overland Trail. While I can understand that it might be deemed runoff from the roadway, as Mr. Portilla notes, it runs for weeks or months at a time - even during a drought summer when there is no rain at all. So, it is hard to understand where that water is flowing from. But, it is clear that the water is leaving a County-responsibility culvert, and entering the drainage channel into POHOA.

It is noted that no one ever responded to Mr. Portilla from the POHOA Board. And, searching the records of the original gmail account, there is only a discussion between two former Board Members in 2019 (one of whom was considering applying for the PID position that you eventually took) that indicated they understood that the drainage channels were the responsibility of the PID. Not authoritative, but indicative of the assumption that these concrete channels are to be maintained by PID.

While the water may flow down a channel that narrows from 40-42" to as little as 12-18" along the South and East edges of POHOA, there are sections on the North side that are basically grown over or covered thick with debris and sediment (see prior pictures).

I believe that the root of the issue developing is how POHOA is mowing the outlots - waiting too long, and leaving long durable grass material behind that accumulates (as it did last night at the culvert by your house). Timely mowing, using mulching methods of mowing, and perhaps a leaf blower should be changes considered by POHOA's practices, controlled by one person - Director Jones. Unfortunately, there's zero communication with or from the POHOA Board on this, and an absolute refusal to allow for a Landscaping Committee to be reformed (proposed by Director Tunna in 2023). 

Ultimately, the concern is that if we continue to ignore maintenance, a surprise Special Assessment is coming at some point, and there will be no parties or organizations to hold accountable when those costs fall squarely on POHOA homeowners. 

It is my opinion, as has been expressed many times, that PID through mill levy taxes, is in a better position to collect and absorb the costs, but if this has not been built into the budget, since we've reached our maximum, a vote would be necessary. And, same goes for a POHOA Special Assessment.

It is surprising that no one has thought in 20 years of the cost of maintaining this infrastructure. All the advice from the civil engineer supported articles and videos indicates that lack of maintenance increases or accelerates the costs. It's time to put it on the radar, and not wait for a crisis and shock of a huge expense. My opinion, of course.

Sincerely,

Andy

[Andy Mowery]

Buck,

Regarding the flow, as I was leaving POHOA today going South on Overland, I noted that it appears the inlet for that culvert is Lin-Mar Acres accumulated surface flow - which may go fairly deep into that neighborhood. I don't know what would be going on over there that would lead to a flow that is continuous (as reported by Mr. Portillo and others for 3 years), but if the water is draining from Lin-Mar, I question the logic about POHOA being responsible.

In that logic, Lin-Mar dissolved their HOA, and turned over the streets to the County a little more than a decade ago. That means the stormwater drainage from that subdivision is the responsibility of the County, with no PID in the middle. It goes into a combination of culverts and ditches along Overland, and then, instead of running further down Overland, enters POHOA.

So, it's not that we are only managing the stormwater FROM POHOA, but we are on the receiving end of water that is flowing from both Overland (county road) and Lin-Mar (more county roads). It is hard to understand how the county can then pass that stormwater system from publicly maintained to privately (vis a vis POHOA). That can't be the original intent or design, can it?

I haven't done a close inspection of the North side of POHOA, but I think it's the same situation - water from Overland is flowing into "our" system. 

While POHOA has accepted the role of mowing the grass (and only budgets $1500 for this), it has been raised multiple times in POHOA-PID correspondence that we would collectively be better off with PID managing the entire system and area. Certainly, Larimer County manages all sorts of stormwater systems in a county as big as Rhode Island, and has engineers and managers on staff who have experience and training. Leaving this to untrained HOA volunteers leads to the potential of accumulated decisions leading to a large ballooned cost that necessitates a Special Assessment (which can't be spread over 40 years, as we do with all other concrete/asphalt expenses in the subdivision).

I think the advice from City of Thornton and other sources should be our standard. Snapping a picture after a rainstorm and saying it appears the water flowed through successfully, when there is a foot or more of overgrowth and sediment (growing annually), doesn't sound like proper management of the infrastructure. If it is, I'd like that in writing so that when the bill for replacing this stuff comes in 5, 10, 20+ years, we can show them the decision-making process.

Sincerely,

Andy

[Andy Mowery]

Everyone: 

OK, so I took the time to look at the source of the water POURING down our drainage channel from Overland. Turns out that while there is significant drainage in Lin-Mar Acres that drains towards Overland, it actually winds up in a standing pond (in yet another concrete drainage channel) because . . . the drainage on Overland (East side looking North) has completely grown over, and causes this standing water to back up. 

Following the drainage, which goes through more overgrown area into a small concrete culvert, eventually drains down a concrete channel into the POHOA drainage. 

Overgrown drainage channel along Overland.

But, this is a small amount of water relative to what is coming out of a PVC pipe that is GUSHING. Light blue pipe on right.

It's not possible that the source of this gushing water is Lin-Mar Acres. But, you can HEAR it closer to the road, where we discover that a TREE has CRUSHED the pipe, which reveals water rushing through it (with some spilling out, of course).

Now, I recognize that POHOA boundaries are not well-defined along Overland, so I am not sure whose tree it is, so to speak. But, there is clearly TWO sources of water coming IN to the POHOA stormwater drainage system. One of them is Lin-Mar (and there's apparently other places mid-way through their subdivision where it moves South to North, apparently through the fence), but the other is UNKNOWN.

If everyone wants to say that hundreds/thousands of gallons of water pouring from this pipe is totally normal, nothing to see here, I would simply like to know what that source is - to at least be factually accurate when writing about this subject. While it may not be a burst pipe, it is clearly not coming FROM anything in POHOA, and therefore, our drainage channels are carrying a load (and wear and tear) from perpetual water running for over 1/4 mile, and then under private property into the larger drainage pond. If nothing else, it seems like water is being wasted here, and even in a "wet" year, this appears unusual.

I'm hoping someone will use this information to investigate and figure out what is going on. If corrective action needs to be taken, please take it - one of you. I don't think this is a job for volunteers, to be honest. But, hopefully this volunteer effort to bring it to your attention will be recognized as such. It feels, at the moment, that the issue is being dismissed when it could be costing us significant money in the long run.

EAST END DRAINAGE

So, after the additional 0.5" of rain we got this afternoon, I revisited the culvert Buck said was clear. I had removed the debris earlier in the day. This single rainstorm clogged the culvert again. 

Clearly, the way we are mowing the grasses, the debris continues to accumulate 2 months after mowing. And, a simple walk down the drainage shows that there is infinite material to continue clogging the drain, which then causes sediment to build up again - immediately. 

This is going to happen over and over, and we need to have some maintenance program regularly remove this. I believe, per the documents from City of Thornton and others, that this degrades the concrete, accelerates costs, and increases costs. 

This should be sufficient motivation to put this on the appropriate agenda(s) for action.

Sincerely,

Andy

On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 3:40 PM Andy Mowery <poho...@gmail.com> wrote:

Buck,

[Andy Mowery]

To Everyone:

The attached letter from Larimer County was posted to the POHOA Frontsteps website on August 8, 2023. It appears responsive to the concerns raised in this email thread, and I do appreciate the timeliness of all responses by those at Larimer County.

POHOA, on the other hand, has not actually responded other than to have posted this letter to the website which is seldom-visited by POHOA Homeowners who all reside within the PID. It has neither emailed homeowners, nor added the issue to the upcoming 9/6/23 Regular Board Meeting Agenda. It is noted that Mr. Tunna resigned from the POHOA Board on 8/5/23 (he is not copied on this email thread any longer). It is unknown at this time whether his decision is related to how the POHOA Board has handled this issue.

If I understand the Larimer County response correctly, the existing Exhibit B had language added regarding stormwater drainage infrastructure below and/or attached to the streets and sidewalks, but excludes the system that is behind the homes as well as the drainage ponds. However, we now learn that in spite of this, no budget exists for repair or maintenance of what the County does claim is PID responsibility. Given that we are already repairing concrete that is only 20 years old, and that we project costs at least 25 years into the future, it is hard to understand why the drainage infrastructure would be excluded from this process. It appears that at some point in the future, taxpayers will be presented with a "surprise" cost which could be quite significant.

Combined with the fact that POHOA has zero planning for maintenance or costs within its own management of this infrastructure (and there are meeting minutes from PID that mislead various Board into believing PID actually did manage and plan for the maintenance and costs), the POHOA Board is now 20-years late in beginning the consideration of what is responsible and necessary to do. When HOA Boards are run by persons who have no prerequisite qualifications or training, decision-making is likely to be flawed or deficient. 

