Aside

Just a reminder:

RV Blvd - New Stop Signs

Coffee and Conversation: Land Use and Development in Santa Fe County and How It Affects Rancho Viejo

 

Rancho Viejo South Association Invites the Entire Rancho Viejo Community to:

~ Coffee and Conversation 

Date:    Saturday, August 5th – 2017

Time:   Presentation Begins 10AM Sharp – 12 Noon, Doors open at 9:30AM

                                    Coffee and refreshments will be available

Location:   IAIA Campus @ The HOGAN Building

 83 Avan Nu Po Road 

                               Please save parking spaces at the building for Disabled Parking

                                    Park along driveway to the building or park in main lot and walk.

                                    (Per request from IAIA, no pets at this event. Thank you)

                                   

THIS PRESENTATION IS A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT IN THE COUNTY.

(This is not a discussion on Flying J)

Presenter:       Marcia Kaplan, Urban Planner

Marcia Kaplan is a resident of Rancho Viejo South and worked as an Urban Planner for several cities and counties in California and Oregon. In New Mexico she has worked as a consultant to the Interstate Stream Commission in updating New Mexico’s regional water plans.   

 

 

Pilot/Flying J Proposal Underway

On May 9th, representatives of the Pilot/Flying J Corporation gave a presentation on a new proposal to build a Travel Center at the intersection of Rancho Viejo Blvd and NM-14.  The meeting was not well publicized and about 60 people from the area attended the meeting.  Please see The New Mexican article on May 10 for more details.  The following are my personal notes from the meeting and may contain inaccuracies and omissions – use at your own risk.  My intent is solely to inform residents that this project proposal is underway.

NOTES

  • Mr. Siebert – Made comment about how a Master Plan becomes invalid after 5 years if development doesn’t take place. Several times during the meeting, they made the point that the area is zoned for this time of development.  “Conditional use” requires hearing officer, then planning commission (July?), then County Commissioners (Sep?).
  • According to Siebert, per the Santa Fe County Land Development Code, all residents within 500 ft. must be notified by mail (there are a few in the Turquoise Trail Business Park). The SLDC doesn’t require notification signage, but they were “kind enough” to put up a small sign in RV.  They thought the meeting was well attended.
  • Ross Schaver, Pilot’s Project Engineer treated us to a presentation of how wonderful Pilot is, how they have 600 locations, how wonderful the Haslam family is, and how they also own several fast food chains. They want to create jobs for everyone and increase commercial property values.  He claimed that extending the sewer line would accomplish this.
  • Pilot is currently building 20 stores per year. They are the largest diesel supplier in the US and and the largest hauler of supplies for the fracking industry. They also own a construction company.
  • The “Rancho Viejo Partners” were “approached” by Pilot and the land is now under contract. The parcel is 26 acres split into 3 lots – the travel center will be on a 10 acre site immediately across from Rancho Viejo Blvd on highway 14. There will be one entrance in and out, and the center will include a Wendy’s and Dunkin’ Donuts.  (The 2 lots will probably be for hotel/retail, like most Pilot Centers.) The project is currently at the “proposal” stage and will go to county hearing officer, Nancy Long, soon.
  • The site has perfect infrastructure including power and natural gas. The sewage line may run to a lift station at Gruda Vet Clinic, or the prison system. Water will be County (if they are willing).  Doing a “willing and able letter” to County.
  • Detention pond will contain all fuel spills, which Pilot will monitor to make sure they comply with all state and county codes. Roof runoff will go to culvert. (When challenged by the audience, Shaver challenged us to do our own testing, because Pilot NEVER pollutes any areas it operates in.)
  • Pilot’s traffic engineer is doing study now. The Center will contain 70 semi stalls and they anticipate 300 semi’s per day.  They say this is small for them and that there should be no traffic congestion.
  • Lighting: all Cree. (They said this as if that will be sufficient to meet codes and not violate night sky restrictions.)

Questions/comments from audience:

  • A (female) truck driver in the audience said all 70 stalls will be idling and very noisy.   Shaver claims that company testing shows decibels will be low.  He went on to say that newer rigs have sound mitigating equipment and ignored her remaining point about older trucks.
  • How many jobs? 80-90 jobs. 3 Corporate Managers who will make 6 figures. Everyone else will be local talent. Half will be part time and all will make better than minimum wage.
  • The Center will create a $2-3M tax base – gross receipts taxes will take care of roads.
  • RV only has 2 exits. How will this enhance home values and how will Pilot alleviate traffic problems? Shaver thinks extended sewer will increase commercial property values.  He did not answer how this will increase residential property values.
  • How will they control pollution? They  have secondary tanks to catch fuel leaks. This goes to the detention pond.
  • A homeowner said she can smell the coffee and donuts from thd BLM offices. How will Pilot control diesel smells?  Shaver’s answer: “I hope you’ll smell the Wendy’s and Dunkin Donuts instead.”
  • A former law enforcement officer from the Arizona City area said he and other cops stopped meeting at the the Flying J on I-10 because it became a bottleneck that they couldn’t get out of and it was too noisy for meetings. He said he didn’t move to RV to go through the same thing that AZ City residents are dealing with.
  • Emergency Evac plan?  Shaver totally denied noise and traffic concerns. Pilot only builds nice, safe facilities that comply with all state and local regulations.
  • What about road abuse and damage – who will repair NM-14 and surrounding roads? Ross says there won’t be any and that Pilot follow all state regs re: axle loading.
  • How much will taxes increase as a result of increased policing? Shaver says he has a letter from a police chief saying how wonderful Pilot Centers are. Comments about crime at truck stops are untrue  generalizations. Most truck drivers are like the nice lady in the audience (she’d left) and just want to make an honest living. A resident objected saying she researched crime stats on Travel Centers and that Shaver’s statement was uninformed.
  • Where else did you consider? Pilot’s real estate group looked for 2 years until they found this spot. They have plans for 3-5 more from here to Denver.
  • Next Step?  Planning Officer will review proposal to see whether it meets codes, etc., then on to County Planning Commission.

If you would like to voice your opinion to our County Commissioner, Ed Moreno, he can be reached at 505-986-6210 or edmoreno@santafecountynm.gov.

Please Don’t Put Glass in Recyling Bins, It Costs Us Money

Glass is not recycled in Santa Fe County. If you put it in your bin it taints the entire load, which then has to be taken to the landfill instead of being recycled. Additionally, we are fined $250 for each tainted load. So please, to avoid even higher recycling fees, please remember not to put glass in your recycling bin.

 

 

Transparency and the RVS Community Manager

Our HOA community manager Vincent Montoya became an owner and resident of RVS in April 2016. We previously had a community manager — Jessica Pfeiffer — who was also a resident and this was publicly known. There are certainly advantages to having a manager who lives in the community but some potential drawbacks and potential conflicts of interest also exist.

The previous Board of Directors chose to keep secret the fact that Mr. Montoya and his family moved to RVS. That secret started to unravel when the Montoyas’ house was broken into and Mr. Montoya’s wife Tina posted about the incident on the NextDoor Windmill Ridge website. Several days later she posted a critical comment about the new Board (which had not yet appointed officers or had an official meeting), not doing anything about the spate of thefts in RVS. However Ms. Montoya posted her comments using an assumed name, Roland Alarid, who I believe is a relative.

At the Annual Meeting when the issue of security was discussed, President Paiz referred to “something that cannot be revealed,” presumably the fact that the Montoyas’ home was entered. Publicly available information on the Internet shows that the Montoyas live on Madre Mountain. As a resident, Ms. Montoya is entitled to criticize the Board, but she should use her own name and not pose as someone else. Both posts have since been removed and the name Roland Alarid has been changed to TL Alarid on the Windmill Ridge NextDoor site.

By trying to keep it a secret that the Montoyas live here, both the previous Board and Mr. Montoya created an unnecessary problem. To avoid any other difficulties in future, I suggest that Mr. Montoya publicly reveal to RVS residents — perhaps via an email blast — that he and his family live here.

I also suggest that the new Board speak with Mr. Montoya about transparency and possible conflicts of interest, particularly regarding the election process. The Board should clearly set forth his different roles as an employee community manager and a resident.

 

REMINDER—ANNUAL MEETING, TUESDAY NOV. 15th 6 p.m.

Please attend the annual meeting next Tuesday. If you cannot be there, please vote by filling out the blue proxy form in your annual meeting packet. If you do not assign an individual to be your proxy, your form will be used only for establishing a quorum and your vote will not count. Remember to sign the form and give it to the person you have assigned as your proxy or send it to the HOA office.

You must be in good standing (not in arrears on your assessment) to be able to vote.

 

Why I’m A Candidate for the HOA Board

First, I would like to thank the residents who turned out for the Candidate Forum last Saturday. Some very thoughtful questions were asked. I also want to reach out to residents who did not attend.

I am running because we currently have a Board that is totally dysfunctional. Between December 2015 and September 2016, three of the seven Board members resigned. The Board has spent at least $6,000 of our money on legal fees related to internal disputes among Board members. The HOA attorney is representing some Board members against others. That is not what our legal budget was meant for.

