–Underdrains Chronology during 1981 to Nov 2014
https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/utilities/water/underdrain-system/ See: Outlined Documentation Site.
–Underdrain System
SEE TERMS OF USE. THIS CONTENT IS PLACED HERE FOR MEMBER INFORMATION AND TO RECORD THE RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION THAT HAS BEEN TAKING PLACE REGARDING THIS FRENCH DRAIN / UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM.
IF YOU WANT A QUICK REVIEW OF THE UNDERDRAIN ISSUE
CLICK HERE TO OPEN A TWO PAGE SYNOPSIS
Underdrain – Un”der*drain`\, n. An underground drain
or trench with openings through which the water may
percolate from the soil or ground above. A drain, installed
in porous fill, for drawing off surface water or water from surrounding soil. In the detrimental case in our neighborhood, from your lawn, landscaping, gardens, and trees.
Bioretention.com – underdrain systems
1981 Letter from the Silver Springs Developer’s Attorney Jerry Kinghorn regarding the Water System Development, Lakes and Lands Surrounding Lakes and Water Courses “Each Builder is responsible for construction of the system from the property line to each common area [roadway], residential or unit point of use. Each builder is also responsible for the portion of common main lines across his property to other private properties as required by the consortium master plan for the systems.” This quote supports what our 1985 CC&R’s and all subsequent Amendments stating that each individual homeowner (builder) is responsible for all infrastructures within their property lines and easements except those belonging to a public utility company … as shown on the recorded tract map of the properties”. CCR Article IX. The SSSFHOA does not own the incomplete and defunct underdrain system as it was installed on private property.
1982-06-25 – Silver Springs East Developers HOA Agreement with Summit County.
The 1982 Developer’s SSHA CCRs Article IX. Easements. Section 3: Easements for installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are reserved as shown on the recorded tract plat and over the rear and side five feet of each lot. “ Restricted uses of the five feet are listed, no use allowed “which may change the direction of flow through drainage channels in the easements or which may obstruct or retard the flow of water through the drainage channels in the easements. The easement area of each lot and all improvements in it shall be maintained continuously by the owner of the lot, except for those improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible.”
The State Water Engineer has not issued any stream alteration permits allowing modification of the course or volume of water that flows through the subdivision streams or its underground water table. It is illegal to do so without State authorization and permits.
Document History regarding Silver Springs Underdrain System
Amended Declaration of CC&RsEntry 244975 Book M370 Pages 267-275.Signed by Silver Springs Board of Trustees: Bill Ligety, Dale Boschetto, Ron Kobler, Lucy Murphy (Archer), Fred Wasilewski, Gregory Vinson, Elmer “Buz” Sandberg and approved by a majority of the Association Members:
On October 14, 1985 at the organization of the SSSFHOA “Page 273: “All Declarations relating to the Silver Springs Development Subdivision were repealed” (that is the Developer’s HOA) at this meeting and approved by the majority of the association members. ” All references and responsibilities by the SSSFHOA for the underdrain system were hereby repealed. The 1978 underdrain system was abandoned since 1982 and now again in 1985 by a majority vote of the Owner’s Association.
The Subdivision has a storm drain system/drainage channels, sewer system, retention ponds, and curbs/gutters intended as conduits to collect seasonal flowing water and snow melt. CCRs state that each individual homeowner is responsible for their own irrigation and anything within their property lines and easements. None of the contiguous subdivisions to Silver Springs have this type of underdrain system. Summit County Building and Planning reported that no other county subdivision has underdrains. See reasons stated below.
Diagram from original 1979 Silver Springs Underdrain drawing with a
4 ft wide drain planned to be installed across the length of residential lots
Concerns have been voiced that the placement of an underdrain system along easements on Member yards could produce summer irrigation problems. Water distributed and sprayed for the benefit of trees, shrubs, and lawns will very likely be percolated or removed away from the vegetation for which it is intended by an underground installed underdrain/French drain system. Now that we are in the eighth year of drought, potential loss of vegetation and hampered beneficial irrigation is a viable concern. See Comments at February 2, 2009
It is important to sum up how many Silver Springs properties are affected, whether individual sump pumps are an appropriate remedy, how much personal property in the form of fences, patios, sheds, trees, gardens, driveways, etc. would be negatively affected by the “roto-rooting” exploration and at what expense to the individual homeowner, the Association, and the perceived re-sale image of our neighborhood. One of the voiced concerns is that if we proceed to tear into properties because of water related issues we could become a stigmatized neighborhood such as Prospector was affected. The benefit to a few does not warrant the cost to the many.
Also it is important to consider the economic times we are experiencing, is it prudent to create more expenses for work that is clearly not a benefit to the Association at large; we have the most expensive water in the state via Mountain Regional, and if global warming-summer drought conditions persist do we really want an underdrain system to draw away the water from our yards, plantings, and properties that we are dearly paying for? Do we want to re-landscape and repair fences, etc.
Opinion: properties that are built on or close to artesian wells will not benefit from an underdrain in someone else’s yard. A sump pump on the individual property affected by seasonal flow is a better solution.
Fact: Ground water and seasonal melt off flow on subdivision lots is the responsibility of the individual property owner. See at Article IX of the CC&Rs. Section 3 . Easements.
Our contiguous subdivisions do not have underdrain systems, they rely on the storm drains, the creek inlets and outlets to channel the overflow into the creeks and retention ponds, on out of our subdivision.
1986 – or thereabouts…John and Bonnie Adams had a stream and flooding, in the 1980?s or early 1990?s, in-between their two lots, 116 and 124 coming from the direction of Lot 113. The area behind their back deck was seasonally flooded for a number of years. Mike Broome said that the Adams told him that when Sun Peak began to be built the flooding stopped….Randy Spagnoletti witnessed various artesian springs in our area. Randy remembers that when a builder, thinks his name was Ron Sturgis, was digging the foundations for some homes along the west side of East Meadows Drive, that he uncovered an artesian well. Randy said that Sturgis just covered up the well and built over the top of it. He thought that the artesian well might be under Lot 65 and/or Lot 57. That might explain why they are experiencing seasonal water in their crawlspace when most of the other properties are not. As the ground water rises it pushes up through the mouth of the well. We know that when Silver Willow Lake was drained in 2005 there were identified eight to twelve artesian wells on the 20 acres that the lake occupies that had not been identified until the lakes were dredged in 1980-1981 or so. The water table is high in Silver Springs, we do not know all the locations or how many other artesian springs or wells are under our community….
1986 -U.S.G.S. Technical Publication No. 85 “Water Resources of the Park City Area, Utah With Emphasis on Ground Water” by Walter F. Holmes, Kendall R. Thompson, and Michael Enright. 70 pages. Last Modified: December 13, 2016 09:32:51
–“Potential Effects of Increased Withdrawal of Ground Water From Consolidated Rocks” (such as the discharge of large volumes of water from the SSSF underdrain system) are decreases in the discharge (decrease) of water of local springs and streams, water-level declines in wells (2016 SS well on west peninsula of the large lake is now 500′ deep and nearly dry), and downward movement of poor quality water displaces refresh clean aquifer water.”
This study shows us the discharge of 300-400 acre feet of valuable water a year through the underdrains has wasteful consequences not only for our neighborhood’s natural health but it also diminishes the water resources of many surrounding neighborhoods, streams, wells, and aquifers. An acre foot of water is the volume of water necessary to cover one acre of surface area to a depth of one foot. It is equal to exactly 325,851 U.S. gallons.
An average household uses between one-half and one acre-foot of water per year for indoor and outdoor use. In one year the underdrains waste enough water for each family in Silver Springs for two years
Around 1987 James Wickerink built a spec home on Lot 27, it is believed that lot experiences seasonal high water issues in the crawlspace. Neighbors report a creek flowed between Lots 26 and 27 that was filled in and covered around 2008.