But, this combination leads to the astounding fact: NEITHER BODY HAS FINANCIAL PLANNING FOR STORMWATER DRAINAGE ASSETS!

Within Colorado Legislative HOA and Metro District/PID Stakeholder Meetings, one of the patterns identified is a problem with volunteer HOA Boards having the ability to kick the proverbial can down the road perpetually regarding major costs to maintain and perpetuate their political support. This is the act of keeping costs low to keep assessments low. But, as we have seen in at least two high-rises in Denver which are facing condemnation, when major infrastructure costs are ignored too long, it can create a dilemma where homeowners are faced with either enormous increases to assessments "out of the blue", which subsequently makes it difficult to sell their homes if they cannot afford those increases. In one case, the owners face loss of their equity because the building is being condemned, which means basic occupancy is no longer possible, meaning they cannot sell their home to anyone. The worst case scenario has played out in Surfside, FL, and the result is unaffordable insurance for virtually all homeowners in the state.

We face similar dilemmas in Colorado with insurance costs that have risen dramatically just in the past 2-3 years.

At POHOA, the only significant "infrastructure" the Board has recognized are the cedar fences. The Board from 2004-2017 chose not to maintain these fences by applying any treatment, stain, or protective finish, allowing them to become brittle due to drying out. Boards and posts frequently crack and are broken by regular predictable winds in our region.

And, while the Board advocated and passed a Special Assessment for 3 years in 2018, the POHOA Board chose to spend all the money to replace only 1/3 of the fence (which happened to be in the visual horizon of the Board members) in 2021 at the height of lumber prices. They have subsequently told homeowners that "all the money is gone" so that the remaining fence will never be replaced, even though it continues to deteriorate because the Board continues not to maintain them with any treatment, stain, or protective finish. Some repairs are performed, but there are sections that have boards that have been damaged for years.

While the current POHOA Board claims that the Special Assessment was miscalculated and then blame inflation, it should be noted that this Board includes a Treasurer who advocates Qanon conspiracy theories that include imminent collapse of ALL banks and US Currency, and then advocates taking our HOA reserves and putting them into gold coins or bullion, conveniently purchased from the coin shop where he works.

It is also noted that the President and Treasurer at the time of the POHOA Special Assessment are two of the three current PID Directors who recently raised the PID tax assessment to the maximum allowable without a vote by homeowners - projecting costs past 2045. That review apparently missed the fact that the stormwater drainage facilities were not covered by those cost estimates. Their good faith is not in question, but we have two recent examples of underestimating costs and a lack of regular maintenance leading to "special assessments" or sudden increases. At least in POHOA, homeowners had a vote on the matter, but the PID decision of 2022, with a meeting held outdoors on a Friday evening with no email notice, didn't give taxpayers the opportunity to bring up questions like coverage of the infrastructure. 

Had that been raised, it is likely that the planning for 2045 would have to have been revised, and since that infrastructure maintenance, repairs, and replacement is likely greater than $5 (the buffer below the current $40k limit), PID would have had to put the increase to a vote, which would necessitate informing homeowners of the newly discovered dilemma of not accounting for stormwater drainage assets.

Finally, while I again understand the good faith efforts to clarify the boundaries, no one has responded whatsoever regarding the ongoing flow of water from the broken pipe that runs along Overland Trail and into the POHOA drainage channel. Again, THOUSANDS of gallons of water per day are flowing, and these do not appear at all to be stormwater (even running, as Mr. Portilla noted in his 2020 email, during an absolute drought). The recent letter from Larimer County does not address this concern, and POHOA remains silent on the matter.

POHOA ACTIONS ON STORMWATER DRAINAGE CHANNELS

I have observed that Mr. Irve Denenberg has recently taken his personal lawn mower and begun mowing a path along the drainage channel on the South and East sides of the Drainage Channel. His mowing, however, continues on a beaten dirt path that runs up the side, so it is unclear whether he is removing tall grass and weeds to maintain this as a dog-walking path (he has been a daily dog-walker along this path) or if this is a Board-sanctioned maintenance project.

While Mr. Denenbergs volunteerism may be appreciated, it is noted that he is not addressing the area near the culvert where debris has been regularly accumulating (see prior emails), and in fact, steers to the East of this section. He appears to be doing this so that the dog-walkers aren't knee-to-waist deep in weeds, which is a result of choices made by the POHOA Board having only the Treasurer (Mr. Jones) having sole decision-making authority regarding maintenance of the storm drainage channel grasses and weeds. I understand Former Director Tunna advocated that a Landscaping Committee be formed, and that he could not get the remaining Directors to consider this proposal - perhaps as part of the reason he resigned.

Note Mr. Denenberg is mowing up this dirt path to the right (both sides), but not mowing the remaining channel for about 50 feet going into the culvert.

If the purpose is stormwater drainage channel maintenance, either direction by the POHOA Board is at issue, or Mr. Denenberg is making these decisions independently without direction. In either case, a plan that fully addresses the needs of protecting and preserving this infrastructure should be developed and written into the POHOA governing documents for consistency and continuity. Having volunteers who frequently change (we have had over 20 Board Members serve since 2018, representing over 20% of the community) and are not trained in this area is a recipe for decision-making that could be ignorant or negligent resulting in additional and unnecessary costs to homeowners. Former Director Tunna's advocacy of a Landscaping Committee (that is inclusive of the homeowners who properties are adjacent to these specific drainage channels) appears to have been ignored or voted down by the remaining current Board.

It is also clear that mowing is inadequate. While prior maintenance documents and videos (City of Thornton, for instance) did advocate keeping the grasses at 6 inches or less for the drainage channel), the issue in this section above is the accumulation of sediment and debris. 

I took the time to inspect this area after Mr. Denenberg finished mowing, and attempted to remove the sediment in a small section. It took me approximately 30 minutes to chop through the sediment because YEARS of negligence have resulted in the sediment becoming infiltrated with roots from all the weeds growing in this sediment.

Depth of 1-2" of sediment with weed roots - up to 3-4" in some sections

Left edge covering 12"+ of drainage concrete

Removing sediment for this 5' section took 30 minutes

Given the time taken just to remove sediment from just this one section, I would estimate that it would take volunteers at least 24 man-hours to complete this 50-foot section near the culvert with hand tools. There are many sections throughout the drainage channel that have similar sediment issues, therefore, the estimate is likely a 3-figure number, again with volunteers using hand tools. This appears to warrant the use of professional mechanical tools, which then raises issues of safety and insurance coverage (we do have coverage for volunteers), and perhaps the need to use a contractor to get us back on track.

I do not believe that Mr. Denenberg's efforts, which may be noble and in good faith, to be the solution that addresses years of negligence. Once sediment is removed, this may be a good volunteer practice going forward, but at this time, it does not fully address the inherent need.

Moving forward, I recommend the following:

1. Larimer County should rewrite Exhibit B to include clarifying language about the boundaries of responsibility for stormwater drainage.

2. Larimer County should add an Exhibit C that is a detailed map of all stormwater drainage facilities within POHOA, and what exactly PID covers and does not. The recent map regarding the sidewalks is a decent similar document that could be a template to begin this work.

3. The PID Bylaws should be revised by Larimer County to be inclusive of the responsibility of the PID Board to monitor, maintain, and manage the stormwater drainage facilities outlined in the new Exhibit B & C.

4. The POHOA Board needs to add the stormwater drainage maintenance to the Policies of the HOA, including detailed instructions for the Board and how any volunteer efforts may be managed. The current documents do not allow for homeowners to make improvements to these areas, and in fact, threaten action for such things as leaving a visible mark. Ambiguity leads to disputes, and advising homeowners to maintain the drainage areas as they see fit (many already weed whack the areas adjacent to their fences) could lead to disputes and injury claims.

5. The POHOA Board needs to address the cost of maintenance, repair, and replacement to the POHOA Budget. 

6. The POHOA Board should consider whether formal Reserves for this infrastructure are necessary, and consult professional contractors about the life span, maintenance activities, and eventual future costs to repair and replace the concrete, culverts, and any other stormwater drainage infrastructure.

7. The POHOA Board should form a Landscaping Committee as proposed by Former Director Tunna (and perhaps allow him to be Chair) regarding the mowing practices leading to the grass/weed debris that is then creating the sediment accumulation. Best practices should be developed, including optimizing the timing of mowing to minimize the effects and costs (short and long-term). The Landscaping Committee should be independent of the current HOA Board, not dominated by the current members, or assigned a Board Member who controls the meetings and agenda. All meetings should follow the Colorado Open Meeting Act, and have recorded meeting minutes that remain in the HOA permanent records.