Residents of RVS deserve better. You deserve rational, sane individuals who commit to representing your best interests. My objective is to have an honest, competent Board that is receptive to resident input.

Several residents have told me that they don’t get involved in politics and therefore are not interested in the activities of the HOA or voting for Board members. This isn’t about politics; it’s about money. Your money.

Your HOA Board gets to spend the money from your assessments and if you are not interested in how they spend it, there is opportunity for abuse — like the $6,000 mentioned above. Our assessments are increasing in 2017, mainly because of the County implementing a curbside recycling program. We should be looking for ways to cut costs to offset the increase, not wasting money.

For the third year in a row I have asked the Board to furnish residents with year-to-date expenditures for 2016 in the Annual Meeting packet, not just the budget for 2017. For the third year in a row they have not complied although they said would do so. Despite giving lip service to transparency, members of the current Board do not want residents to receive certain information, including how your money is spent. I want to know why. Don’t you?

Apathy is the greatest threat to an honest and accountable Board of Directors.  If residents show no interest in how the Board operates and how it spends your money, the Board can make decisions not in your best interest and waste your money as well.

We’ve had too much discord in our community over the past three years; we need Board members who can create a more harmonious environment to better serve the people who live here. I can help accomplish that.

It would be helpful if all candidates for the Board would post their views on the issues facing RVS on this blog. And I urge all residents to vote, either in person at the Annual Meeting on November 15, or by appointing a proxy.

 

 

Clarification about Election Letter From RVS Resident

Vince Montoya, the HOA Community Manager, sent out an e-mail blast today about a letter that was sent by a resident of RVS to other residents regarding the upcoming election. The letter was actually very straightforward and the author, Glen Smerage, identified himself as a resident and never said that he represented the HOA. Mr. Smerage provided his address, telephone number, and e-mail address and anyone that wants to can contact him directly.

Some people had questions as to how their addresses were obtained. One possible way is from a mailing list broker. Names and addresses are public information and brokers obtain them and segment them by zip code and many other criteria. Anyone who wishes can purchase a mailing list from a broker.

Surely, like me, many of you receive several postcards a month from real estate agents describing house sales and listings in Rancho Viejo. How did they get your name and address? From a mailing list broker or from County records.

Regarding Mr. Smerage’s offer to act as a proxy for those who do not want to attend the Annual Meeting, this practice has been going on in RVS on an informal basis for years. If you don’t attend the meeting in person but still want to vote, you have to designate a proxy.

In his e-mail Mr. Montoya positions himself as the source of “direct accurate information.” I have statements from residents who reported that prior to the 2014 election Mr. Montoya called them and said that their proxies were not filled out correctly and that he would be more than happy to come to their homes, help them fill out the forms correctly and act as their proxy. That solicitation is no different from what Mr. Smerage did. And Mr. Smerage actually lives here. Mr. Montoya does not.

There is nothing underhanded or nefarious going on.

I should note that I am a candidate for the Board and Mr. Smerage endorsed me. I did not ask for his endorsement, and did not see the letter before it was sent.

Meet the 2016 RVS Board Candidates October 29, 2016 from 10AM – 12PM

Click HERE to download flyer

forum-flyer-sfcc

RVS Open Director Positions

In regards to RVS Community Manager’s email “Notice of Interest – Board of Directors” sent October 4, 2016, I believe there is an error in the identification of vacancy term lengths.

How Many Board Director Positions Are Open? What Are The Terms Of Service?

It is no surprise that given the spate of resignations from our RVS Board this year, 2016, as well as last year, 2015, there is some confusion as to who must run for the open Director positions at the next Annual meeting, and how long will the term of office be.

The terms for Board members are two years and they are elected in alternate years. Three Directors run for office one year, followed by four Directors who run the subsequent year so that some continuity is maintained on the Board. (See By-Laws, 3.3, paragraphs ii. iii, and  iv.)

What Happens When There Is A Vacancy?

According to RVS By-laws:

In the event of the death, disability, or resignation of an Owner Director, the Board may declare a vacancy and appoint a successor to fill the vacancy until the next annual meeting, at which time the Voting Delegates entitled to fill such directorship shall elect a successor for the remainder of the term. (See by-Laws 3.5, 4th paragraph.)

Thus, any Director who was appointed to a vacancy as a result of a resignation will fill the vacancy until the next annual meeting which in this case will be November 15, 2016. At the Annual meeting a successor (who may be the appointee, if s/he chooses to run) will be elected to complete the remainder of the term (which in the case of filling a 2-year incomplete term, means holding office for one year).

Past practice has been that open 2-year Director positions are filled by the top vote getting candidates, and the 1-year incomplete successor term(s) is filled by the next highest vote getting candidate(s).

