Minutes of the Special Resolution Meeting of

The Swift Creek Homeowners Association (the “HOA”)

Held on September 8, 2010 at the Park for All Seasons

Opening Process

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 pm

Lisa Stinson acted as Chairman.

Lisa Stinson moved a quorum was present. Manish Chopra seconded.

General Housekeeping

The AGM is planned for November. Notice will be issued. The past several months have been extremely busy. Lisa will take the tasks that are currently being performed and create director positions to be voted in at the AGM. These are all volunteer positions.

Meeting Core

Lisa provided a brief history of the events leading to today’s meeting. Further to the March 4, 2010 AGM, member voted unanimously to move forward with amenities. Input was gathered from members resulting in 52% response. Highlights were:

  1. Design of the Secondary/Emergency Entrance
  2. Pathway Systems & Benches/Rest Areas
  3. Playground Area (proposed in the Upper Dry Pond at the Intersection of Swift Creek Lane, Terrace and Grand Arches Drive)
  4. Mail Centre Replacement
  5. Front Entrance Modification

Volunteers put their name forward to work on various teams. The special resolution meeting was set to hear updates from the Front entrance and mail centre teams. Team was introduced: Manish Chopra, Justin Bobier and Jim Stinson. Lisa Stinson assisted.

A reminder they are volunteering their time and we need to be respectful of this.

  • Ginastated that she had a point of contention before Justin had an opportunity to update theattendees on the status of the 'front gate committee'.
    Gina askedabout the validity of how the previous general meeting reached a consensus? Jim responded on the number of lots that voted clarifying that a consensus was obtained.Gina requested that she be given access to review the minutes of the meeting. Lisa responded that they are posted on the HOA website.

Agenda Item #1 - Amenity vote, front entrance

  • Lisa showed the video of the front gate "did you see our sign"? MacDonald spent an estimated $3500 to replace stones that fell off. There are cracks in the stone, poor quality on installation, stones continue to fall off. The entrance will require maintenance on an ongoing basis.
  • Lisa mentioned that there was a lot of discussion on signage at previous meeting and on the amenities form.
  • A handout on signage was given out and explained in detail. The cost for new signage would be $6010 less a credit of $1533 Cdn. that MacDonald would contribute. Net $4477. Price is valid for 30 Days.
  • Dale asked if the new letters will stand out against the existing stone and Lisa responded 'no'.
  • Lisa showed a darker stone that was being contemplated in which the letters stood out better.
  • Jim explained why we are having issues with the existing cultured stone. To replace the stone from IXL is approx $24K. Original Quote was $30K Jim spoke to the supplier and received a discount.
    K2 stone also quoted to replace the existing stone with real stone veneer. Justin also mentioned that he had discussions with K2 stone and they would be prepared to reduce the cost of the stone if they could use our front gate entrance for advertisement.
    Gina opposed the notion of sponsorship/advertising stating that we are 'prostituting ourselves'...'letterswill fall off or be stolen'.
  • Ginabought up the discussion of suing the developer.
    Lisa mentioned that she, Kris and Tanya had met several times with MacDonald representatives including Ron Lanthier, Ron Sawchuk and Matt Jones. Discussions have occurred almost weekly. MacDonald walked the community twice and the HOA composed a list of 37 items for repair/replacement. MacDonald has completed several but many are remaining. Items such as pathways ( gravel and RR31), plantings, grading are with the County.
  • Dale Lohmer recommended that we put the front entrance on hold and build up the reserve. Lisa explained that the HOA had $65K in the bank and at the November meeting will be recommending that the annual community fee remain unchanged. This would then give the HOA approx $130K in the bank.
  • Karen mentioned that she would like the developer to fix the signs. Jim mentioned this had been discussed with them and that it would not happen. Dale Dusterhoft agreed with Jim that the developed would not pay.
  • Peter started to make a motion however Gina started to raise additional issues and his attempt to bring a motion forward failed.
  • More discussion followed on the assumed developer's responsibilities. Restrictive Covenant does not document quality of amenities.
  • Discussion of FAC. First Meeting was August 24th, 2010. FAC was not awarded. Front Entrance and mail centre does not fall under CountyFAC.
  • Discussion that consortium of builders go to MacDonald and request MacDonald to replace amenity. Justin was voted to talk to the developerrepresenting Swift Creek HOA tosee if he could leverage off of his status of a home builder and shame them into fixing the front gate.
  • Issue held over till next AGM.

Agenda Item #2 - Amenity vote, mail centre

  • Lisa showed a video of the mail centre and similar discussion to front entrance ensued.
  • Two examples of mail centers were handed out. One example was similar to the existing structure with improvement for both structure and appearance. The second example was the mail center from Morgan's Rise which was all stone and was quoted to be approx. $5500 although that did not include any costs for substructure.
  • Justin stated that the roof on the existing structure is under-engineered (bowing). Justin advised the roof would not bear the weight of snow and the supports behind the mail centre were not sufficient.
  • Nick asked if Canada Post had any requirements for mail structuresto which Lisa advisedthere was not as she already had checked.
  • Lisa advised the windows were installed upside down allowing water to seep into the interior of the building.
  • Justin estimated the building would have a remaining life of approx 2 years.
  • Dale Dusterhoft amended that mailbox be attached to Justin’s discussion with MacDonald.
  • Peter amended that it be cash only because of MacDonald caliber of work.
  • Issue held over till next AGM

Legal queries were discussed throughout the meeting. A legal opinion was suggested but not supported. Jim advised he had informally discussed this with a lawyer. The response was after several years of legal time and an estimated cost of $100,000 to $150,000 the result would likely be minimal as there is no support in the RestrictiveCovenant. Dale Dusterhoft confirmed he had also had a discussion with council and received a similar response. Janine offered to get another opinion. Justin was also going to get another opinion.

Agenda Item #3–Block 4 Lot 14 (Community Lot 25 on Swift Creek Terrace)

  • Peter Maat explained that he would like to amend the building envelope of his lot such that he can move the west facing boundary back approx. 12 meters.
  • Gayle said moving the front elevation back was better due to curb appeal
  • Jay was concerned with setting precedence and opening issues with past decisions
  • Gina asked about the excavation and natural grasses citing she was not in favour of the process used on the neighboring lot
  • There was discussion on whether or not a vote in the meeting would stand given that there were not enough residents present.
  • Lisa advised that the meeting was not the formatto hold the vote on Peter'sbuilding envelope amendment as to change the building envelope which is subject to the RestrictiveCovenant requires a 75% approval inclusive of all property owners
  • It was recommended that a mail ballot would be sent out to the residents with the proper response period.
  • Dale firsted for mail out ASAP. Mark amended to set acceptable timeas stated by rules and governance 21 days notice. Jim firsted additional 10 days, administration was acceptable. Justin seconded.Polled the legal votes, 14 yay, 3 abstain
  • Lisa agreed to assist the Maats with the mail out to the members.
  • The attendees at the meeting held an informal vote to give Peter an indication of the percentage of residents that would be in favour of his planned amendment.
    The majority voted affirmative and in favour of Peter's planned amendment.

No New Business

Meeting Adjourned 9:10 pm

Note: Minutes were compiled from notes forwarded by several members in the absence of a Secretary.

.