8. The POHOA Board needs to contact a contractor to address the sinking concrete on the East side of the drainage channel (the original observation noted to the PID Board) to get an estimate. If possible, the POHOA Board should see if the PID work on sidewalks can be coordinated with the same contractor to save money. The negative slope leading to pooling water should not be allowed to persist, and mowing by Mr. Denenberg does not address this issue at all.

9. The POHOA Board should contact American Family Insurance to see if this infrastructure is covered at all. If it is, the boundaries of coverage should be known (and documented in the governing documents), and whether negligent maintenance causes loss of coverage. And, if volunteers are to be performing any maintenance or repairs (including using mechanical devices such as lawn mowers), what our coverage is for injury - I know we do have some volunteer coverage, but when repairs, for instance, could include things like a jackhammer to break up concrete, the opportunity for serious injury increases significantly.

10. Either Larimer County, the PID, or the POHOA Board needs to inspect and determine the source of the water flowing from Overland Trail into the South side drainage channel. It overflows the channel at the West End (which will result in sinkage), has led to overgrowth of weeds and grasses for about 1/4 mile section which subsequently leads to sediment on top of the concrete, and is likely to be causing early deterioration and/or damage that will result in advancing the costs of replacement by some significant period of time. It cannot be "normal" for this water to be flowing in a state that has such tremendous management of water resources.

Thank you all for your attention to this matter, and the actions taken thus far. I hope we can help future volunteers understand their roles and responsibilities in the future without having to revisit this in such detail again. Specificity helps avoid negligence and disputes.

Sincerely,

Andy

[Andy Mowery]

To Everyone: 

Over the weekend, the drainage channel was mowed either by a different contractor, or the same with new equipment. Regardless, I appreciate the changes made which appear responsive to my concerns (#7 in my recommendations). I think this is a significant improvement. I would encourage continued use of this contractor/equipment.

Small Riding Mower used on the perimeter

Tractor vs. Skid Steer

Mulching flexible blades that mow the contours of the drainage much better

I also understand from my wife's observation (I was in Denver at the time), that Mr. Hammond personally raked up some of the areas, at least on the East End. I appreciate this extra effort.

Shortly after this mowing, however, there was a significant rain event (0.77" measured at a station within the subdivision), and we still ended up with some clogging of the culvert with grass debris. In fact, it piled up vertically a bit more than it had previously.

Compared to earlier pile-ups, it's climbed a bit higher (up 3 squares of the grid), mostly with the grass cut just a few hours before. While Mr. Hammond's efforts are truly appreciated, as we can see, it does not prevent the accumulation of debris. 

Shortly after taking the photos, we had yet another significant rain event (0.80" of precipitation), and it was evident once again that this debris is partially blocking the flow of the water in the drainage channel. It does eventually clear, but can take a day or more.

I did walk the South edge of POHOA and also observed the ongoing river of water that runs from Overland Trail. Similar to the East End, there was accumulated debris at the culvert that runs under private property (which is presumed to be PID-maintained, as it also runs under the street itself). The combination of the debris from mowing and the continuous flow of water then leads to stagnant pooling of water back UP the incline from the Eastern section of this flow. You can see the moss growing on the concrete (indicating this is long-term), and the algae floating on top of the water.

Stagnant pool forming at South End culvert

Algae formations on the water indicating long-term blockage

 IMG_5647.mov

The attached movie shows the flow of water, which is constant (not related to the rainfall) due to the broken pipe that remains unidentified.

WEST NILE VIRUS

According to the Larimer County website, standing water is one of the 4 D's mentioned in reducing exposure to West Nile virus. As we can see from the photographic evidence, we are regularly creating standing water that becomes breeding sites for mosquitos. 

The POHOA Board has had members since 2020 that have regularly MOCKED public health efforts, even calling them "fake". Raising concerns at meetings or in writing has resulted in public ridicule of those who raise such issues to silence or isolate them. While POHOA may not have an obligation to provide for the safety of residents arising from the governing documents, a significant legal expenditure has been made in the past 12 months on the theory that the Board has an obligation to remove a dog that bit another dog because of the potential for that dog to bite a child. If the POHOA Board finds it necessary to expend homeowner funds for this effort on the basis of protecting homeowners from a health or safety threat, then it follows that the POHOA Board (and perhaps the PID Board) should take seriously the issue of accumulation of water creating mosquito breeding sites which carries with it the threat of West Nile Virus.

Anticipating the public ridicule/mocking from the POHOA Board, I raise the issue with the supporting facts because just in the past week, we have recorded our first West Nile Virus death of a 66-year-old male in Fort Collins. This has prompted spraying for Culex Mosquitos within the City of Fort Collins. POHOA does not benefit from such spraying, as it lies outside of the City of Fort Collins boundaries, and therefore does not benefit from such mitigations. 

https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2023/08/22/larimer-county-reports-first-west-nile-death-fort-collins-to-spray/70653868007/

While it is true that only a small fraction of our population becomes infected, and an even smaller fraction succumbs fatally, public health is not a matter where we have to have such larger numbers to warrant action. Larimer County takes it seriously enough to post the "4 D's" advisory page on its website (and therefore the PID, which does maintain stormwater drainage should as well, as it is a function of Larimer County), but those who volunteer to manage HOA stormwater drainage facilities should also take this seriously as well. 

Given that we have a perpetual flow of water coming from this broken pipe on Overland FOR AT LEAST 3 YEARS, it demonstrates that no one is taking this seriously in at least that section of the subdivision. 

INTERNET OUTAGES DUE TO CORROSION OF CABLES

In addition to the issue of mosquito mitigations, another issue that is related to water has been ongoing for years: Many POHOA homeowners are experiencing outages of their cable/internet services from TDS (the monopoly service provider in this area) EVERY TIME IT RAINS.

While TDS has known of this issue for years, only recently are homeowners starting to coordinate their efforts via the POHOA Facebook Group and discovering that it is not a problem with corroded cables from their homes to the junction boxes in the back of their yards. We had ours replaced 4 years ago, when they could not fix the problem by replacing modems in our home multiple times. I most recently observed the same action being taken at a home on Headwater (whose home backs up to the stormwater drainage channel where the main cable is buried) and spoke with the repair techs who confirmed they were doing this - yet the homeowner reported on Facebook that it didn't solve the problem.

Another homeowner on Headwater (whose home is NOT backed up to the drainage) was able to get a TDS supervisor to visit (I had made this request several times this Summer, and this is the second visit by a supervisor this summer), who advised him that they are aware of significant corrosive cables that supply POHOA homeowners with cable/internet services).

We have all asked for a mapping of where these cables run, and I am currently speculating that the ongoing flow of water from this broken pipe on Overland and the perpetual water that flows of it COMBINED with the flow issues related to the debris and sediment are creating this secondary effect.

Again, while the POHOA and PID documents may not tell those volunteering that it is their job to address this, the power of collective bargaining with TDS may be necessary to get this resolved. However, if TDS determines that the lack of maintenance practices or failure to deal with the broken pipe (which could be the responsibility of Larimer County for all we know) is the underlying cause, there may be a cost or back charge to these organizations for damaging their cables. 

It is therefore prudent for those who are addressing these issues to factor in this potential impact. I acknowledge that the causality is not yet proven, but it is clear that water in the ground is a problem within the four corners of POHOA causing corrosion, and that we have drainage issues at least at the culverts, and that we have a flow of water along a 1/4 mile stretch that no one seems willing to address or fix. 

POHOA homeowners should not be forced to endure persistent and regular interruption to their cable/internet services due to this standoff by these organizations as they pass the hot potato.

While homeowners who have taken it upon themselves to engage TDS for action is commendable, it is time for Larimer County (who I believe grants TDS this monopoly in services, and may be responsible for the water flowing from Overland), PID and POHOA (who may be responsible for drainage issues causing corrosion of cables) should consider opening a line of communication with TDS to get this resolved. Doing it collectively may avoid the hot potato approach, as TDS has shown no effective interest in getting this resolved in many years. 

I believe this warrants the participation by the leaders of these organizations to get this fully resolved - which I believe may result in a significant project to replace the supply cables buried throughout the neighborhood. This may, in fact, result in tearing up our streets at all - which would be best coordinated when we are replacing the asphalt (2024-25, if I understand PID correctly from past info). We can't seem to get a map of where their cables are buried, but perhaps Larimer County has the power and/or authority to get this information released from them.

SUMMARY

The sum of these observations is that while we are moving in the right direction and improving, there is still work to be done. I believe that given these conditions, it is incumbent upon wither POHOA and/or PID to regularly (at some reasonable interval) inspect and clear the culverts of this debris to avoid the accumulation of sediment.