1989 – May 6 – Approved Amendment to Amended Declaration of CCR Architectural Rules, recorded as Entry 309692. Item 15. Basements should be installed only after thorough investigation of potential water problems. Pursuant to Special Notice to Owners, Entry 157606 Recorded July 6, 1979 . “This Notice to builders regarding subsurface water instructs the use of wider footings or extending the foundation down to the gravel base. Basements built are at Owners risk.”
2004 – March 31, 2004 – Summit County Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Minutes: Kevin Callahan reported on drainage issues in the Silver Springs subdivision. The subdivision was developed 25 years ago on a low lying area with a high water table, and an [unfinished] pipe drainage system was installed along the rear property lines. At that time the Commission had concerns about how the system would function and required the developer to provide a bond. He has tried to determine whether the County is indemnified and noted that neither the plat map nor acceptance of the subdivision dedicate the drainage system to the County [nor the HOA]. He is checking to be sure that the County complied with all the requirements regarding drainage
around the new homes. Although this is an individual homeowners responsibility, he wanted the Commissioners to be aware of the concerns and attempts being made to address the issue. He clarified that the plat map refers to dedicating all public lands, but there is a non-exclusive utility and drainage easement at the rear of the property that is not dedicated. Commissioner Richer asked if the citizens are requesting information or action. Public Works Superintendent Mark Offret replied that people want the problem solved because their crawl spaces are flooding. No one has a map, and access has been buried by grass and trees. Chair Woolstenhulme cautioned that, if the County [and the HOA] has no liability, they should be careful about taking action to resolve the problem. 2004-03-31-County Commission Minutes-drainage
2004 – Chris Butler said that when he bought Lot 170 from Scott Lundberg in December of 2004, that he had to add a sump pump in the crawlspace of that property. The sump pump takes care of any moisture accumulation under there, which seems to be seasonal. Chris moved from Lot 168 where he had no moisture issues at all….
2005-06-01-County Commission Minutes-drainage
2007
In April of 2007, Michael Winer, owner of Lot 42, experienced water back-up and standing water in his yard. Skip Domenick, SS Board president approved an invoice from Marquis Construction on May 14, 2007 for $12,500. to clear the storm drain and raise one or two manhole caps and covers. Another company was hired to complete the work. Discussion has posed the question whether draining of the Lower Pond (Silver Springs Lake) in 2005 and 2006 contributed to the storm drain becoming clogged. Though the Board has been mum regarding this work, it should be noted that on the October 23, 2007 Annual Meeting report there is the following entry: “Ground Water Drainage System –One access point was buried in Silver Springs Road and was reconstructed to allow access for cleaning. Actual Cost $2,550.” Also the 2007 SSHOA Budget YTD OCT lists “Drainage….Expenses…$2,550? The majority of the board continues to be unconvinced the water issues are the responsibility of the Association. The involved members in mitigating individual lot water issues can proceed as good neighbors. The affected homeowners are encouraged to seek remuneration from their homeowners insurance.
On May 21, 2007 Skip Domenick told the Master Association Board that the “estimate is that it will be about $12,000.00. Skip said that SSSFHOA is short of about $ 2,500.00. SSSFHOA asked the Masters to make up the shorted amount.” (See Silver Springs MAHOA Minutes for May 21, 2007.)
The June 18, 2007 Master Association Minutes say that “Jerry [Romero] said that he would talk with Skip to return the money to the masters. SSSFHOA had the drainage issue worked out for far less than they expected.” The Expense-Miscellaneous $2,500.00 item was on the MA Budget as an expenditure through the November 2007 Profit and Loss Statement, so SSSFHOA might have paid them back for the work on and adjacent to Lot 42.
May 2008
Bill Noland, Lot 27, approached the Silver Springs Board of Trustees again regarding water issues he (Lot 27), Skip Domenick (Lot 65), and a couple other neighbors, Lots 57, 67, and 104, have been experiencing in the last three or four years with surface and ground water accumulation from the spring run-off, possible artesian activity, and the way the storm drains, sewer, and the 1979-1985 abandoned underdrain system were, or were not, handling it. Bill said he had to replace his water heater twice that was in his crawlspace and had to run a sump pump. Skip said he chose to divert water and run a sump pump, etc. alleviating any more problems in his own crawlspace. A couple other neighbors successfully did the same (Lot 170). A year or two before, M. Winer at Lot 42 had to have his drain cleaned out because water was backing up in his yard. The HOA worked on the drain and paid for the work that needed to be done. At this point Skip began to assess the extend of our sewer, storm drains, fire hydrants, and defunct French drains. He considered the Summit County advice to not take the underdrains under the auspices of the Association. Bill N., Skip, Patrick Brennan, and a couple other men performed a survey and located as many man-hole covers as they could find, some were under layers of asphalt or under landscaping, some were not found. The board secretary and others worked on revamping the Articles of Incorporation to sever all ties to the 1978 to 1985 developer, his underdrain situation, and all other parties and documents stemming from the early days of Silver Springs East.
Skip Domenick and Bill Noland produced a report that gave the following information: (Presented to the Board on 6/5/2008) Domenick Lot 65 installed french drains around his foundation. New owner has lived there for five years and said the sump pumps have only turned on once. Crawlspace is dry. (October 2014)
SILVER SPRINGS SF HOA GROUND WATER UNDER DRAIN (SUBSURFACE) SYSTEM
an engineer prospective without consideration of the financial and legal implications
What / Where it is?
- pipe was laid in 1978-1979 in 8?-10? deep trenches
- 6?-10? corrugated, flexible, French drain pipe was used for the underdrains
- 3 1/2? w X 8-12? d access/junction manholes were set
- these pipes were laid in Silver Springs Phase 1-A and 1-B
- the system appears to drain into Willow Creek (east side of Sil.Sprgs)
When the early developers recorded the first Silver Springs plats they were required by Summit County to install an infrastructure which included utilities and water systems, one being French drains to protect the infrastructure and future homes from the subsurface high water table and seasonal surface run-off from snow melt and “transient” flow from higher elevations. The developer/HOA president was bonded for 3 years, the County returned his bond to him to further develop Silver Springs and allowed him to transfer his requirements and responsibilities to the HOA as he was also the HOA president and could sign off on the agreement.
Problem HIstory:
- Unknown until 4 years ago. Anecdotal evidence of some random property and crawlspace water, could be drains.
- Significant crawlspace water in lots along East Meadows Drive; some property line drainage at Silver Springs Road and Lake Front Court was repaired last year.
- Research “rediscovers” existence of underdrain system.
- Commercial Roto Router clears significant root invasion into drain pipes. This service results in crawl space water receding, property line drainage stops.
- Unable to reach entire part of system behind East Meadows Drive. (SLS-Phase 1-B).
- Periodic clearing seemed to work until this 2008 spring when significant ground water returned to the lots along East Meadows Drive.
What we know:
- Where immediate problems have surfaced and recurred.
- The system underlies the entire subdivision. Sketchy proposal maps were located at Jack J. Johnson Engineering, the original design company in 1978. The County did not keep any record of the maps or the system.
- No system maintenance has been performed from inception in 1978 until 2004.
- There is potential for water drainage problems if the storm drains and sewer lines are over full and there is not a third system to back them up. The third system is the underdrain system. It is being proposed that it be located, inspected, cleared, repaired if necessary, and maintained in the future;
- Summit County denies ownership or responsibility of the underdrain system but do acknowledge ownership of storm drain system.
- Silver Springs CC&Rs state that individual lot owners are responsible for utility lines, etc. within the easements on their lots.
- There is no “developer” to consult or gain help from.
What we don’t know:
- Effectiveness of repairs or clean out of system; is it truly a system problem.
- Who legally owns the system? HOA? Individual homeowner? Abandoned? Deeded over? Voted in 1985 by HOA Membership to abandon it.
- Documentation is sketchy, incomplete, discretionary, missing?
