Annual meeting minutes

Shady Grove Station Townhouse Association
Minutes of the annual meeting
February 11, 2007
7 p.m. at #7519 (Alex Witze and Jeff Kanipe’s house)




The annual neighborhood meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. In attendance were Art Carter (7522), Steve Edgar (7518), Gregg and Melissa Price (7527), Ottie Gates (7505), Jean Smith (7521), Debbie Edgerly (7529), Pete Patellis (7506), Terri Smith (7508), Alex Witze and Jeff Kanipe (7519), and Lin Ye (7500).

President’s statement: Outgoing president Art Carter provided a review of neighborhood activities in 2006. Highlights included the repainting and replacing of the mailboxes; restriping the parking lot; and holding a community yard sale. He noted that several issues that are ongoing problems in the community, such as parking, have been resolved somewhat but not entirely by the restriping of the lot. Art raised several other issues that he feels are of concern to the neighborhood, including the need to audit the association’s finances and to look into updating the bylaws of the association. He noted that he felt the board of directors ought to be bonded, and that our current insurance policy should be reevaluated.

Treasurer’s report: Outgoing treasurer Steve Edgar presented the proposed 2007 budget during the meeting. The board of directors voted at its January meeting to implement a 10 percent increase in association dues to cover the operating expenses of the association. The new rate will be $129 per quarter for owner-occupied properties and $182 per quarter for non-owner-occupied properties, to take effect in the second quarter of 2007.

Steve noted that 2006 ended more than $3,000 in the red, mostly due to the expense of restriping the parking lot. He reiterated that this was a one-time expense and that the proposed 2007 budget is essentially break-even. One challenge in 2006 was that an introductory deal with Waste Management ended, substantially raising the price of trash collection. It was noted that the new board should look into negotiating a new deal with Waste Management or obtain bids from other contractors, such as Potomac Refuse. In 2006 the board also got bids from landscape companies and in the end decided to remain with Capitol, but with the 2006 rate locked in for the next two years, with a 3 percent cap increase for the following three years after that.

Jean Smith questioned how well the number of rentals was known. Steve said that he had been relying on county records. Art suggested that the new board look into more closely regulating and enforcing the non-owner-occupied rates for rentals.

Steve noted that the reserve fund is currently just over $19,300. With interest income and care the new treasurer should work to bring this back up to $20,000. Steve is not sure whether the association needs to pay taxes on its interest income, and will investigate. All financial accounts are now online and can be accessed by any of the board of directors. Steve reiterated that HOA dues are due by the end of the quarter, and that everyone needs to pay by then.

The 2007 budget was voted on and approved.

Elections: The nominating committee, composed of Melissa and Gregg Price and Pete Patellis, nominated the following individuals to serve on the 2007 board of directors for SGSTA: Art Carter (president), Steve Edgar (treasurer), Alex Witze (secretary). No one else was nominated or expressed interest in running. The slate of officers was voted on and approved. Note: Jean pointed out that in the past officers had been elected on a 3-2-1 basis, with one serving a three-year term, one a two-year term, and one a one-year term. It was generally agreed that this board would all serve for a one-year term, with the 3-2-1 slate to be revisited in future elections. It was also agreed that the board would function without a vice-president, as it has for most of 2006 following Elle Jauffret’s departure.

General discussion:

Finances. Some questions were raised as to the whereabouts of the financial records of the association. Steve said he had most of these, which could be used in an audit of the association’s finances.

Long-term goals of the neighborhood. Debbie noted that the association is in need of prioritizing its long-term goals for the neighborhood. There are long-running issues such as sidewalks in need of repair, and trees that need to be replaced, which may require big expenditures in the future. Debbie proposed that the association should draw up a firm definition for the use of the reserve fund and for a long-term plan for financially managing unexpected expenditures in the future.

Committees. The environmental protection committee needs to be re-established, as there was no activity in 2006. Gregg and Melissa Price, and Annette Carter, have expressed interest. Art also proposed establishing a welcoming committee for new residents, and a bylaws committee to review the association’s bylaws.

Intercounty Interconnector. Alex provided an update on the ICC issue. On January 16, 2007, the Maryland State Highway Administration filed in the Montgomery County Court to acquire the roughly 3,200-square-foot plot of land it wants to seize for the ICC. The state roads commission may now take possession and use the property as it sees fit for construction. The state has deposited a check for $102,000 in the name of SGSTA with the Montgomery County Court. This is the monetary offer the association received on Nov. 22 as compensation for the land. Alex noted that she did not know if withdrawing the money from the court, and depositing it an interest-bearing account in the name of SGSTA, constituted any kind of legal acceptance of the offer and thus limited the association from acquiring any further compensation from the state. She will investigate the legal consequences of accepting this money or how the association might best continue its negotiations with the state. She will be meeting with a state highway administration representative at her house on Tuesday, Feb. 20, at 1 p.m.; interested parties are welcome to attend. Alex will send out notes following that meeting to all SGSTA members.

Future board meetings. The board plans to continue meeting on the last Wednesday of each month, rotating between board members’ houses. All neighborhood residents are invited to attend these meetings; they should contact a member of the board ahead of time to learn where the location will be.

The meeting was adjourned.

Phone books

If anyone did not pick up their phone books and needs a set, stop by #7519 in the next week. I picked up the remainders that had been sitting out by the mailboxes for some time. I will recycle them in about a week.

ICC: The state has filed to seize our land

All:

As expected, the State Highway Administration has filed in court, as of Jan. 16, to seize the parcel of our land they want for the ICC. Technically I believe this now means that the state now possesses our land. I have not yet retained a lawyer because of the cost, but others who have consulted lawyers tell me this is the case. A check for the amount they offered us has been filed with the clerk of the court of Montgomery County in our name.