In both cases, it would also be prudent at some point for the culverts themselves to be inspected, as it appears this has never been done. While the grating at the entry to each is clearly catching a significant amount of debris, there is a significant chance that debris is accumulating within the culverts themselves.  I would hope this is done at least annually, and I am sure that there are professional companies that can advise on how best to do this. I doubt this is a good idea for volunteers to do by crawling into the culverts for a number of reasons.

While I appreciate the response-in-action on the mowing, the ten ideas presented in my last correspondence have not received a direct written response. I can understand that there may still need to be a contemplative period, but acknowledgement by Larimer County, PID, and POHOA that these ideas are being considered and that a response will ultimately be made is at least a good gesture. 

I've copied them below for your convenience.

Thank you in advance for your responses.

Sincerely,

Andy

Moving forward, I recommend the following:

1. Larimer County should rewrite Exhibit B to include clarifying language about the boundaries of responsibility for stormwater drainage.

2. Larimer County should add an Exhibit C that is a detailed map of all stormwater drainage facilities within POHOA, and what exactly PID covers and does not. The recent map regarding the sidewalks is a decent similar document that could be a template to begin this work.

3. The PID Bylaws should be revised by Larimer County to be inclusive of the responsibility of the PID Board to monitor, maintain, and manage the stormwater drainage facilities outlined in the new Exhibit B & C.

4. The POHOA Board needs to add the stormwater drainage maintenance to the Policies of the HOA, including detailed instructions for the Board and how any volunteer efforts may be managed. The current documents do not allow for homeowners to make improvements to these areas, and in fact, threaten action for such things as leaving a visible mark. Ambiguity leads to disputes, and advising homeowners to maintain the drainage areas as they see fit (many already weed whack the areas adjacent to their fences) could lead to disputes and injury claims.

5. The POHOA Board needs to address the cost of maintenance, repair, and replacement to the POHOA Budget. 

6. The POHOA Board should consider whether formal Reserves for this infrastructure are necessary, and consult professional contractors about the life span, maintenance activities, and eventual future costs to repair and replace the concrete, culverts, and any other stormwater drainage infrastructure.

7. The POHOA Board should form a Landscaping Committee as proposed by Former Director Tunna (and perhaps allow him to be Chair) regarding the mowing practices leading to the grass/weed debris that is then creating the sediment accumulation. Best practices should be developed, including optimizing the timing of mowing to minimize the effects and costs (short and long-term). The Landscaping Committee should be independent of the current HOA Board, not dominated by the current members, or assigned a Board Member who controls the meetings and agenda. All meetings should follow the Colorado Open Meeting Act, and have recorded meeting minutes that remain in the HOA permanent records.

8. The POHOA Board needs to contact a contractor to address the sinking concrete on the East side of the drainage channel (the original observation noted to the PID Board) to get an estimate. If possible, the POHOA Board should see if the PID work on sidewalks can be coordinated with the same contractor to save money. The negative slope leading to pooling water should not be allowed to persist, and mowing by Mr. Denenberg does not address this issue at all.

9. The POHOA Board should contact American Family Insurance to see if this infrastructure is covered at all. If it is, the boundaries of coverage should be known (and documented in the governing documents), and whether negligent maintenance causes loss of coverage. And, if volunteers are to be performing any maintenance or repairs (including using mechanical devices such as lawn mowers), what our coverage is for injury - I know we do have some volunteer coverage, but when repairs, for instance, could include things like a jackhammer to break up concrete, the opportunity for serious injury increases significantly.

10. Either Larimer County, the PID, or the POHOA Board needs to inspect and determine the source of the water flowing from Overland Trail into the South side drainage channel. It overflows the channel at the West End (which will result in sinkage), has led to overgrowth of weeds and grasses for about 1/4 mile section which subsequently leads to sediment on top of the concrete, and is likely to be causing early deterioration and/or damage that will result in advancing the costs of replacement by some significant period of time. It cannot be "normal" for this water to be flowing in a state that has such tremendous management of water resources.

[Andy Mowery]

To Everyone:

I have yet to receive a response about the progress on the 10 recommendations or the lack of budget or reserve funding by POHOA on this important infrastructure. As we approach the POHOA and PID Annual Homeowners Meeting, it should be on the agenda of both organizations. May we please get confirmation?

I am publishing an article this afternoon on the subject, and will add updates should there be a response.

Sincerely,

Andy

[Andy Mowery]

To Everyone:

It appears that someone has removed the 2014 PID Meeting Minutes from the Larimer County website. (See below).

These were the meeting minutes that included a reference to the PID "Noting that in 2014 meeting minutes, the estimate to replace the "valley gutter" in 2015 (not sure what that means, exactly) was $16,000". The 2013 Minutes discuss the potential project, and the 2014 minutes had previously confirmed PID activity that presumed responsibility and costs.

I had referenced this on July 20, 2023 when the link and document were still there. But, it is curious that the evidence that the PID had both accepted responsibility for the cost of replacing a section and had gotten an estimate is now removed. Can you please restore the document and explain why it was removed?

Thank you!

Andy

[Andy Mowery]

To the PID Board:

According to Matt Clark, who has written an email to the PID#30 Board and POHOA Board, he was told by Buck Hammond this morning that the PID reached out to ELCO a month ago, but got no response.

I called ELCO this afternoon, and reached Randy in Engineering on the first call without having to leave a voicemail. He said he is unaware of any attempt by the PID#30 Board to reach them. 

When I asked about the broken PVC pipe, he looked up our area and confirmed there is no PVC pipe used by ELCO. They are delivering water at very high pressure, and the line that DOES run though that easement (a 24" diameter steel pipe) would create a geyser, if ruptured. He said that it is most likely an irrigation pipe, which was our original theory. This also aligns with the report that someone has been walking in the drainage channel easement and telling homeowners that it is "his" water. It was hard to imagine ELCO doing this.

The problem, however, is the issue I raised earlier in the week. If PID#30 is disowning responsibility for the drainage channel easement area altogether in spite of Exhibit B's plainly written language (that deserves amending, if that is true), then why is Mr. Hammond from PID#30 "looking into it", as Katie told me earlier in the week? And, why did that cause another delay of another month over an alleged phone call to ELCO that appears to have been a bad theory to begin with?

This does, however, reveal yet another party with an interest in the proper management and maintenance of that drainage channel. If we allow some water-rights-owner to run their water continuously through POHOA property, where an easement with a high-pressure water pipe is beneath. The same potential of issues if we create heaving or a sink hole from all this extra water is an even higher concern - because rupturing such a large water main could lead to catastrophic damage to homes both in POHOA, and in the adjacent subdivisions of Lin-Mar Acres and Solar Ridge.

The POHOA Board, which is allegedly responsible for this area, has yet to respond, other than to acknowledge receipt of emails more than a month ago. Mr. Hammond's comments about non-responsiveness from ELCO would be better addressed to the POHOA Board.

Meanwhile, if Larimer County could please provide any information about parties that have water rights on the West side of Overland Trail and how to contact them, it appears that because of non-responsiveness of the POHOA Board for 3 years on the matter, homeowners who are concerned will need to take the lead. The PID has demonstrated that it is ineffective in getting to a resolution of the matter, so waiting for them to do something/anything, as suggested by Larimer County Engineering is not working. We need to move to Plan C or D, as this problem has persisted for years.

If the POHOA Board wishes to acknowledge their responsibility, including divulging whether there are any water rights owners who have easement agreements with POHOA BESIDES ELCO, it would be time to research and produce those records. I am also concerned that we may have a conflict of interest buried in here, as we have previously had water-rights attorneys serving on PID. Did someone make an unrecorded deal to run all this water through our stormwater drainage system that is off the books?

I also believe it is time to examine the agreement with ELCO, and what our liability may be for properly maintaining the stormwater drainage facilities. If we have a contractual obligation to investigate and resolve issues causing saturation or concrete heaving/sinking, we may be in breach of that agreement. It's an apparent matter of fiduciary duty given the new revelation.

The POHOA Board claims it has nothing to hide. Fine. Then let's be transparent about this. If you are meeting or conducting business on this issue in-person or by phone/email, the Colorado Open Meetings Act requires that such business be recorded and disclosed? Is the POHOA meeting or discussing? Why or why not?

Sincerely,

Andy

[Andy Mowery]

To the POHOA Board:

I would like to thank the POHOA Board for putting this item on the 1/20/24 Regular Board Meeting Agenda. Prior to this meeting, the last response from the Board was on 7/27/23, which only acknowledged receipt of the original email notification about the problem.