- Is water in crawl spaces a result of pipe obstructions, over-capacity, other water moving through the ground, artesian springs, or a combination.
- Extent of subsurface water invasion into other properties within Silver Springs. A survey is being planned to plot if other homesites being affected. Six or more?
- Health of system – it is 30 years old and never before inspected or maintained.
- Condition of pipes – root obstructions, or ground shift or collapse of pipes
- Where most lines and man holes are located, some are paved over or have landscape growing over them as it is an abandoned, unneeded system.
- Proposal maps do not seem to represent “ground truth” location of system.
What this could mean for the SSSFHOA:
- Potential for future system related problems during spring run-off season.
- If it is decreed that the SSSFHOA owns the underdrain system the costs for repair would include private property removal of trees, shrubs, fences, sheds, landscaping. After 30 years do we really need this system? Who benefits?
- Future maintenance could continue to impose on private property. No need.
- Would the SSSFHOA be legally liable for damage from water run-off due to system defects should a neighbor decide to sue for damages. How would the court rule? Other subdivisions do not have this system nor quandry. This is a “What if the sky begins to fall?” question. Our CC&Rs clearly state each Member is responsible for their individual parcels.
- How can the cause of seasonal, unforeseeable, and unanticipated excessive water flow on a neighborhood property be assigned to a ‘failure’ of an abandoned 30 year old underdrain system? It can’t.
What we need to do:
- Have requested HOA attorney to determine if SSSFHOA legally owns the underdrain system. The board has not shared this opinion letter.
- Determine if the County holds some responsibility. They do not.
- If SSSFHOA owns and is legally responsible for the system then obtain legal release from homeowners for liability. No one owns it, it has gone back to nature.
- Clear and clean out the streams, creeks, inlets, outlets, and storm drains.
- If the SSSFHOA owns the system obtain insurance for liability. No need.
- Survey residents to get a picture of where else there is a problem (if any). How many are using sump pumps effectively. Survey was taken, no results have been shared by the board.
- Obtain bids and proposals for solution from companies like Geotechnical Company to commence clean-out of lines, replacement of collapsed pipes (if any), location of “lost” manholes and pipes, etc. Great cost benefits half dozen. How can they ask their neighbors to tear up their yards and pay thousands of dollars on the chance it might help a very few? There are other options.
- Inform General Membership and obtain input, if needed take a vote.
Results of preliminary contact with two geotech firms:
- Clear out fall restriction and back pressure Willow Creek (storm drains?)
- Work upstream from out fall to determine viability of existing system by roto-rooting and send a snake camera to the pipes; possible backhoe work. Cost greatly out weighs value to Association Members.
- Only when system integrity is verified can it be determined if overcapacity or other circumstances are causing the water to enter the crawl space of some (6)homes.
- Are there other causes for seasonal ground water issues; artesian springs are known to exist (around 15-18 under the 20 acre lake); will sump pumps in crawl spaces with problems take care of the problems. Have been since 1982 on the years of extra flow.
DECISION:
- Do we pursue legal definition of “Ownership”. No!
- What will be the costs of legal counsel, court fight, presumed damage to a few homeowners properties.
- What if work results in unwarranted necessity? What is homeowner sues HOA for excavation damage to his yard, fence, trees, deck, storage shed, etc.?
- Pandora box – could stigmatize neighborhood like lead at Prospector.
- Appoint an “Underdrain Committee” to work under the direction of the HOA. This was done during the summer of 2008.
Bill Noland has continued his investigation of the underdrain system.
Webmaster offered to post his latest finding on this site.
When the revised information is submitted it will be posted.
We continue to request documents from Noland without success in receiving any.
The Articles accepted by the board will be submitted to the Homeowners at the October 2008 Annual meeting as planned.
- WHAT IS RECORDED IN OUR HOA DOCS…….
- 1979 Escrow Fund Agreement for Improvements to Silver Springs Phase 1A.
Entry 157609 Book M137 Pages 81-86 - 1982 Agreement between the County and the Developer regarding the bond for the underdrain system. Entry 193367 Book M225 Pages 191-193.
- 1982 Amendment to the Amended Declaration Entry 193368 Book M 225 Pages 194-197
- 1994 Amended CCRs any reference to the underdrain system was not included as the majority of the Association members voted to abandon it. In ensuing recorded HOA docs the underdrain system has remained not included.
- If you want to verify the above listed documents for yourself here are the instructions for finding them on the Summit County Website:Go to http://www.co.summit.ut.us/
Look for the orange menu bar at the top of the page.
Click on PUBLIC RECORDS. That will produce a drop-down menu.
From this menu click on Eagle Web (Property).
From this page click on PUBLIC LOG-IN
Look for the black menu bar on the top of the page.
Click on DOCUMENT SEARCH
In the center of the page, the first black menu bar has ENTRY NUMBER Ex: 00221234
In the box provided enter the ENTRY NUMBER from the Chart above for the document you are seeking.
The .PDF file of the recorded document will come up for viewing or printing or saving to your computer.
WHAT EVIDENCE EXISTS REGARDING THE UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM?
- Silver Springs 1A UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM & CHANNEL RELOCATION drawing for Silver Springs Development, Inc. on 5/30/1979 by Lon Stalsberg and Jeff Graham of the J.J. Johnson & Associates Engineering Co. designating the rendering “AS BUILT” Numbered 3A of 21
.
Five homes would be impacted on front and backyards.
https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/wp-content/uploads/ss1a-underdrain-system-1979as-built.jpg
- Silver Springs 1B Underdrain System & Channel Relocation Numbered 3b of 30, signed by Lon Stalsberg c. 1978 . This rendering numbers the lots differently than the recorded plat. Work was not completed.
Darker lines represent where the Underdrain system is thought to be.
The dark lines also represent where the digging would be done.
https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/wp-content/uploads/ss1b-underdrain
-system-1979proposed.jpg
SILVER SPRINGS EAST DEVELOPMENT 1978 UNDER DRAIN SYSTEM
HAS BEEN ABANDONED SINCE 1982. IN 2004 AND 2014 THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY TOLD THE TRUSTEES THAT THE OWNERSHIP AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE UNDERDRAINS IS A PRIVATE MATTER
BETWEEN THE LAND OWNERS AND THE OWNER’S ASSOCIATION.
THE TRUSTEES REQUIRE VOTED AUTHORIZATION FROM THE
HOMEOWNERS ON WHETHER TO IGNORE THE UNDERDRAINS
OR MAINTAIN THEM. IN 2014 HOMEOWNERS VOTED TO “IGNORE THE UNDERDRAINS.”
NO OTHER PARK CITY AREA SUBDIVISION HAS UNDERDRAINS.
This underdrain map by Bill Noland is not accurate.
Below November 11, 2014 map provided by Alliance Engineering.
Click on map to enlarge.
The underdrains were started in 1978, the temporary system was never completed. In 1984 the SFHOA Membership voted to abandon the defunct system that was never completed by Developer Ray Fry. The underdrains were replaced by drainage channels, retention ponds, storm drains, sewers, curbs and gutters, and roads, etc. Easements for the various drainage channels are along the back and sides of some lots. The underdrains were never dedicated to the County or the HOA; they were never recorded and do not appear on our subdivision plat maps.
