LAME: Board Finally Mows Outlots After Weak Excuses Fail Scrutiny

The morning after posting an article about Outlot Mowing Delays, the Board finally responded. The response made a claim that sounds plausible, but doesn’t really make sense if you take the time to review objective data or consider the contradicting logic that somehow led to partial mowing on the North outlots.

The email makes three claims:

• The mowing was scheduled “a month ago”
• The weather has impaired the contractor from working
• The contractor says the ground is too wet to get heavy mowers in

This, of course, couldn’t ignore the fact that we had a code violation (where the weight of equipment wouldn’t be a reasonable or acceptable excuse, particularly to the fire department), or that the aesthetics on the common-area sidewalks (and contrast with the the common area sidewalks near the Treasurer’s home). So, there was a promise to do that work on Saturday June 10 and maybe get the rest of the work done when “it dries out enough”.

THE MOWING WAS SCHEDULED A MONTH AGO?

At the May 8, 2023 Regular Board Meeting, the Board did discuss mowing the outlots. The problem is that no one showed up for the meeting besides the Treasurer’s spouse, and myself (electronically). Recordings were not allowed, and the meeting minutes will not be produced until the next meeting, which will be sometime in July. Therefore, the only current record of what went on is the article I wrote on May 19.

This article followed an email I had sent to the Board on May 17, asking a number of questions regarding landscaping decision-making, and the outlot mowing in particular. Question number 2 specifically asked whether the outlot mowing had been scheduled, and if yes, when that would be scheduled:

If the mowing had been scheduled “a month ago” (indicating it had been scheduled by 5/10), then the response on 5/17 should have been to simply say “Yes, it has been scheduled”, and then confirmed the date of scheduling.

Instead, the Board (or likely just Director Ballweber, who continues to fumble in her use of Gmail), did not respond until 5/25 stating that the email magically disappeared and reappeared self-excusing the delay in response. And, question number 2 about scheduling outlot mowing, is skipped. Instead, the focus is on how decision is made, and the claim about whether Treasurer Jones controls this is now on a “case by case basis”. This only raised new questions about the “sole contact” policy that the Board chose on 6/15/22, and whether it means the Treasurer is the sole decision-maker, except when he’s not.

While the Board considered the matter “closed”, the cryptic response raised new questions. Follow-up questions were sent to the Board on May 30 asking more about the decision-making process, including why the common area sidewalks at the ends of cul-de-sacs were not being maintained equally with the common area sidewalks adjacent to the Treasurer’s home, as well as the ones across the street from his home.

By 6/6, it was apparent that some mowing had been done, but that the project began sometime between 6/1 and 6/5 (when it was raining daily), with prioritization given to the North fence and behind Treasurer Jones home. Photos were sent to show the Board just how out-of-hand the grasses and weeds were getting, particularly along the common-area sidewalks.

So, with 3 opportunities between 5/17 and 6/6 to say “we scheduled the mowing” (which they now claim was scheduled “a month ago”), the Board chose, instead, to “close the matter” without saying one way or the other on 5/25 – and not respond again until 6/10 saying that the work was being done when the weather permitted – which is another spurious claim.

The Board has since ignored a follow-up asking for a copy of the email, text, or phone log of the scheduling, which has received no response.

So, when the E&W contractor was on-site on 6/10, I noticed him behind our property and asked him when he was contacted to schedule the mowing. He said he could not recall.

I had contacted E&W on 4/27 to see if mowing had been scheduled, and he responded by text on 4/30 that he had not – but that he was available before the end of May;

When I contacted him on 5/18 (the day after emailing the Board, which had not responded), he too did not respond as he had done a few weeks prior.

So, if the Board or Director Jones had, in fact, scheduled “a month ago”, either could have responded on May 18 (theoretically a week after scheduling had been done), and confirmed when the mowing would be done. We can use a negative inference to determine that the claim by the Board is likely untrue. The burden is on the Board to show evidence to support their claim of when scheduling was done.