At the meeting, we heard the Board considering plat maps found by Director Jeff Ballweber among the paper documents in the association storage boxes indicating ELCO had an easement across the POHOA along the South edge of the development, as well as one that went diagonally in some manner, perhaps under or near the "dry pond". The Board discussed the possibility that the broken PVC pipe could also be part of this network. We were not allowed to see the documents at the meeting, and thus far, they have not been posted to the website. 

Could the POHOA Board please post them so we can all see the easement maps?

It is noted that Buck Hammond, President of the PID, had speculated that it was an ELCO "side arm" that was responsible for the source of the water flowing during warmer months. As I had reported to all parties in the below email thread, ELCO categorically denied having any PVC pipes in their network - only steel. I asked Buck in September to explain what he meant by "side arm", and I did not receive a reply. If this is still an active inquiry, could Buck please confirm?

At the 1/10/24 meeting, the POHOA Board seemingly accepted the fact that it is not ELCO's pipe that is the source of all the water, which leaves us only with networking door-to-door with property owners along Overland Trail to learn more about the source. It was a good sign that Director Flanary seemed to indicate that any water-rights-owners who are routing their water across our property would be told that do not have any such easements and may need to cease and desist. It is good to see the POHOA taking responsibility for addressing this matter.

I spoke with a senior water-rights owner in Larimer County who joked that the easiest way to find out who it is would be to dam up the "dry pond", and collect the water running across our property. He predicted we would hear from them rather quickly if we did that! I do not seriously suggest we do so, but it demonstrates that someone is likely getting value from the unauthorized easement. I think one of the challenges ahead may be that without this easement, the owner may not have practical alternate routes for moving their water where they want it to go. I hope the POHOA Board is prepared for contingencies if that is the case.

That said, I was disappointed that the POHOA Board did not address the other issues raised in this thread regarding the lack of budget or reserves for this infrastructure. Nor did the Board address the existing damage to the section on the East end, which was the original issue raised on 7/20/23.

I would like to hear more about how the POHOA Board is going to address the budget, reserve, and repair issues at the next meeting. I do not see any meeting scheduled on the Frontsteps website calendar. At the 1/10/24 meeting, we did not see the Board approve a Regular Meeting schedule, as had been done in past years. For those of us who work and travel, it is difficult to plan for such meetings when you are only giving 2-days notice. Could you please reveal when the next meeting is earlier, and perhaps confirm that this will be on the agenda as Old Business as the issue was not fully resolved at the last meeting?

Thank you for your time and attention to the matter.

Sincerely,

Andy Mowery

[Andy Mowery]

To Katie & Amy (Larimer County Engineers):

I am writing to you regarding your prior position that Larimer County has no authority or responsibility regarding the Stormwater Drainage Facilities that fall outside of the PID#30 boundary, but within the POHOA subdivision property line. You seemed emphatic that the County could not intervene or act if there were any deficiencies. I have recently learned that there are specific policies and/or standards in the Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards that at least on the surface contradict that position. I am writing for a clarification.

The POHOA Board has now published a Landscaping Committee Charter which appears to indicate at least an intention to follow Larimer County Policy on the matter. See Paragraph B below under "Authority and Responsibilities".

Having reviewed Larimer County's policies, I have found Stormwater Design Standards on the county website. Chapter 1 appears to indicate that Larimer County has jurisdiction on matters regarding stormwater drainage on private property. 

Digging a bit deeper into the jurisdictional issue, it appears that Larimer County does have an interest in maintenance issues, even on private property that is not covered by the PID#30 boundaries.

If you will note, the County's standards and policy appear to direct private landowners to have "clear assignment of responsibilities to an established entity". That's the problem we identified last year. There's a gaping hole in the POHOA documents, in that respect. The "clear assignment" standard is not being met. This has led to evidence of confusion between PID#30 and POHOA in the past, as there has never been any policy written that explicitly tells POHOA Directors what to do. Volunteers are not equipped to simply imagine the myriad responsibilities that they may have. It has to be explicit.

In this case, 20 years have passed without the various iterations of POHOA Board of Directors never contemplating anything beyond mowing these areas. And, in spite of obvious accumulation of debris and sediment covering the concrete infrastructure, no action has been taken. The lack of "clear assignment of responsibilities" also led to absolutely $0 being budgeted for maintenance or repairs. And, the same $0 has been put aside in reserves for the eventual replacement of concrete - which we know on our streets and sidewalks does not last forever. 

Going further into the same Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards, in Chapter 3, we find that Section 3.5 Paragraph 4 describes what happens when a private entity fails to perform required maintenance and repairs. Paragraph 4 states in plainly written language that the county has a "right" to enter private property and do the work and then send that entity a bill for the costs.

While I am anticipating the possibility that you will once again write back and tell me that the plainly written language (same as Exhibit B, which implied PID#30 covered all stormwater drainage facilities, not just under the sidewalks and streets). This time, I don't see any caveats - but if there are, that is the purpose of this request for a clarification. I'm not looking to beat any proverbial dead horses - I'm simply finding the contradictions that keep surfacing pointing to a different conclusion than you reached. And, I find the plainly written language is a priority in the hierarchy on the subject of whether strict or substantial compliance standards are used as raised some recent HOA Appellate cases. In each of those court opinions, plainly written language within statutes, code, policies, or standards seems to be at the top of the hierarchy. 

If you will agree that the County does have ultimate authority and responsibility, then I think the operative question here is about the timing and criteria for action. If the county can, at some point, be called into action - who triggers that review, who adjudicates, and who ultimately takes the action?

On our issue, I think we can now see that POHOA is slowly recognizing that they can't ignore this longer than the 20 years that have already passed. But, there is damage that needs repairs, and I reiterate the fact that it would be a good idea to do this whenever you are scheduling sidewalk repairs. It is basically the same work.

If POHOA is incapable of independently getting a contractor - or acting quick enough to make sure the problem doesn't get worse and compound, then it is perfectly reasonable for the County, via PID#30, to simply perform the work and send POHOA the bill. It might even cost POHOA less to follow this path.

In any case, there is suddenly a meeting on Wednesday at 8am. I applied to be on the committee, but even though it is supposed to have 3-7 members, I was denied when they were only able to recruit 3 members. The best I can do to contribute is point out the facts to all parties, and hopefully get those who are participating to recognize that we need to have clear explicit instructions via a Policy regarding Stormwater Drainage Facilities. We also need a Budget and Reserves. 

Once there is explicit instructions on what to do and when to do it, the HOA may follow them. The problem here is that if it is ultimately the County's responsibility, why wouldn't the County have an interest in telling a group of VOLUNTEERS how to create appropriate maintenance plans and documentation - vs. letting the same imagine that simply mowing the grass for 20 years and letting it clog up the inlets until the sediment allows growth on top of the concrete. We already let our imagination guide us, and it's led us to the problems we have to solve. 

Maybe it makes more sense for the County to give POHOA some direction here. Since it is a policy at the county, I would imagine maybe even some templates that could be sent to POHOA to guide them.

Well, I can hope, at least.

Thank you for reconsidering the matter.

Sincerely,

Andy

970-310-5296

[Andy Mowery]

To Larimer County Engineering:

Today there was a POHOA Meeting with Gloria Jones acting as the Chair of the Landscaping Committee. While they acknowledged that there is work to be done in the Stormwater Drainage Area at the West/North end of Bubbling Brook that connects with Doubletree Dr. (Stagecoach Subdivision), there appears to be a misunderstanding on the part of the current POHOA Board.

I went out to the site after the meeting to take some photos of the area, and the adjacent homeowner (Paul Janov) came out to talk to me. He says he has been trying to get maintenance done by the POHOA Board, and Ms. Jones continually refers to the area as "county" property. I do not believe this to be true.

As you can see, the parcel owned by POHOA (#1640212) wraps around the cul-de-sac, and runs along the same E-W fenceline that defines the Northern Boundary of the POHOA subdivision. 

I found it equally interesting that the land to the East, which is also a POHOA parcel, is also bounded on the north by this same fence line, and that the New Mercer Canal (Mercer Ditch) is actually running in and out of POHOA property lines. I had previously thought it was a parcel of its own. 

It therefore follows that if this is POHOA property, that the maintenance and repairs of these sections fall squarely on POHOA. The problem is that we currently have a Board that is claiming they have no responsibility whatsoever. As a result, Paul Janov, a homeowner, is then compelled to perform the maintenance himself.

At the meeting this morning, Gloria Jones, Chair of the Landscape Committee brought the plat map. The problem with that document (which I have a copy myself) is that the approved plat map doesn't match what was actually built. Note that the map shows what is essentially a street connection between Doubletree Dr. and Bubbling Brook Ct. 