Lot owners were given a letter in June 2013 showing them where plotting had been proposed but not necessarily completed and giving them guide lines as to what they can do around this “system” within their own private property. Attorneys and the County have cautioned the SSSF trustees against placing the underdrains under the auspices of the HOA as doing so may lead to property owner lawsuits against the HOA. Throwing caution to the wind, a new “Architectural Rule” passed by three trustees [Hibdon, Milkis, Fassett], under pressure from Bill Noland, c. November 2013, is a huge infringement on private property rights in Silver Springs SF and tramples the voting rights of the HOA Membership approving the Articles of Incorporation. Any changes made to the CCRs need to be voted on and passed by a majority of HOA property owners. This is not the first time Noland has circumvented proper authorization for assessments, remember the March 2010 assessment from the MA for repairing the private small lake; or the Affidavit purporting the Master Association twelve presidents agreed and signed the lake transfer agreement. Noland and supporters vetoed a vote to make this work and cost transparent by making underdrain documents available to the homeowners and the BOT.
| 2013 SSSFHOA Architectural Rules amendment: 19. On lots where the ground water underdrain exists, no trees or deep rooted bushes (roots that may exceed 2’ deep) may be planted within the 8’ front, side and rear nonexclusive public utility and drainage easement as shown on the recorded plat. Those lots that have a platted 30’county road and utility easement on the front of the lot will measure the 8’ planting restriction back from the edge of the street gutter on the side of the residence. Where the underdrain runs outside of the platted easements, but within a property boundary, the 8’ planting restriction will be observed within 4’ either side of the alignment of the drain. (See CCR Article IX, Section 3). The underdrains are mentioned only in the Developers CCRs from 1979 to 1982. They were not carried over to the new SSSFHOA in 1985, to the present. |
This CCR amendment displays furtive activities by trustees. Only one point of view was considered. Opposition to the underdrains has been razed, bullied, knocked down without discussion by board members and Noland, and without notifying homeowners of the opposition and negative consequences of digging out this defunct system. Who and how many will benefit and at what cost?
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM: The temporary underdrain system built in 1979 or so in Silver Springs Phases 1A and 1B are being monitored by Skip Domenick and Bill Noland. Their interest in repairing, and researching this system lays with their properties being among the few affected by high ground water issues. The particular reason for their concern this year is that a number of lots along E. Meadows Drive have been experiencing high water conditions. (Lots 27, 57, 65, 67, 104, 105), some emanating from obstructions along Willow Creek. A number of the residents have successfully installed sump pumps and have been running them for a couple weeks. This condition does not occur every year. Skip and Bill have discovered that in May of 1979 the J..J.Johnson Company drew draft maps for an underdrain system that was to be installed prior to the development of Silver Springs. The system lies in 8’ to 10’ deep trenches, fitted with 6”-10” corrugated, flexible perforated pipe. The pipe collects water that drains into Willow Creek. There are a number of manhole covers at access and junction points. Bill has located most of these manholes with the assistance of a 1979 parcel map produced by J.J.Johnson Engineering, but a couple access points (Lot 106) are still uncovered, though the storm drain has been found and contains 3’-4’ of water in the pipes.
Park City foothills and Snyderville Basin is well known as a high water table area. Summit County was aware of this when the subdivision was approved. S.C. bonded the developer for 3 years, from 1979-1982. The complete history and current ownership of this system is being researched to determine who legally owns it today and who has the responsibility for its recovery and maintenance. [This is an abandoned system that existed from 1979-1982. No other subdivision in our Park City area has an underdrain system. No one owns it. It would be like giving title to the rain.] There is also a need to know where the S.C. owned surface storm drain lines run in correlation to the ‘orphaned” sub-surface underdrain system. The question of what is to be done by the HOA is clearly up to the votes of the collective Homeowners within the Articles of Incorporation. It was agreed that as individuals the group of affected homeowners should continue to directly address the water table issues on their specific affected lots. It was further agreed that the HOA may not be required to assist even if a professional legal opinion is received that is not accepted by the vote of the Homeowners.
Summit County sent a letter to each of the property owners along Willow Creek reminding them the Homeowner holds sole responsibility for keeping this drainage channel clear especially during snow melt run-off.
Read from Article IX of the CC&Rs. Section 3 . Easements or installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are reserved as shown on the recorded Plat and over the rear and side five feet of each lot. Within these easements, no structure, planting or other materials shall be placed or permitted to remain which may damage or interfere with the installation and maintenance of utilities, or which may change the direction of flow of drainage channels in the easements or which may obstruct or retard the flow of water through drainage channels in the easements. The easement area of each lot and all improvements in it shall be maintained continuously by the owner of the lot, except for those improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible.
Noland made the point that the last line stating that each lot owner is responsible for those improvements on his lot for which a public authority or utility company is responsible is the crux of his query and investigation. The HOA needs to determine who owns the elusive underdrain system. Is it the original developer, the subsequent partners and developers, the water companies, Summit County or the SSHOA or the MAHOA? On June 25, 1982 the SSHOA president/developer Raymond D. Fry – RDF Associates, Inc.- and Summit County signed and recorded an Agreement whereby the president of the SSHOA agreed that the Developer’s SSHOA “Association is and shall be solely responsible for maintaining the underdrain system in Silver Springs Subdivision Phases 1A and 1B, and such future phases of such subdivision as may be approved by Summit County thereafter.”
This agreement then provided: “3. Release. Subject to any other conditions of such bond, County hereby agrees to release $150,000. of the escrow being held by American Savings & Loan Association, which represents that portion of the bond designated for completion of the underdrain system in Phases 1A and 1B. The three words added by title officer James V. Crestaini to the Developer’s SSHOA CC&R’s Article VIII Section 1 (a) “the underdrain system” first appear on June 25, 1982 on a typewritten the Amendment to Amended Declaration of CC&Rs for S.S. Development which was purportedly filed right after (pages 194-197] the above Agreement. The three words are then deleted in the SSSFHOA February 8, 1993 Amendment and all subsequent amendments. So what happened in 1993? This could be a good place to begin our research. The HOA also needs to know the extent of the underdrain/French drain system; is it under Phases A thru E or only under Phases 1A & /or 1B. What is the overall health of the existing system? Who is the true current owner? No one, it has been abandoned. The Board agreed that Bill Noland should head up an Underdrain Research Committee to find all documentation, to present to our attorney Lincoln Hobbs, so that he can provide us with a defensible legal opinion as to the present ownership of the underdrain system to determine who is responsible for its maintenance and repair before the Board can commit to the enormous financial resources to trace, repair, and possibly expand such a system. The Board’s primary concern is its duty to represent the interests, as well as the fiduciary obligations, of the all the SSSFHOA membership. Bill was advised to begin with the SSHOA website pages on the History of Silver Springs https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/history/ and https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/hoa-docs/1982-agreement-rdf-and-summit-county/
Also the Waterways pages at https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/waterways/ and https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/waterways/lower-pond-plat/ and all HOA documents which are now fully searchable, at https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/hoa-docs/ These pages contain names, companies, dates, documents, and events that may assist Bill and his committee in continuing their research. We are trying to sort out and document the separate water systems in Silver Springs. There is a large pump house next to the basketball court at the Park that was to be the main source of the S.S. irrigation system. The irrigation pipes run along the rear of the lots but we don’t know in what Phases. Then there is the culinary water system, owned? by Mountain Regional. Would like to have a plat map of that system and docs. Then there is the storm drain system owned by Summit County that is to be maintained by Summit County. Need much more info on that. So we do need a committee to sort all this out. Matt Lindon 655-0269 and ______ were on the committee before and must have lots of info.
Then there are the waterways (streams, creeks, drainage channels, retention ponds, artesian wells, lakes, etc.) that need documentation. Photographs of most of the sections have been taken by Lucy Archer and are linked to the chart document on-line.
July 10, 2008 SSSFHOA Board Meeting – Agenda Item 7:
Michael Winer had to leave so the meeting was adjourned. The remaining Board members and general members remained to discuss the Underdrain System. Bill Noland stayed to answer Board questions regarding the underdrain system and the implications this may have on the trustee approved Articles of Incorporation. Sue Pollard, Clay Archer, Lucy Archer, Lyn Cier remained until 9:30 p.m. to review Bill’s findings. Bill has learned much about French drains, drainage, water issues, location of pipes and caps, wells, and many other like subjects. Sue stated that she was sorry that five or six homeowners in Silver Springs out of 188, were having seasonal high water issues, but she felt that did not justify tearing up fences, trees, landscaping, driveways, other private property to find the underdrains and repair them. The group agreed this could really get out of control and Silver Springs could become stigmatized. No one wants the HOA to take it under their auspices. Clay said that the system had been put in the ground in 1978 or 1979 and had been completely abandoned for thirty years. Though the system may still be healthy in some areas it may be mostly absorbed by nature in other areas. Noland has spent many HOA resources cataloging this system which Homeowners agree should not be re-generated as it is more prudent for the handful of homeowners with ground water issues to take responsibility for their private property by installing French drains around the perimeter of their homes and if needed, sump pumps in their crawl spaces.