This is not the first time the question has arisen as to how many positions are open and for how long. 

A Brief History

2014 Election

At the Annual General meeting of the RVS HOA in November, 2014, there were four open Director positions filled:

  • Three 2-year terms filled by Bernie Paiz, Jonnalynn Grover, and John Zipprich;
  • One 1-year term to replace Paul Burguieres’ position (who resigned and was not replaced by a board appointee). Carol Thompson had completed her 2-year term as a Director and was running for a Board position. Since she received the fourth highest number of votes of the eight candidates running, her term was for the open 1-year successor position for Burguieres .

Continuing 2014 Board Members were (1-year term remaining for each):

  • Bonnie Houston,
  • Laura Corbin,
  • Jim Kerr

2015 Election

In January, 2015, we learned of Laura Corbin’s resignation (1-year term remaining of a two year term), and in April we were informed of Bonnie Houston’s resignation (1-year remaining of a two year term).

At the April 28, 2015 RVS Board meeting, Laura Corbin was appointed to fill her previously resigned position, and there was no appointment made at that time to fill Bonnie Houston’s position.

Then, we were informed of John Zipprich’s resignation (2-year term) sometime in August, 2015.

As of August 20, 2015, we were informed of the successor appointments of Rev. Dr. Barbara Boyd and Eric Sanders to fill the vacancies of Bonnie Houston and John Zipprich.

So, there was a full Board of seven Directors present at the September 22, 2015 Board meeting.

What did that mean for the election of Director candidates for the November 17, 2015 Annual meeting?

It meant that there were five Director candidate positions open for a seven member Board:

  • Four 2-year terms to replace the expired terms for Houston, Kerr, Thompson (who was the successor for Paul Burguieres’ position), and Corbin (successor for herself),
  • One 1-year successor term to complete Zipprich’s term.

The Election Results of the Annual meeting of the RSV HOA in November, 2015 for the five open positions (in vote tally order)

  • Eric Sanders: 71, term = 2 years
  • Barbara Boyd: 66, term = 2 years
  • Laura Corbin: 58, term = 2 years
  • Jim Bailey: 57, term = 2 years
  • Jim Kerr: 50, term = 1 year — to complete Paul Burguieres’ position which had previously been filled by appointee Carol Thompson.
  • Carol Thompson: 48, not re-elected
  • Marcia Kaplan: 38, not elected

Continuing 2015 Board Members (1-year terms remaining for each):

  • Bernard Paiz
  • Jonnalyn Grover

Upcoming 2016 Election

In Spring 2016 Eric Sanders (2-year term) resigned; Carol Thompson appointed successor for the remainder of 2016.

In June/July Barbara Boyd (2-year term) resigned; no action taken to fill vacancy.

in September Jim Bailey (2-year term) resigned; no action taken to fill vacancy.

2016 current Board members:

  • Bernard Paiz (end of 2-year term),
  • Jonnalyn Grover (end of 2-year term),
  • Laura Corbin (one year remaining),
  • Jim Kerr (successor-completes 2-year term for Burguieres)
  • Carol Thompson (successor for Sanders),
  • Two unfilled Director positions; each have a 1-year successor term open through November, 2017.

How Many Board Director Positions Are Open? 

By my count there are six openings:

  • Three 2-year terms (to replace Paiz, Grover, Kerr/Burguieres’ successor);
  • Three 1-year successor terms (to replace Thompson/Sanders, Boyd-unfilled, and Bailey-unfilled).

Thus, only Laura Corbin need not run for a Director position.

I hope this summation helps to clarify Director openings and terms of office.

Related Content:  Election Results 2014  and   Election Results 2015

At Least Two Board Members Forget What Country They Are Living In

At the September 29th Board meeting, member Laura Corbin brought up the topic of having a Board sponsored candidate forum prior to the election this year. She had previously asked that the subject be put on the agenda but it had been left off. President Bernie Paiz said it was his error.

He then stated that anyone in RVS could sponsor a candidate forum, it was within residents’ rights to hold one and it was possible that the Board would sponsor it. Discussion within the Nominating Committee was suggested. Board member Carol Thompson objected to any candidate forum.

I reminded the Board that residents had held such a forum two years ago and it was well attended although none of the sitting Board members participated.

Within three days Mr. Paiz changed his mind. He stated, “This Candidate Forum is not required by our Governing Documents and is not a sanctioned activity of the Board of Directors. This is a tactic to usurp the elected BOD and override the governing Documents and therefore participation will be discouraged. The only Election requirement is the formation of a Nominating Committee. Candidates are encouraged to supply bios and have the opportunity to address the attendees at the Annual Meeting. I will not be participating in this attempt of coup and strongly recommend that members of the BOD and Nominating Committee not participate.”