If Gloria is claiming that the County is responsible for this section based upon this map, but the County also has the digital version on its website, then we need the County to clarify which map is correct. I believe that after Northwest Neighbors FC (a 501(c)3 that I was part of forming) partnered with Larimer County Open Space and obtained a grant in 2003-04 for this connection to be built. There was a small ceremony at New Belgium, if I recall. The builder then pitched in additional money to build out this connection, which may have altered/modified the parcels to reflect a walking/bike path vs. a street connection. But, that doesn't mean POHOA should ignore its responsibilities because of an invalid map.

Paul reported to me today that he has to regularly clear the intake culvert that runs underneath this section citing the accumulation of debris (mostly long grasses because the mowing isn't performed soon enough or regularly enough). And, the retaining wall is cracking and falling onto the sidewalk - and he is perpetually putting the loose stones back into place.

While talking to Paul about this, I was approached by Mr. Irve Denenberg, who expressed the opinion that nothing should be done about this because we will all be dead by the time it matters. He told me that no one cares to rally behind my cause, and predicted that the POHOA Board will never take action. In fact, he said we should wait for the County to do the work themselves.

This is not to mention the area that is eroding along the sidewalk, which now exposes the underlying weed fabric (right side of this photo).

While the POHOA Board has avoided ANY response on this topic since last July, Irve has acted as an informal spokesperson given his personal relationship with both POHOA Board and PID Board members. Regarding the sinking area creating water pooling, he said we should just let it go and let the County fix it.

Since we cannot get a response to emails between July and February, and attempts to have this added to any POHOA Board or Committee Agenda (and they do not welcome open comments at these meetings if it is not on the agenda), there is ironically a stone wall with the current Board members.

I then reiterate my request to know when it becomes necessary for the County to step in and perform the work. The issues with the retaining walls falling apart are near to becomming health and safety issues, and certainly have the potential to create liability issues with bicycle riders who may encounter large stone debris from the falling pieces Mr. Janov reports having to persistently replace. Rain and snow will inevitably cause more erosion, so this problem will only continue and compound. 

When do we have enough evidence that the POHOA Board is refusing to acknowledge the responsibility and take action? 

Please write back to clarify, and perhaps this requires an official communication to the POHOA Board that is then publicly visible for homeowners who are attempting to have the funds they contribute to this Association assigned by budget to this maintenance. POHOA Reported (just yesterday) a $15k surplus in 2023, so there is clearly money available to address this maintenance.

Sincerely,

Andy

970-310-5296

[Andy Mowery]

To All: 

I received a call back from Larimer County today, and learned that the plat map was amended in 2005. The original recording was #20030134972, reflecting the map used by Gloria Jones to declare this is county land. Today it was confirmed that the Amended Plat #20060008713 supersedes, and that the land in the previously identified parcel is absolutely 100% the responsibility of POHOA.

Furthermore, I was told that the declarations are also clear on the matter, and that another document could be requested if there is any further question. 

Going forward, we need either the POHOA Board or its new Landscape Committee to address the maintenance of these Stormwater Drainage Facilities. This section at the end of Bubbling Brook is clearly deteriorating and neither the Board nor Committee appears willing to put this on the agenda, or allow homeowners to speak about it at either meeting.

The County recommended that the next  step is to file a complaint for Code Compliance on the Larimer County website - https://www.larimer.gov/codecompliance/report

While the County may exercise its powers described in Chapter 3.5 Paragraphs 1-4 (below), what is clear in paragraph 1 is that POHOA does not have the required documentation to tell the POHOA Directors that this is their responsibility, and that as a result, we have no maintenance plan whatsoever. It is compounded by Directors who absolutely refuse to even communicate or respond to homeowners who bring it to their attention. 

If this is not meeting the threshold for action by the County as described in this section, then please tell us what additional steps are necessary prior to reaching that threshold. 

Sincerely,

Andy Mowery

970-310-5296

[Andy Mowery]

To Larimer County:

I am writing to raise again the issue of responsibility for our Stormwater Drainage Facilities at Poudre Overlook (PID#30). Today, another homeowner (Peg McMorris) asked about the culvert that runs under their property and who is responsible. She too is getting ZERO response from the POHOA Board by email, and was told by Lora Ballweber at the July 9 meeting that no "unsolicited comments" would receive a response by email. So, she's having to US MAIL her concerns to this antiquated HOA Board.

One of the key questions is the culvert head that appears to be on the POHOA parcel (outside her fence), leading to a culvert that runs under their private property (not "streets", as you have put it). That would seem to indicate that POHOA is responsible for the head section, and the piping then becomes PID#30 responsibility.

While referring to the red-line map for discerning literally who is responsible for which part doesn't work because there is not a scaled diagram showing property lines. It leaves it open to interpretation, and therefore fodder for dispute.

Worse, however, is that the POHOA Board just decided to create a Reserve Study without using a professional as they did in 2020. Attached are the two studies.

In neither study does the POHOA Board take responsibility for the Stormwater Drainage Facilities. This appears to be a major infrastructure cost/expense in the future, with a 50-year lifespan dating  back to 2004, which means we are within the 30-year window.

Yet, POHOA has allocated zero dollars to annual budgets or the long-term reserves to repair or replace all this concrete and steel infrastructure. And, when trying to give a comment at the July 9 meeting, I was shouted down for bringing up a topic that was not on the agenda - including mention of their refusal to respond by email, to budget for the repairs or replacement, or add it to the inventory in the Reserve Study.

I spoke with the owner of the company who did the 2020 Reserve Study, and he found the POHOA response (or lack thereof) both appalling and likely to lead to liability, litigation, and significant costs to current or future homeowners. He recommended an actual Level 2 Reserve Study, particularly as there is evidence that reserve and general bank account funds have been intermingled since the last reserve study. I think that is the best first step.

However, Robbie also stated that a review of Exhibit B and the claims made in this email leave him in a position of interpreting who is exactly responsible for exactly which infrastructure. In other words, he can't do his job until there is a granular level agreement between POHOA and PID#30 as to which party is responsible for each exact sections of concrete/steel. The red-line map is insufficient.

Therefore, since it appears County guidelines require intervention when the property owner is non-responsive, it is necessary to reopen this issue with you as the POHOA Board is not only non-responsive, but hostile to the issue being added to the agenda, allowing homeowners to speak, or to even receive information by email on the subject - which is tremendously unreasonable.

The 4 criteria for inclusion of stormwater drainage facilities into either the PID#30 or POHOA Reserve Studies are met because there is now signs of damage or deterioration. Therefore, the issue cannot continue to be avoided by both parties, and since Exhibit B has an absolute statement about responsibility, it is also questionable as to how a non-responsive POHOA can then turn this into a 2-year hot potato.

If y'all can't stand me, then pick someone else, but stop avoiding the discussion. This is taking up much of my time as well, and my volunteerism is being treated as harassment when it is literally a critical and huge part of our reserves infrastructure, one way or the other. We know only one thing for certain - NEITHER POHOA NOR PID#30 has adequately prepared for a future major expense after more than TWENTY YEARS. 

Since the POHOA Board voted to DOUBLE assessments because of yet another fiduciary failure, it is important that the 2025 Reserve Study be accurate to not have to revisit this again (and again) in the future. For some reason, Jenn Hutchinson quit as lead of the project, and Lora Ballweber saw fit to avoid a professional company and just write it herself. Or maybe her husband, who also sits on the Board (yes, we think having spouses on a non-profit board is a good idea over here) did it. We can't tell. No one signed it or took credit for it.

We need timely action in the fact of a major increase to our assessments based upon faulty reserve calculations by VOLUNTEERS. We need professional help. In more ways than one.

Hope you respond!

Cheers!

Andy

[Andy Mowery]

Dear Larimer County Staff,

I am following up on my email sent Friday, July 11, 2025 (see below) regarding responsibility for the stormwater drainage facilities at Poudre Overlook (PID #30).

To date, I have received no response. Meanwhile, the POHOA Board remains non‑responsive to homeowners, openly hostile to questions at meetings, and continues to refuse to clarify responsibility for critical infrastructure.

📌 Key Points Reiterated

• A homeowner (Peg McMorris) recently asked about the culvert head on POHOA property leading to a pipe under her private lot. She has also received no response from POHOA.

• Exhibit B to the original documents does not clearly assign responsibility for specific sections of concrete and steel drainage infrastructure.

• Both POHOA and PID #30 appear to have ignored long‑term funding responsibility for these facilities, despite clear signs of deterioration after 20+ years.

• The POHOA Board’s newly self‑authored 2025 “Reserve Study” excludes all stormwater facilities and is unsigned, unprofessional, and noncompliant with best practices.