Bill said that the drainage routes, ground table levels, and run-off were evidently changing as construction at the Canyons and other areas changed and snowfall fluctuated. He is finding that plats of underground systems and ground truth location of these systems are not always in sync. We agreed that recorded documents and the lack of verbiage on the recorded plats place the responsibly on the individual owners for surface water and easement issues. READ: 1982 CCRs Article IX Easements: “Section. 1. The rights and duties of the owners of lots within the properties with respect to sanitary sewer and water, electricity, solar heating systems, gas, telephone, and Cable Television lines and drainage facilities shall be governed by the following:… Section 2: “as shown on the recorded tract map of the properties…..Section 3: The easement area of each lot and all improvements in it shall be maintained continuously by the owner of the lot, except for those improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible.”
It was agreed that it would be better for five or six owners to buy sump pumps than to get into what might become a multi-million dollar tear up of the Phase 1B neighborhood. We speculated that the damage to trees, property, subdivision reputation, would greatly exceed the expected benefits.
1982 Developer’s SSHOA CCRs Article VIII Section 1 Duties and Powers of the Association states:” (a) Own, and/or maintain and otherwise manage all of the common areas and all facilities, improvements and landscaping thereon, including but not limited to the private streets and street fixtures, the underdrain system, and all other property acquired by the Association. There is also a 1982 recorded Agreement Between Ray Fry and Summit County.: This agreement is binding on “that Association” belonging to the Developer. Whether or not the SSSFHOA organized in 1984-1987 is a successor is questionable. All the Silver Springs East subdivisions are descendants of the Developers association. The Master Association was required by the County to take over the Developer’s responsibility for all the Silver Springs East common areas. All post 1985 SSSFHOA recorded CCRs do not mention the underdrain system. In our 1994 CCRs Article IX, Section 3. states that all easements for installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are reserved as shown on the recorded Plat and over the rear and side five feet of each lot…..The easement area of each lot and all improvements in it shall be continuously maintained by the owner of the lot, except for those improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible.
However, no recent recorded documents mention the underdrain system or who is responsible for it. Sue voiced her concern that if Bill Noland has a personal interest in the underdrain system (water in his crawlspace and replaced two water heaters) and he is the one presenting the issue to the Board’s legal counsel, then that could be interpreted as a conflict of interest when Bill and counsel then advise the Board on defining the Board’s responsibility for the underdrain system. We all agreed that someone else on the Board needed to contact Lincoln and give him another Board member perspective. We all agreed our approval of the language in the updated Articles would insure the underdrains would not be a HOA problem once the Homeowners accepted the Articles in October. At the end of the meeting Board members left concerned that more damage could be done than was advisable and that the handful of property owners that were having seasonal high water needed to deal with it on an individual basis.
NOTE FROM A NEIGHBOR
We understand that Bill is looking at the underdrain system from an engineer’s point of view, and subsequently wants to fix the system to an itemized inventory and list of deterioration conditions. We feel that the system being abandoned for over thirty years belongs to no one, and therefore no person or entity is responsible for its condition or function. The system has undoubtedly sections that have collapsed, filled with roots, or clogged with sediment which in effect has reverted a portion of it to a natural state and may be considered no longer to exist as an underdrain. Therefore, we feel that any spring flooding that may occur has been due to nature not the system. Protection of neighborhood trees and their roots is more important than unearthing trash pipes for a few residents.
We understand that the water table and the drainage paths, along with known underground vertical artesian springs in our area, have been migrating and changing over the years. This further supports our feeling that the lateral underdrain system may or may not have the overall detrimental effect that supports the extent of work Bill is suggesting. We feel that the damage to personal property and to the public perception of Silver Springs Communities would exceed the benefit of repairing this abandoned system.
The issues that Bill and Skip and a few of their neighbors are having is from surface water not underground water, which we realize that one can precipitate the other. We believe that surface water is the responsibility of the individual homeowner, who can install a sump pump for use during the one or two weeks of spring melt and run-off during the recent years or a french drain system around the perimeter of their home. See the 1979 “Special Notice” Entry 157606 that assigns fluctuating water to the builders and owners of each property. Basements are noticed to be built at owner’s risk.
Additionally, we feel that the recorded documents that explain the underdrain system ownership and responsibility are inconclusive and actually lay the ownership to each lot owner. The appearance and disappearance of the words “underdrain system” from various documents (most of which are unrecorded) is puzzling as we do not know why these actions were taken. We are interested to read whatever minutes or documents you have that will clarify this situation.
Michael Winer has repeatedly instructed secretary/webmaster Lucy Archer to not include anything about the underdrain system in the monthly newsletter. At one point a short survey was to be included in the newsletter. The survey was to ask Members if they had ground water problems in their crawlspaces or basements, and whether seasonal water gathered in their yards. Also how long they have lived in their homes, and how many years, if any, have they experienced ground and run-off water issues. Bill and Michael then decided not to do a survey and to continue to keep the topic “under wraps for now”.
August 2008: Suspicions have arisen regarding the motives of a few Association board members because they have not openly discussed their actions to re-establish the defunct and abandoned underdrain system, they have personal conflicts of interest, and they have not openly presented their plans with the Association Members or other members of the board.
September 15, 2008: Michael Winer was in receipt of attorney Lincoln Hobbs opinion letter regarding the ownership and status of the underdrain system. Winer has not shared its contents with the SSSFHOA Board.
September 22, 2008: Bill Noland and Michael Winer presented to the Master Association board the underdrain system report and a letter regarding this system written from attorney Lincoln Hobbs though that Board probably has nothing to do with any underdrains. Hobbs letter cost the SSSFHOA $2,000 but Winer and Noland are keeping its contents under wraps, even other board members have not had access to its contents. 2009- Found the Lincoln Hobbs 2008 letter to Michael Winer. — responsibility for underdrains as common areas is disputed by attorney Edwin “Ted” Barnes. Each of the attorneys engaged to provide their opinion has been at odds with the other attorneys’ opinions. Expensive waste of Homeowner money. Only the Homeowners have the legal right to decide whether they want to take on the Developers’ 1979-1982 responsibility.
October 1, 2008: When producing the newsletter a survey and the new Articles of Incorporation were included. The newsletter editor was told by the board to delete any reference to the underdrain system. “It will be a Pandora’s box, if homeowners find out what the cost and implications could be if the work is authorized and commenced.” If the Articles are passed there will be no cost or implications.
October 13, 2008: Annual Association Meeting. Attended by 75 Association members plus proxies. Bill Noland and the underdrain system were listed as Item VII on Sue Pollard’s ambush agenda. That was after the vote for candidates and the Articles was announced. The overwhelming vote to accept the Articles puts an end to the underdrains project. When Bill was given the floor he addressed the attendees and said he was not prepared to present his study of the system to the assembled members. Bill told the group that if they wanted information, or updated information from what is on this web page, to give him a call. At this point the only way the underdrains can become the HOA responsibility is if the Homeowners, fully informed, vote to change the Articles they so fully accepted today.