What happened in those three days? Carol Thompson — who Mr. Paiz seems unable to stand up to — set him straight about what could occur in RVS according to her rules. The tip-off is the phrase “non-sanctioned,” a favorite of hers. Every time residents have held any meeting not specifically sponsored by the Board she has labeled it illegal and non-sanctioned. To Ms. Thompson and Mr. Paiz, communication in our community is a one-way process. The Board tells us what to do and residents have to abide. Why are Ms. Thompson and Mr. Paiz, whose terms are up, so afraid of interacting with residents and fielding questions from us?

Most people vote by proxy and having candidates present their views at the annual meeting is laughable. Less than 10 percent of residents attend and most people have already voted by proxy. We need to hear the views of prospective Board members before the voting, not afterward. We need to know what kind of people they are and if they have the best interests of residents as a core value. This is especially true this year because:

  • In the first nine months of 2016 three Board members resigned. They were ill prepared for serving on the Board.
  • We are grappling with several complex and costly issues — irrigation, road and trail repair, and the County’s new solid waste recycling program. Our assessments are increasing substantially this year and may do so again because of these issues.
  • We need Board members who have an opinion as to how we can maintain our infrastructure and prevent home values from declining while avoiding frivolous expenditures.

According to Mr. Paiz and Ms. Thompson, having a candidate forum where candidates can present their views on governance and answer questions from residents is considered a usurpation of Board prerogative. Presentation of views and questioning of candidates is part of any election process. A coup Mr. Paiz? You and Ms. Thompson were not paying attention during civics class in high school.

I have been told several times by Ms. Thompson and her followers that if I don’t like how things are run in RVS, I should move. Rancho Viejo is in the United States, which is still a democracy. Mr. Paiz and Ms. Thompson prefer dictatorship. Perhaps they should move; there are a multitude of countries that could accommodate their views.

There will be a candidate forum this month held by concerned residents of our community. A date and time will be provided shortly and all candidates are encouraged to participate. Six positions are open on the Board this year although there is some behind the scenes manipulation by the Board to reduce that to five.

RVS suffers from enormous apathy. I’ve heard from several residents that they don’t get involved in politics. It isn’t all politics; it is also a pocketbook issue and it’s your money that the Board is playing with. Look at my recent post about out-of-control legal expenditures. Despite my requests for the past two years, the Board has refused to furnish residents year to date expenditures in the annual meeting package, claiming they only have to provide the following year’s budget.

We need to get rid of the dysfunctional, dictatorial Board we have now and infuse it with some new blood. We need to end the tyranny. Please, if you care about your community, your assessments, and your property values, consider running for the Board. If you wish, you can post your bio here on the blog.

Board of Directors’ Squabbling Results in Over Budget, Out of Control Legal Expenses

The 2017 budget was presented and approved at the September 28 Board of Directors meeting. Our assessments will be increasing, attributable mainly to the County mandating curbside recycling which will increase our costs by $8 a month per household.

The allocation for legal expenses was increased by 300 percent — from $3,000 in 2016 to $9,000 in 2017. Why? Because that is about what the Board has already spent in 2016 and in their wisdom they want to continue wasting our money on unnecessary expenditures rather than finding ways to cut back. One of the major causes of the runaway legal expenditures is the dysfunction of the Board. Three members have resigned mid-term. A very expensive dispute resolution involving Jim Bailey and the other Board members occurred in July. All attendees signed a non-disclosure agreement. In mid-September Jim Bailey resigned.

At the September Board meeting I asked if the legal costs of the dispute resolution were the cause of the legal budget being overspent so drastically. President Paiz said it was. I asked how much that unsuccessful dispute resolution cost and Paiz said he could not tell me because it was confidential. He said he would have to ask Lynn Krupnik, who received payment for the dispute resolution, if it was “OK to release the information.” He stated that it would cost $250 to get an answer, Ms. Krupnik’s hourly rate. Apparently she does not bill in anything less than hourly increments. All RVS residents pay for the attorney’s services and we have the right to know the amount paid to her. While the content of the dispute may be confidential, the cost is not.

Rancho Viejo North has a legal budget of $2,000 and it usually goes unspent. Why does Rancho Viejo South spend so much more? The North has a Board composed of rational people who solve disagreements without involving an attorney. Our Board likes to waste residents’ money on their internal disputes and asking for legal advice from Ms. Krupnik on ridiculous things. Our Board does not represent the interests of residents. They are a disgrace.