• The 2020 Reserve Study professional (Robbie) has already stated a Level 2 Reserve Study is warranted, but cannot proceed until POHOA and PID #30 formally agree on responsibilities.

🛑 Why County Action Is Needed

• County guidelines require intervention when a property owner (here, POHOA) is non‑responsive to infrastructure issues that affect health, safety, and long‑term liability.

• POHOA’s refusal to answer emails, allow agenda discussion, or respond to document requests leaves homeowners with no recourse but to seek County clarification.

📄 Supporting Facts

• POHOA has never budgeted for stormwater replacement/repairs in 20 years.

• POHOA just voted to double assessments while still ignoring this infrastructure in its reserves.

• C.R.S. §38‑33.3‑209.4 and §317 require accurate records and owner access—yet the Board withholds this information and blocks meaningful discussion.

✅ Requested Next Steps

1. Confirm County oversight: Please advise whether the County will formally step in to clarify and enforce responsibility between PID #30 and POHOA.

2. Provide a clear contact: If my advocacy is the problem, please designate a County contact who can work with another homeowner or a neutral party.

3. Timeline: Let us know when we can expect a response. This cannot remain unresolved with major infrastructure deterioration already visible.

🔎 Why This Matters Now

The 2025 Reserve Study is in progress. Without County intervention and clarity:

• Homeowners will pay even higher assessments based on incomplete or inaccurate reserve planning.

• Major infrastructure costs will continue to be ignored and unfunded.

• Liability for failure to maintain stormwater facilities will remain disputed, leaving homeowners exposed.

For convenience, I’ve attached the two reserve studies and my prior email below.
Thank you for your time and attention to this critical issue affecting every homeowner in Poudre Overlook.

Sincerely,
Andy Mowery

[Andy Mowery]

Dear Larimer County,

I am following up regarding the July 21, 2025 PID#30 Board meeting which I attended. At that meeting I raised the issue of inconsistencies between the red‑line boundary map and the working definition of “everything under the streets” to determine which stormwater drainage facilities fall under PID#30’s responsibility for maintenance, budgeting, and long‑term reserves.

Key points from that meeting:

• Example Raised:
  At the east end of Headwater Drive, a paved asphalt connection leads to Solar Ridge.

  • This section lies inside the PID#30 red‑line map, has a culvert underneath, and sits between curbed cul‑de‑sacs.

  • Buck Hammond stated that although the culvert meets current definitions, he believes it is excluded because it conveys water originating on POHOA parcels and feeds a dry pond also on POHOA land.

  • He further stated that the asphalt was a mistake.

• Need for Specificity:
  I recommended that instead of continuing to state that “this is not PID responsibility,” PID#30 should work with a surveyor and the County to create detailed maps and a definitive list of stormwater assets referred to in Exhibit B.
  Without this clarity, disputes will continue and neither PID#30 nor POHOA can plan responsibly.

• Budget and Reserve Planning:
  When I asked if PID#30 has any valuation, budget line item, or reserves for stormwater assets, Buck Hammond stated that no valuation or reserves currently exist.
  He estimated the entire system might be worth around $250,000, including components potentially under POHOA’s responsibility.

• Proposed Action:
  Keith Knight proposed that PID#30 work with Larimer County to:

  1. Identify exactly which stormwater drainage facilities fall under PID#30.

  2. Update financial documents to reflect their value.

  3. Budget for repairs/replacement and build long‑term reserves accordingly.

  4. Establish replacement intervals within the 30–50 year range, which everyone acknowledged applies because these systems are already 21 years old (installed ~2004) and therefore fall squarely within a 30‑year reserve study scope.

• Coordination with POHOA:
  Once this information is finalized, PID#30’s findings should be submitted to the POHOA Board so they can be properly included in POHOA’s reserve planning.
  This is especially urgent because POHOA has already approved a Special Assessment of approximately $60 per month per homeowner at its July 9, 2025 meeting, with a homeowner vote anticipated as soon as September (requires 60% quorum and 67% approval).

---

Request for County Action:

Given that both PID#30 and POHOA appear to have gone more than twenty years without budgeting or reserving for stormwater infrastructure, I urge Larimer County to:

✅ Accelerate the process of valuing stormwater drainage assets within the entire subdivision.
✅ Provide an estimate of total stormwater infrastructure value and a percentage allocation attributable to PID#30 responsibility.
✅ Ensure PID#30 updates its planning documents and builds reserves accordingly.

This information will allow homeowners to make informed decisions about the pending special assessment and ensure both entities meet their fiduciary and statutory obligations.

Please confirm receipt of this email. I am happy to provide supporting documents (Exhibit B, reserve studies, meeting notes) or meet to discuss further.

Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.

Sincerely,
Andy Mowery

[Andy Mowery]

Dear Commissioner Kefalas,

The meeting on Monday actually went well. 

Keith Knight agreed to have PID30 identify precisely which stormwater drainage facilities are the responsibility of PID30. 

We discussed, for instance, a section at the East end of Headwater that is paved (a street), but there is a gate between Poudre Overlook and Solar Ridge. Since it is within the red-line map and paved, it fits the two definitions given by Larimer County to identify PID30 stormwater drainage responsibilities.

But, Buck Hammond said that the street was a "mistake", and because the water travels from the POHOA area to another POHOA area, the entire culvert is POHOA responsibility. 

So, I raised the issue of the culvert that travels from the South side of POHOA under private property and then under a street - both within the red-line map. This was not so easy to deflect.

So I proposed that rather than a constant stream of statements about what PID30 does NOT cover, that instead PID30 define precisely what is covered with detailed maps after a site visit with a surveyor supplied by the county. It was also noted that the PID30 financial documents do not have a line item or breakout for ANY stormwater drainage facilities, which indicates that no matter what is actually included, there doesn't appear to have been any funds budgeted, nor any reserves earmarked for those assets.

Once PID30 establishes exactly what is covered and budgets for it, then the remaining infrastructure is then assumed to be POHOA's responsibility. This does need to be done in a timely manner because POHOA is actively considering a Special Assessment based upon a faulty in-house Reserve Study that does not include any of these assets at all. I believe they plan to put this before the homeowners in a vote as early as September.

Can you please help PID30 with identifying which assets are the responsibility of PID30, and to adjust the financials to make clear the value, budget, and assets for these assets?

Thank you!

Andy

970-310-5296

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 3:21 PM Andy Mowery <poho...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Clarification Needed on PID 30 Responsibilities and Transparency

Dear Commissioner Kefalas,

I spoke with you earlier today at the Commissioners’ Office. You mentioned that Katie Beilby was preparing another clarifying statement about what PID 30 does not cover.

To be clear, that is not what homeowners are asking for.

Under the updated PID Bylaws (April 2025), tonight’s meeting does not appear to have been properly noticed with an agenda on the Larimer County website. While PID 30 reserves were discussed in December, what has been missing for the past two years is a clear map and definition of what is included and the amount reserved for stormwater drainage.

ChatGPT’s review of prior correspondence and PID 30 documents has identified a conflict:

• Your office has said PID responsibilities are limited to everything within the red line on the map, yet you also describe them as limited to facilities under streets.
• For example, a single culvert begins in the south drainage, with a head located outside the private property line, then travels under a residential lot, then under streets, and then outlets in the dry pond. According to recent responses, portions of that same culvert would be POHOA responsibility, PID responsibility, and individual homeowner responsibility—simultaneously.
• At the east end of Headwater, a paved section between the Solar Ridge and POHOA cul‑de‑sacs is within the red‑line boundary but gated. Prior responses said PID responsibility ends at the sidewalk, which directly conflicts with the map.

If POHOA—currently doubling assessments due to inadequate reserves—cannot clearly identify where its responsibility begins and ends, it cannot possibly complete an accurate reserve study or fund the infrastructure properly.

Request:

Please release all communications between Larimer County and POHOA regarding stormwater drainage responsibilities, so homeowners can have transparency on this subject. It has been two years, and the POHOA Board has yet to respond to homeowner questions or allow this matter to be raised or discussed at any Board meeting.

Because no agenda has been posted, it is unclear if PID 30 will allow discussion of these issues at tonight’s meeting. I ask that you attend and support having this discussion so homeowners can move forward with accurate information.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Andy Mowery

Poudre Overlook HOA Homeowner

[Andy Mowery]

Hi John,

Thanks for getting back to me. The last email I have received from either Amy or Katie is now approximately 2 years ago. I'm not even getting an acknowledgement of receipt from them, or that they are working on it. Nothing.