2009 – February 9 – Mutiny Board meeting minutes: –Underdrain Report. Bill Noland explained the 1978-1979 SSSFHOA French drain/underdrain system. Noland distributed a thick sheaf report to each of the board members. The information received was for information purposes only. Discussion and decision-making to be at a subsequent meeting. Describing the underdrain network from its temporary installation in 1979 until the present, Mr. Noland explained the underground system, consisting of buried lines of perforated PVC pipe, met Summit County Commission requirements for managing a high water table known to exist when what became SSSF subdivision received development authorization. These pipes collected ground water delivering it to an outflow point. Summit County officials and the subdivision developer signed a letter in 1982 assigning the underdrain responsibility to the developers SSHOA, Noland said. [In October of 1985 the SSSFHOA at a General Association Meeting, the board and members voted to abandon the irrigation system and the underdrain system. This was done for reasons listed below*, and by removal of the verbiage referring to these systems from the new 1985 Amended Declaration of CCRs Entry 244975, Book M370, Pages 267-275 for the new SSSFHOA, and by including the statement on CCRs Page 273: “All [prior] Declarations relating to the Silver Springs Development Subdivision were repealed”] However, when the Masters Association was formed in 1989, gaining control over maintenance of “common areas”, Noland assumed this would have included the underdrain system, but, Noland said, there are no Masters Association records verifying this as the underdrain is located within Silver Springs Single Family subdivision predominantly under Phases A & B and within individually owned properties therefore not definable as “common area” but instead as “private property.”
During 1993-1994 written responsibility for underdrain system “maintenance” was worked out by the presiding board in various CCRs draft documents referencing the underdrain then again removing any reference to the underdrain system. The ending document that was approved by the Association on November 17, 1994 and was recorded at Entry # 419440, Book M851, Pages 334-339, has no reference to any responsibility to an underdrain system by the Association, supporting the 1985 Association vote to abandon the system. No subsequent HOA documents include any reference to the underdrain system which has been abandoned by the Association as defunct, and we imagine the system has for a great part returned to nature. Although Summit County government did correct at least one water seep problem attributed to underdrain failure (in conjunction with the storm drain?), Summit County officials consistently deny responsibility for “maintaining” the abandoned underdrain network. The SSSFHOA has done the same, Noland said. Noland feels this has now caused a serious impasse, he added, since water entering home crawl space –such as his and maybe three or four others –, yards and driveways have disclosed the system has been invaded at various places by tree roots, other “organic matter,” possible collapses and displacements, turning it, at times during spring run-off, and at certain spots, from a collection and outflow system to a distribution system gathered on a number of subdivision lots. In the spring the sewer system and the storm drain system can become clogged or over burdened. Willow Creek has been known to overflow and the storm drains provided for this increase in seasonal flow need to be monitored to clear debris and branches from hampering proper drainage. Who, then, Noland stressed, is responsible for determining the potential for water seepage difficulties, meeting them and dealing with them when actual damages and threatened damages appear? The County told the board that it is matter to be decided by the vote of the Homeowners.
Noland suggested three options –
-1. The SSSFHOA can be petitioned to take ultimate responsibility. [See Oct. 1985, November 1994, Oct 2008 and Nov 2014 Association votes.]
-2. Petition the Masters Association to take responsibility. [Highly unlikely to occur as it is not part of their charter and other Silver Springs Member Subdivisions have petitioned and been turned down for similar work.]
-3. “Wait until someone sues over damage and an eventual court decision assigns responsibility.” A scare tactic at best. [The responsibility is already assigned to the individual lot owner, the SSSFHOA CCRs state in Article IX Easements: “Section. 1. The rights and duties of the owners of lots within the properties with respect to sanitary sewer and water, electricity, solar heating systems, gas, telephone, and Cable Television lines and drainage facilities shall be governed by the following:… The easement area of each lot and all improvements in it shall be maintained continuously by the owner of the lot, except for those improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible.”
See https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/utilities/water/underdrain-system/ for more information.] Noland suggested reasons for the homeowners to deny responsibility would be to avoid maintenance costs, to conserve irrigation water to lawns, trees, gardens within each lot, to avoid costly intrusion by roto-rooting and damage to private property; while reasons for accepting the responsibility include protecting an undetermined number (7) of homeowners
from costly damages [which are actually owner responsibilities], and simply assuring control over the abandoned system. The Association would then be presented with further questions about how to proceed, including fixing problems when they occur or finding impending failures and “roto-rooting” them out or devising a system wide plan for preventing problems before they arise. As current Master HOA president he guessed petitioning that board would be futile. He observed that getting general approval for the SSSFHOA to accept full responsibility could be complicated by the fact that not every lot in the subdivision is directly on the system’s route and some lots are affected in the front and backyards. However, former SSSFHOA President Skip Domenic, who is also experiencing spring runoff issues and his property may be on an artesian spring, pointed out that when the system starts distributing instead of collecting water – especially during spring’s heavy runoff period – it could easily spread beyond the system’s line, threatening property just about anywhere. During general discussion, it was suggested “maintenance,” mentioned in documented language about the system should be better defined; and that a “survey of
members” to determine who is or is not affected could help determine how serious and wide cast the problem really is. In Noland’s final analysis, the board of trustees, is obliged to draft a homeowners membership plan for meeting the problem, more facts, less scaremongering rumors. Most homeowners are already aware if there are runoff issues associated with their own properties. The suggested movement of this size and scope would need to be approved by a majority vote by the entire Association Membership before it can be implemented.
Attendees were impressed with Mr. Noland’s substantial work compiling the underdrain report though there were no financial and liability considerations. It was generally discussed that a survey of our property owners is necessary to determine if more than four or five properties are being affected by spring runoff, artesian springs, artesian wells, etc.*It is important to sum up how many Silver Springs properties are affected, whether individual sump pumps are an appropriate remedy, how much personal property in the form of fences, patios, sheds, trees, gardens, driveways, etc. would be negatively affected by the “roto-rooting”, and whether a dead zone of irrigation would occur along the proposed areas. It is also important to consider that in these years of drought the effect of a water collection or underdrain system will leach your irrigation water away from the lawn and garden areas contiguous to and under the underdrain system. Continual new development upstream from us (such as Canyons resort and golf course) have been decreasing the amount of water running down stream to Silver Springs. The few homeowners who are experiencing runoff in their yards and water in their crawlspaces (Noland, Butler, Domenic, Wilson, Yokubison, Devaney, Matthews-Collett) seem to occur in the spring, whereas the revival of the underdrain would leach water from homeowner properties 365 days of the year. Also is it prudent to create more expenses for work that is clearly not a benefit to the Association at large? Noland was advised to produce a Cost Analysis for his plans. Also it would behoove him to come up with better alternatives of systems that would not create so much damage to our properties and stigmatize our subdivision.
2009, February 10 – Board meeting minutes:” Community Underdrain Survey. Distributing a draft survey questionnaire asking homeowners members about past and present underground water problems on their properties, the information gathered would further inform the board as to the under-drain condition and its potential for causing seepage damages. With such information, he said, the board would be better positioned to confront the under-drain system’s already identified failures. [in conjunction with storm drain issues]
During discussion it was emphasized survey results would be kept confidential and the survey would be distributed by mail.
March 17, 2009: The Association Members received a Drainage Survey. Results unknown.
2009, April 22: Board Meeting minutes:
Ground Water Survey – Bill N presented the ground water survey results. Approximately 100 responses were purportedly received. The survey confirmed some known trouble spots and also created some watch areas that may need to be addressed in the future.
2009, May 27 – Board meeting minutes: Underdrain Committee – There were no volunteers for the underdrain committee. Currently the committee consists of Bill N and Bill G. An underdrain sight-seeing tour will be held Saturday, May 30th at 11:00am for Board members to learn more about the problem areas of the underdrain system.
[Storm Drain]/ Underdrain System – Willow Creek is running at it highest level for 2009. No significant back-ups have been found or reported since the last Board meeting. Skip Dominick is having some back-up but it was reported that the level of back-up is nowhere near last year’s levels. Maintenance of the system will be scheduled for October when water levels are the lowest. Currently scheduled maintenance projects include repairing the main outlet near Willow Creek and possibly excavating a portion the system between Willow Loop and East Meadows Drive where an apparent obstruction is causing an up gradient backup.