Please plan to attend the annual neighborhood meeting, at 7 pm on Sunday, Feb. 11, at #7519, to discuss what this filing means and how we should proceed from here.

If you would like me to email you the PDF of the court documents, just let me know at awitze@gmail.com.

ICC: Washington Post story

Bid to Get Land for Connector Escalates
Maryland Sues Some Property Owners to Condemn Sites
By Katherine Shaver
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 28, 2007; C01

More than a third of the Montgomery County property owners who must
sell land for the first leg of the intercounty connector have declined
the state's initial offers and are facing court proceedings to condemn
their homes, yards or other parcels.

The Maryland State Highway Administration has used eminent domain laws
to take legal possession of at least 66 of 178 properties between
Interstate 370 and Georgia Avenue, said Joseph M. Miklochik, director
of the highway administration's Office of Real Estate. A judge or
review board will decide whether the state's "fair market value"
offers are, in fact, fair.

The first stretch will make up about a third of the planned 18-mile
highway, which will stretch from Gaithersburg in Montgomery to Laurel
in Prince George's County. Construction could begin as early as this
summer, highway officials said.

Some landowners said the court action caught them by surprise. They
wondered why the state filed lawsuits or "quick take" petitions
against them while they thought they were negotiating a deal.

Others said they have felt rushed to sell before the state responded
to some of their inquiries, such as why neighbors received different
offers for similar land. Some said the state took legal possession of
their property in court while they were trying to discover the exact
land they stood to lose.

"Before we even knew it, there was a court filing against us," said
Alexandra Witze, whose Derwood homeowners association must sell about
3,300 square feet of its vacant common land for the highway. "We
haven't had time to get our questions answered from the state about
the impact this is going to have on our community or have any
dialogue."

Fred Begosh said the state moved to condemn part of his back yard
before he could learn why its $70,000 appraisal didn't include money
to replace mature trees. Landscapers have estimated that doing so will
cost more than $100,000, he said.

"They said they'd negotiate, but I can't get ahold of anyone," said
Begosh, who lives in Derwood.

State highway officials said they never intended to rush anyone.
Filing the court cases now will help keep the project on schedule,
they said. That is because the state must own or legally possess all
property in the highway's 7.2-mile western section before late March,
when it plans to award a major contract to design and build that
piece. Filing the condemnation papers in court gives the state legal
possession while the sales prices are being determined. The state must
buy about 1,400 acres, including 52 homes and 11 businesses, from
almost 500 property owners for the entire highway.

The intercounty connector, estimated to cost $2.4 billion, has been
hotly debated for decades. State officials say the highway, which was
proposed more than 50 years ago, is badly needed to improve east-west
travel through the Maryland suburbs, particularly between the
Interstate 270 and Interstate 95 corridors. Opponents, some of whom
have filed two federal lawsuits trying to stop it, say it will cost
too much, cause too much environmental damage and create unhealthy air
and noise pollution for nearby residents.

Miklochik said the state buys land for major road projects based on
independent appraisals of fair market value and negotiations with
property owners. To keep purchases moving, particularly in cases where
negotiations have stalled, the state can ask a Circuit Court judge or
the court's three-member Board of Property Review to determine a fair
price while it takes legal possession of the property.

In the meantime, the state deposits with the court the amount it has
deemed to be fair. Property owners can withdraw that money while the
case is pending.

State officials will continue to try to reach out-of-court financial
settlements after beginning legal proceedings, Miklochik said. The
state has not started buying land on the highway's eastern end, in
Prince George's County.

The number of cases filed in Montgomery, where most of the highway
will run, is on par for a big project, Miklochik said. He said the
state has settled with 16 of the 24 owners losing their entire homes
to the first leg of the road. One Derwood neighborhood, Cashell
Estates, has started emptying out as residents have begun accepting
the state's offers and moving.

"When we started this project, there was a lot of speculation that we
wouldn't have a lot of success," Miklochik said. "We've had
significant success."

A State Highway Administration spokesman declined The Washington
Post's request for the names of property owners facing court filings,
saying that compiling such a list is not necessary to comply with
public records laws. Some of those The Post was able to find through
court records and word of mouth declined to discuss their cases
publicly, saying they feared that doing so would jeopardize their
negotiations or hurt them in court. One property owner said she was
happy with her deal.

"We made out like bandits," said the former Derwood resident, who had
to sell her home of 53 years. She spoke on condition of anonymity
because she said she is elderly and lives alone. Her new home is
nicer, she said. State officials also agreed to pay for new ceiling
fans and an asphalt driveway to make her new house more comparable to
her old one, she said.

Although she opposes the highway, she said, state real estate
officials with whom she and her family dealt "seemed more than fair."

But others are not so happy. Many are losing peaceful woods and beautiful views.

A state official arrived on Alan Latt's doorstep the night before
Thanksgiving with an offer for a chunk of his Rockville back yard:
about $3.90 a square foot for the 38,000 square feet needed. Next
door, his neighbor Paul Sevier received an offer of about $6 a square
foot for part of his yard. Three doors down, a lot sold privately last
spring for about $12 a square foot, the neighbors said.

"I think they're low-balling us," Sevier said. "I just want a fair price."

Latt said he is trying to negotiate with state officials before they
file against him in court. He wants the state to pay for financial
damages he thinks he will suffer, particularly when he tries to sell
his house, next to a highway.

"It seems incomprehensible to me that you could replace hundreds of
oak trees with a six-lane highway in someone's back yard and say
there's no appreciable effect" on property values, Latt said.