There is a genuine issue of 87 homeowners facing a reserves shortfall at POHOA. We went from funding 38% of reserves to 23% of reserves in 5 years - because we have Boards that don't recognize they are overspending on discretionary items. Meanwhile, this math is exacerbated by a failure to recognize a need to budget and hold reserves for stormwater drainage facilities. Which means those percentages are actually inaccurate. 

When all assets are actually included, the percentages are likely half of those estimates. This means massive increases in assessments - even beyond what the POHOA Board is wanting to collect.

Establishing precisely which assets are covered by PID30, and by exclusion, which ones are not, is critical for a vote homeowners will be making as soon as September. We need time for homeowners to contemplate the facts, and due to the stonewal

Hi John,

Thank you for your prompt response and for forwarding this to the appropriate County staff.

However, for nearly two years—since my last communication with Amy and Katie—I have received neither substantive response nor even receipt acknowledgment regarding POHOA’s reserve shortfalls and coordination with PID#30. It’s frustrating and untenable.

Here’s what’s at stake:

• Over five years, POHOA reserves have declined from 38% to 23%, largely due to overspending on discretionary items.

• However, critical stormwater infrastructure has never been included in reserve planning, making these percentages misleading.

• When adjusted to account for these unrecognised assets, actual funding levels may be closer to 10–12%, not the reported 23%.

• POHOA has approved a $60/month per household special assessment (now subject to vote), and the timeline is fast approaching (by September).

Now is the time for homeowners to fully contemplate the facts—but delayed County response compels us into rushed decision-making.

---

✅ What we urgently request from Larimer County:

1. Clarification on responsibility boundaries between PID#30 and POHOA.

2. Coordination (and ideally a joint valuation) of all stormwater assets in the subdivision.

3. A clear timeline for when County guidance or findings will be available before the fall vote.

Given the scale of unbudgeted infrastructure and the looming assessment vote, we urgently need your support to ensure homeowners can make informed decisions.

Thank you again for acknowledging this serious concern—your assistance now can help prevent financial and operational harm to our community.

Sincerely,
Andy Mowery

On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 1:02 PM John Kefalas <kefa...@co.larimer.co.us> wrote:

Thank you for this correspondence, Andy, and I will forward this information and request to the appropriate staff for follow up. I also acknowledge receipt of your previous email. 

	John Kefalas (he/him) County Commissioner, District 1
	Commissioners' Office 200 W Oak St | 2nd Floor PO Box 1190, Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190 W: (970) 498-7001 Cell:  (720) 254-7598 jkef...@larimer.org | www.larimer.org

[Andy Mowery]

Katie and Amy,

Could you please confirm receipt of this email and respond?

Thanks!

Andy

[Andy Mowery]

Dear Commissioner Kefalas,

Thank you again for acknowledging my previous correspondence.

Unfortunately, as of today (August 6), I have still received no response or acknowledgment from Amy or Katie—neither to my recent July emails, nor to similar requests dating back nearly two years. This persistent silence continues to hinder our ability to make informed financial decisions as homeowners.

To reiterate:

• POHOA has approved a $60/month per homeowner special assessment, pending a vote as early as September.

• That vote is based on a Reserve Study that completely omits stormwater drainage infrastructure—an omission that may dramatically understate our future liabilities.

• At the July 21 PID#30 meeting, Buck Hammond admitted that PID has not budgeted for stormwater infrastructure at all, nor identified the full list of assets it is responsible for maintaining.

• Keith Knight rightly proposed initiating a process to define and map the exact assets PID#30 is responsible for, including working with County staff to establish valuations and reserve timelines.

This action must happen immediately. I again urge Larimer County to:

1. Assign appropriate staff to confirm PID#30’s responsibilities, and delineate what falls to POHOA.

2. Coordinate a site visit (potentially with a surveyor) to create a granular, asset-by-asset map of stormwater infrastructure.

3. Provide a timeline for these determinations well before the September vote.

Without intervention, POHOA homeowners will be asked to approve a massive assessment increase without reliable reserve projections, and without knowing which governing body is responsible for tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars in unbudgeted infrastructure.

This is not a minor oversight. It’s a systemic failure to address long-term liabilities, and if the County does not act quickly, it will bear part of the responsibility for the confusion and financial harm that follows.

Please ensure that someone from the appropriate department reaches out this week. I am happy to assist or coordinate a site review if needed.

Sincerely,
Andy Mowery
poho...@gmail.com
(970) 310-5296

[Andy Mowery]

Dear Commissioner Kefalas,

Thank you again for acknowledging receipt of my July 27 and July 31 emails and for forwarding them to the appropriate County staff.

However, as of today, I have received no response—neither from you, nor from Amy, nor from Katie—despite the fact that this matter involves substantial financial consequences for 87 homeowners at Poudre Overlook.

We are now entering the third week since the PID#30 board meeting (July 21, 2025), during which a commitment was made by PID#30 Board Member Keith Knight to clarify and map all stormwater drainage assets under PID#30’s responsibility. This process was acknowledged as essential to the Reserve Study process underway at the POHOA and critical to the validity of a proposed $60/month per household special assessment now under review by homeowners.

We are rapidly approaching a September vote on that assessment. Without a clear delineation of responsibility between POHOA and PID#30 for stormwater infrastructure, homeowners will be asked to vote with incomplete and potentially misleading information. This not only undermines confidence in the process, but it may expose both PID#30 and POHOA to long-term liability due to inadequate financial planning and underfunded reserves.

We respectfully request the following:

1. Written confirmation that PID#30 (and/or Larimer County) is actively working to identify and map the precise assets it is responsible for, as committed at the July 21 meeting.

2. A public timeline for when this mapping, responsibility delineation, and valuation will be completed.

3. A point of contact who will provide updates to the community on progress and next steps.

To be absolutely clear: this process must precede any finalization of the POHOA Reserve Study or special assessment vote. Otherwise, the entire process—and any resulting homeowner vote—may be challenged for relying on incomplete or inaccurate data.

Given the lack of any formal response in nearly three weeks, I must ask directly:

➡️ Will Larimer County ensure the PID#30 Board’s commitment is honored in a timely and transparent manner?

If this request is being mishandled or has stalled within the County bureaucracy, I ask that you intervene to ensure the matter is given the attention it requires—before homeowners are forced to make a rushed and ill-informed financial decision.

Thank you again for your time and continued service to the community. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Andy Mowery
970-310-5296
POHOA Homeowner

[Lesli Ellis]

Hi Andy –

Thank you for your email about "Backlot Drainage Causing Concrete Sinkage" in Poudre Overlook.  Commissioner Kefalas asked me to look into this, and I shared it and coordinated among our staff team, including Katie Beilby and others in the Engineering Department, Laurie Kadrich, and the Attorney’s Office to review your concern.  

As outlined in the 2023 response you received from Laurie Kadrich, Assistant City Manager, this is a civil matter between you and the Owners Association.  The County staff team reaffirms that previous response, and we will not be providing additional responses on this question.    

Sincerely,
Lesli 

	Lesli K. Ellis, AICP CEP Director
	Community Planning, Infrastructure, and Resources  200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, CO 80521  Phone:  (970) 498-5741 ellislk@co.larimer.co.us | www.larimer.gov

On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 2:24 PM Katie Beilby <beil...@co.larimer.co.us> wrote:

Please read the new message from Andy below. Frank, you are only added here to keep you in the loop. 

Thanks,

Katie Beilby  Business Operations Manager

Engineering Department 200 W Oak St, Fort Collins, CO 80521 | Suite 3000 W: (970) 498-5726  beil...@larimer.gov | www.larimer.gov

[Andy Mowery]

Dear Commissioner Kefalas, Ms. Beilby, and Larimer County Officials,

I am writing to update you on the ongoing concerns at Poudre Overlook HOA regarding the omission of stormwater drainage facilities from our Reserve Study.

At the upcoming September 15th HOA meeting, the issue of reserves is not even listed on the agenda, despite the fact that Larimer County has formally clarified that drainage facilities within HOA-owned parcels are the HOA’s responsibility. The omission of these assets from both the 2020 and 2025 Reserve Studies has left the Association underfunded by more than $600,000—over $7,000 per household.

This failure to acknowledge and plan for drainage facilities not only violates CAI reserve study standards but also places homeowners at risk of sudden and massive special assessments. It is troubling that the Board continues to focus on comparatively minor issues while ignoring this core fiduciary obligation.

I am respectfully asking for your continued awareness of this matter. If the HOA Board remains unwilling to correct its reserve planning in light of the County’s clarification, homeowners may be forced to seek outside remedies.

Thank you for your attention and support as we work toward accountability and financial responsibility in our community.

Sincerely,
Andy Mowery
Poudre Overlook Homeowner