A discussion took place about whether the SSHOA should pay for private party issues. For example, if the underdrain committee recommends removing trees in certain areas to protect the integrity of underdrain system and the homeowner refuses – how should this be handled? Can the homeowner pay for yearly maintenance of the line in their yard and keep the trees? The Board agreed that this should be a general membership decision. Homeowner’s individual insurance policies are to be researched for groundwater issues.
2009, September 16 – Water firm wins big tax appeal, Burden could shift to Summit Water’s ratepayer’s
2009 – September 16 – The SSSFHOA trustees held an “emergency” meeting attended by Noland, Gunter, and two other trustees. The purpose of today’s meeting was to get a quick vote to spend $5,000 from the HOA budget for Noland’s requested “cleaning” and inspection work. This action runs contrary to the Association Member votes to abandon this system and any further work on it as its collective benefits are questionable. Concerns have been voiced that the placement of an underdrain system along easements on Member yards could produce summer irrigation problems. Within the parameters of an underdrain system water distributed by homeowners, sprayed for the benefit of trees, shrubs, and lawns will very likely be percolated or removed away from the vegetation for which it is intended. Drought and global warming produce potential loss of vegetation and hamper beneficial irrigation. See Comments at February 2, 2009.
2009, October 13 – Noland was not re-elected to the board as he did not place his name on the ballot. Perhaps now that he has achieved his purposes by disenfranchising the votes of the Homeowners he does not feel a need to continue his furtive “investigation” on the underdrain system nor to serve on the HOA boards. Working as an unelected volunteer gives him more autonomy to do as he pleases, swaying the sympathizers on the board to allocate money to his unauthorized project.
2010, December 4 – Water and the Quality of Life – Part 1 of 3 – by Matt Lindon, P.E. Assist. State Water Engineer
”Large sewer pipes efficiently move waste water away from the sources toward treatment plants, circumventing the historical surface stream system in between. Pavement and pumps, under-drains and storm sewers protect the subdivisions and development built in the wetlands and whisk runoff away, out-of-sight and out-of-mind. Streams are put in pipes, ditches are abandoned, and natural channels are made into plazas and parking lots. Natural drainage from our basin is reduced to a trickle at times. Water quantity and quality have been diminished. The water has been subdued: the meadow no longer fills in the spring, and the streams no longer flow in the summer.”
Also See December 18 Part 2 and 31 Part 3 at https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/utilities/water/
2011 July 5 SSSF Board Meeting: Underdrain: Rick Krebs discussed the underdrain and there currently is a water seepage issue at 1418 Willow Lane (Odernheimer ) located next to Ranch Place wetlands. Krebs and Bill Noland, as interested neighbors observing a homeowners individual situation, have reviewed and observed the water seepage and met on-site with a representative of Mountain Regional Water. The seepage could be a number of things so some investigative work was performed to see if we could find any evidence of a culinary waterline leak or an artesian spring or an issue with contiguous Ranch Place wetlands. No leak was found but did find two access manholes (Lot 133) for the underdrain system. The owners plan is to go forward and clean and TV the underdrain line in the area of the water seepage. That way the line will be located and cleaned to assure it is functioning properly. We will also find out if the seepage issue is related to the underdrain system, an artesian spring, or the wetlands. Currently, the water seepage poses no problems to surrounding properties.
President Fuller discussed insurance options for the underdrain system [this temporary incomplete system was abandoned by vote of the property owners when the county storm drains, sewer lines, and drainage ditches were completed. Also the underdrain was installed on our individual private property therefore it was abandoned when infrastructure was completed because its function siphons off tree and landscape water.] The insurance company is reluctant to insure the association against possible underdrain-caused damage since the HOA does not “own” the system. Even if the HOA took ownership of the system, the insurance would be very expensive. The board discussed the issue and feels they need to appease Noland by piecemeal addressing problems that arise and are making an effort to locate and maintain the underdrain system. The HOA, ignoring their fiduciary duty to the Association Members, will continue to perform preventative maintenance and build reserves in the budget to handle underdrain problems, like picking at a scab. [ [In 1985, 1994 and 2008 the SSSFHOA property owners’ voted to abandon the underdrain system and removed it from all revised CCRs. The property owner votes are being ignored by the SSSF board and the proponents of the underdrain, again disenfranchising the majority of property owners.]
2011 November SSSFHOA Board Newsletter: Underdrain Committee Chairman Rick Krebs “In accordance with a proactive maintenance program established by the SSSFHOA board of trustees, the underdrain system transiting association neighborhoods got spring and late summer power hose treatments… No serious property damage traced to the system was reported this summer even though water run-offs were unusually heavy.””Record searching by volunteer Bill Noland, [and hired attorneys,] did NOT determine precisely how or if ownership of the system extends to the HOA, the board has assumed responsibility for the underdrain system [that the majority of property owners in our HOA voted to abandon, and have determined the underdrain is the responsibility of individual property owners as written in our HOA legal and recorded documents].””Since the system’s primary purpose is to collect and carry-off sub-soil drainage”… it also carries off landscape and tree water leaving individual property in need of sufficient water to maintain the health of owner plants and lawns. The board is overstepping its authority and exacerbating local drought problems for all property owners in a misstep to remedy issues with less than a dozen individual properties. This webmaster has made an email request for Bill Noland to provide the documents that the MA attorneys have given to him as well as all correspondence with Summit County regarding the SSSF underdrain system. As of today’s date, September 2013, Noland has not shared any of the letters, documents, etc. he claims will substantiate his posturing on the underdrains though the attorney and their work has been billed and payed by the Association Members.
2013 April 8 – The SSSFHOA Board mailed a letter stating “The Silver Springs Homeowner’s Association is responsible for maintaining the system.” This is an incorrect statement. Herein is attached a copy of emails sent to Dwight Hibdon, 2013 SSSFHOA President, from Lucy Archer, founding SSSFHOA Trustee, correcting information included in the boards letter to the property owners: 2013 April 8 Board Letter Response regarding the defunct Underdrains.
Also at: https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/2013/04/10/silver-springs-sf-board-meeting/
The underdrains dispute was continued at the November 4, 2013 Replacement Meeting attended and represented by the usual nineteen of the 189 lots.
Bill Noland gave a report on an outlet he recently found in the Willow Creek Open Space. He reminded attendees that plantings have always been restricted in the public utility easements, and by extension he included the underdrain easement. I, Lucy Archer, then asked Bill why he, Harry Fuller, Bill Gunter, Larson and Butler (when they served on the HOA Board circa 2009-2010) had circumvented the authority of the homeowners to proceed with work on the temporary, incomplete, 30-year abandoned and defunct underdrain system. Noland and Fuller stated that the underdrain system was the responsibility of the HOA.
I asked from where had they received this information? Noland said he had firm proof that the HOA owned the underdrains. I said I, and others, would like to see it. What bothers us the most is the appearance of usurping authority contrary to the will and vote of the homeowners. These neighbors have circumvented legal advice to the Board demonstrating the risk and liability to the property owners if the HOA and property owners were to accept the underdrains under the auspices of the HOA.
If Noland and Fuller, et al, want to assist the few homeowners (6 or 7 out of 189) who have drainage issues why can’t they do so on their own, helping the owner to use his home insurance policy, without dragging everyone in the neighborhood into a net of potential lawsuits? The CCRS are clear that homeowners are responsible for their own properties. (CC&R Article IX Section 3.)
Dwight Hibdon, current HOA president, asked Lucy Archer if she had a motion to put on the floor. Archer made the motion that all the letters, documents, plats, survey data or whatever other material existed that purportedly proved HOA ownership or responsibility for the underdrains, or had given Fuller and Noland the authority to disenfranchise the property owners votes and open up costly liabilities, should be produced and made available to everyone.