THE WEATHER IMPAIRED THE CONTRACTOR FROM WORKING?

Based upon the observation on 6/6 that work had been done sometime between 5/30 (prior follow-up email, when photos were taken showing no work had been done) and 6/5. An astute observer would note that we have a weather station in the Poudre Overlook subdivision that records the amount of precipitation locally (which is confirmed by another station in the Lin-Mar Acres subdivision adjacent to POHOA). This station received 2.64″ of precipitation during that 5-day period, with significant rains (over 0.10″ every single day).

And even more astute observer would note that the same data source shows when the rains fall during the day (the weather station reports to Weather Underground every 5 minutes), and if you live in Colorado, you know that many times, it’s perfectly dry and sunny in the morning, and storms form in the late afternoon. The fact that it rained on any given day doesn’t necessarily mean work cannot be performed. And, clearly, some work was, in fact, performed between May 31 and June 5.

So, if there were daily rains during May 31-June 5 that didn’t prevent work from being done on one side of POHOA, why is the Board claiming on June 10 that the reason other work was not completed was due to weather-impairment on the contractor?

From the period of June 6 through June 10, there was only 1 day with significant rain (June 9). However, just because it rained Friday evening doesn’t mean that work could not begin on June 10. In fact, upon receiving the email, I used a Moisture Meter to measure the wetness of the soil and sent that information to the Board along with the weather data posted above showing that it had actually been a relatively “dry” week compared with when the contractor had done work on the North side.

Not only did the Moisture Meter show that the ground was not too wet to “impair” the contractor, but if you picked it up, it was dry and crumbly to the touch (and cracked like a dry lake bed on top of that). The excuse didn’t add up.

While the claim of weather impairment was plausible to a casual observer, it didn’t stand up to scrutiny with objective facts.

THE GROUND WAS TOO WET FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT?

So, on the day of the last Board response, the claim for why work could not be done on June 10 was “weather impairment”, which would be 0.14″ of rain on Friday (even though work was done the week prior with daily rains exceeding that amount). And, actual measurement of the soil moisture found that the ground was actually not that wet at all.

Of course, shortly after sending the email, it rained on June 10. During that rain, the contractor was out working with his weed whacker, and I asked him about the scheduling. He repeated the claim, and I pointed out to him that somehow work had been done the week prior. I didn’t really get a response, but he was friendly and I do understand that he can’t afford to get his equipment stuck in mud, and that we likely don’t want the property rutted by equipment that creates tire tracks due to wetness.

But, there was only 0.01″ if rain on June 10 – just enough to make the grass wet for a few hours. And, not wet enough to impair weed whacking.

So, on June 11, it appears that the Board and Contractor recognized that “weather impairment” excuses were no longer defensible, and the work on the remaining outlots appears to have begun. This is good.

However, on June 12, I did another lap around the outlots and found that while mowing had been performed, a large swath in the SE corner remained deep in grasses and weeds. And, along the South fence, many grasses and weeds remained 3-5 feet tall along the fence.

This is also combined with the fact that because the grasses were allowed to get so tall, after mowing, there is a significant amount of debris that is accumulating in the drainage tile (concrete), and some of that is now blocking the drains themselves. This is then creating backups that are accumulating standing water, which is then causing the concrete to sink (and create more drainage issues – a cycle).

The Board has not yet responded about whether the mowing by E&W is completed as of June 11, or whether the work was cut short by rains that began on that day around 5pm. Either way, one only has to look at the contrast between the manicured appearance near Treasurer Jones’ house and the rest of the neighborhood to consider whether or not giving one person such complete control is the best decision for the community.

Even on the North/West end of Bubbling Brook, the stand of giant weeds sticking out of the sidewalk exemplifies the poor maintenance of our common area sidewalks. I don’t think the contractor is to blame – I believe that the scope of work and priorities in the scope of work are directly the result of Treasurer Jones personal preferences, which are judged from his view from his property. The photo gallery below is pretty clear evidence of that proposition.