Fuller then issued a protest that he did not want this present body or the homeowners to have a vote on this matter. Dwight asked Archer to rephrase her motion. Archer gave it another try: Since the homeowners had voted against the underdrain system in 1984, in 1995, and in 2008, and since mention of the underdrain system was not included in any of the SSSF HOA documents, then if Noland and Fuller are making statements contrary to these known and ascertainable facts, they should present proof to the Board and to all interested homeowners. Fuller again protested that he did not want anyone voting on the
underdrain issue. Dwight went ahead with a verbal yeah or nay vote. The yeahs were about half the votes, the nays from Fuller, Noland, Larson and Butler were very loud so Dwight called that the nays won. An exclamation was made from the audience, “So why are those underdrain documents a secret, or do they even exist?”
I have spent good time the last couple days talking to various employees in the Planning and Building Dept., the County Engineer, the County Clerk, the County Recorder, and I even called the attorney that does work for the Master Association. None of them have come up with anything that shows that the underdrains were dedicated or even recorded much less the “property or responsibility of the HOA.” What the County officials do express is that the County and Public Works Dept. receive numerous requests from individuals and subdivisions throughout the County requesting assistance with high water table issues and seasonal run-off. As far as I could find, Silver Springs is the only subdivision, of the seventeen contiguous subdivisions, that have any kind of underdrains.
The County Commissioners have stated that these issues are not the county’s nor the HOA’s responsibility as the systems were never dedicated to the County, nor were they dedicated to the HOA. Though board members of the HOA have approached the County for assistance this in no way makes the underdrains the responsibility of the HOA but rather remains an individual homeowner responsibility as stated in the Silver Springs CCRs.
Callahan clarified that the Silver Springs plat map refers to dedicating all public lands, but there is a non-exclusive utility and drainage easement at the rear of the property that is not dedicated. In 2004 County Council Chair Woolstenhulme gave the same caution to the County that was given by legal counsel to the HOA, currently the County (and the HOA) have no liability for the underdrains, they should be careful about taking action to resolve the problem as it might ensnare them in property owner lawsuits.
Taking action without informing and including the will of the homeowners. Kind of deja vu of 2010-11 when Noland assessed all the Master Association members $357 (up from $175) for repairs on the Little Lake pond without receiving the required 66% vote from the property owners. (CCR Article V Section 4.) Remember that fiasco? And the Little Lake is Private Property for the use and access only by the lakeview owners along its shore. How is that for an injustice! View info at: https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/lakes-in-silver-springs/
April 1, 2014 – Email from Edwin “Ted” Barnes to Rick Hovey:
Excerpt: Paragraph 4: “The conclusion that your association should acknowledge some duties with respect to the underdrains is reinforced by the Utah Community Association Act, Utah Code Ann. Section 57-8a-101, et seq. … Among other things, I think that means that the 1982 Agreement makes the underdrains common areas regardless of who owns title to the easements…If we accept the position that the underdrains are common areas, the [Master Association] is responsible for them…. Effective July 1 of this year [2014] the statute was amended to apply to common areas that have “a remaining useful life of less than 30 years. The underdrain system appears to fall within that amended definition.”
Looking through the Park Record (8/6/2014) I was reminded that one of the key reasons the under drains were vetoed by the early boards and by the homeowners: because the function of the underdrains is to leach out all ground water. Not only water at 8? to 10? depth where Noland reported the installed drains lay but they also percolate the expensive water we pay for to maintain our gardens, lawns, trees, landscaping, and they do so 24/7/365. [Consider less water and snowfall in conjunction with overzealous, populous underdrain percolation, within five to ten years Silver Springs could be well on its way to becoming a dust bowl.]
On page A-15 of the same paper there is printed a guest editorial: A Warning About Water. Water restrictions are becoming eerily more common. Silver Springs, Ranch Place, Northshore, etc. were wetlands in 1978. Today we see diminished evidence of extra water.
On page C-2 there is a Public Hearing Notice for a Mountain Regional Water Special Service District Rate and Fee Hearing…proposing another rate increase effective August 1, 2014 of 3.75% and another rate increase of 3.75% effective August 1, 2015. Before the proposed increases this is already the most expensive water in Utah.
On page C-7 there is a two-column full length article for Park City’s Let’s Get WaterSmart Conservation Program. A deficient water source a becoming a larger and more concerning topic in our community and throughout the West.
On page A-5 (8/9-12/2014) ‘District proposes rate increase’…describes that the Summit County Council will likely approve the increases for two years with a possibility of annual increases through 2019. The last water increase was only two years ago.
As the state and county water supply decreases does it make sense that Silver Springs Single Family is rooting on private property to activate a system that removes the natural ground water that helps keep our neighborhood verdant.
The whole premise of the under drains is wrong for today’s climate and population requirements. None of our neighboring subdivisions have installed a system of ground water removal. According to the County, no subdivisions in the County have these drains. Utah is the second driest state. It is ludicrous that Noland and a few homeowners (along Willow Creek or possibly situated on an artesian spring or well) should have more clout than the majority of the homeowners.
CONTACT OUR BOARD MEMBERS AND TELL THEM TO LET LAYING DOGS LIE…. Rick Hovey, Pres. 435- 901-1001
November 14, 2014 -SSSFHOA Replacement Meeting. Over 70 attendees and proxies voted for the fourth time to “Ignore the Underdrains.” Without consulting the other board members, Hovey refused to announce the majority vote on this topic. The board completely ignored the submitted collaborated homeowners “Compilation of Facts” , that were prepared during a number of home meetings the last couple months throughout our neighborhood, then organized into a compiled report by a homeowners committee.
Here are the highlights from the November 14, 2014 Minutes:
An email that was sent out by homeowner prompted Rick to inform attorney, Ted Barnes, of the content of the email. Ted Barnes’ response letter stated that exhaustive research has already been done on the underdrains, and he thanked the one member for all of her work and documentation of the issue, and that there is no reason for further research. View his letter at https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/utilities/water/underdrain-system/
In his letter, Barnes coined the phrase regarding the underdrains, “your association can choose to ignore it or fix it.”
The Homeowners have chosen to ignore the underdrains; Noland, Stangeland and Hovey have chosen to fix them.
The Homeowners feel the board has taken on this project only by learning of the physical aspects of underdrains without studying the costs and affects, without studying alternative water mitigation methods, and by ignoring the votes of the Homeowners.
Here are the Homeowners requests from the Board:
–A–That a damage assessment for all types of repairs be calculated.
–B–That the financial costs for maintenance be pre-determined.
–C–That the ramifications and risks of taking on a 35 year old system with a
projected life of 30 years be assessed and reported.
–D–That the liability issues being thrust upon the homeowners be examined
and approved lonly by a true majority of the homeowners.
–E–That the issue of whether the Master Association is responsible for the
underdrains is settled. That the issue of who owns them is proven.
–F–That a study of how many homeowners will benefit (6) versus how many
will be adversely affected by increased costs and intrusive work on private
property, and to include how many homeowners have already, since 1985,
remedied their private water issues.
–G–That they assess the benefits of the lateral, 10′ deep underground system to
the three types of water found in SSSF, that is 1) surface run-off,
2) subsurface ground water, and 3) vertical artesian activity.
–H-That an investigation on other options for remedies to water
issues be sought and the loss of our ground water be evaluated.
–I—Does a reserve study require the vote of the Homeowners?
With all of the above questions being unanswered and not studied by the board it is premature for the board to work on a system that could end up being more than the homeowners want to accept and take on.
Look for information on the link https://www.silverspringscommunity.com/utilities/water/underdrain-system/
SSSFHOA President Dale Boschetto, from October 1985 to June 1989, Boschetto-SS-HOA-letter-DB
If you want to make a comment, provide input…… email to me at [email protected]