Bayshore Beach Club Inc.
Board of Directors Meeting
February 9, 2005
In Attendance:
Mary Sue Reagen, Vice President Division 3
Dorothy Bogumil, Corporate Secretary Division 1
Connie Abercrombie, Board Member Division 4
Max Metcalf, Board Member
Division 4
Ed Biancone, Board Member
Division 5
Norman Fernandes, Board Member Division 6
Kevin MacPhee, Board Member Division 7
Gillian Rampley, Secretary/Treasurer
Absent:
Mary Lou Morris,
President
Division 1
Ted Thurman, Board Member Division 7
Vice President Mary Sue called
the meeting to order at 9:00 am. She noted that all members
of the board were present with the exception of Mary Lou, who was out
of town, and Ted, who was sick. The board members present
introduced themselves.
MINUTES
MSP
Max made a motion, seconded by Dorothy, to approve the minutes of the
January 15, 2005 board meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
MSP
Norman made a motion, seconded by Max, to approve the minutes of the
January 18, 2005 board meeting with the addition of the work "separate"
regarding the circulation system in the Kiddy Pool. The motion
carried unanimously.
FINANCIAL REPORT
Mary Sue reviewed the Profit and Loss
Budget v. Actual. She noted that recently children had broken
into the tennis courts by pulling the chain link fence apart. The
fence would need to be repaired.
Mary Sue advised that the Enhancement
and Enforcement Committee were planning a spring cleanup and would be
renting a large dumpster. They requested board approval to spend
the funds from the E&E budget to rent the dumpster. The cost
would be approximately $270. They would be renting it to coincide
with spring break, starting March 22. Max asked if this had been
done before. Mary Sue advised it had not.
MSP
Dorothy made a motion, seconded by Ed, to approve the expenditure of
$270 from the E&E Committee's budget to rent a dumpster for spring
cleanup. The motion carried unanimously.
Ed asked how much of the tennis court
would need to be re-fenced. Mary Sue advised that the existing
fence could be repaired; no new fencing would be required. Connie
asked about the bill submitted by Kevin for surveys done in the spring
of 2004. Mary Sue advised that it was to be on the agenda for the
April meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
Clubhouse Rental Agreements.
Mary Sue noted that Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton had e-mailed the Association
regarding the confusing rate schedule. Mary Sue reviewed the
present rates for individuals and groups. She noted that most
people who use it with a group are also members and the rates are very
different. For individuals, rates are based on number of users;
for groups, rates are based on time only. Mary Sue reviewed a
spread sheet with the present schedules.
Mary Sue noted that the only two
outside organizations to use the facilities that do not have a
member-sponsor are Leadership Lincoln and Waldport Chamber of
Commerce. Connie noted that it is not very practical to have only
one form. People who live here should not be charged as much as
those who do not. She felt that organizations should pay more
than individual members who rent the clubhouse. Norman asked if
groups have to have a Bayshore member. Mary Sue advised that
government agencies and non-profits are able to use the facilities even
if they do not have a Bayshore resident as a member. Max
recommended that the board establish a committee, consisting of the
head of the social committee, a board member, a member of the E&E
committee, to look at options and bring suggestions for revisions back
to the board.
MSP
Max made a motion, seconded by Kevin, to establish a committee
consisting of the head of the social committee, a board member, a
member of the E&E committee and Ron, the caretaker, to review
options for clubhouse rental fees. The motion carried unanimously.
Clubhouse Reader Board.
Mary Sue advised that she had looked at the Ace Hardware reader
board. It was an aluminum frame which would not weather well
outside the clubhouse. She suggested that the outside board be
replaced with one in the window of the office. The cost would
only be for the purchase of corkboard. Connie noted that the
existing sign has been a real problem over the years. Ed asked if
it would be a problem having the board by the office door rather than
by the street. He suggested that the old one be left in place for
a while to give people an opportunity to decide whether the new one was
suitable. Connie and Kevin both indicated that it would be a good
idea to try the new one by the office door. There was a consensus
of the board to have Ron build a new corkboard sign to be placed in the
office window.
Pool Chlorinator.
Mary Sue advised that, as previously discussed, Ron had asked to
replace the existing chlorinator with a new one. The cost of the
new chlorinator was $495, with installation an additional $215.
It would be cost effective to have it installed before the pool season
begins as it would provide savings in pool chemicals by using a cheaper
form of chlorine. The funds were in the pool capital outlay
budget. Norm asked if this new system would be affected by
any future improvements to the pool. He was told no; this was new
technology which would fit right in with any improvements to the
pool. Ed asked if we had a stockpile of the old chlorine; he was
told no.
MSP
Connie made a motion, seconded by Dorothy, to approve the purchase and
installation of the new chlorinator. The motion carried
unanimously.
Planning for Pool Repair.
Connie asked how many people used the pool in total last year and how
many people bought passes. Mary Sue advised that pass sales were
lower last year as rates went up and one rental company did not tell
their renters about the pool.
Jack Ofelt, 113 NW Alsea Bay Drive,
advised that Bayshore Rentals did not tell their renters because they
felt the fee being charged for daily passes was too high. Also
some renters had felt not welcome at the pool in previous years.
Kevin asked what options were
available regarding the pool repairs. Mary Sue advised that one
estimate had indicated that repairing the pool would cost approximately
$75,000 and would need to be done within five or six years.
Obviously, the board needs to get more estimates. Kevin asked if
the board needed to establish a committee to investigate options.
Max suggested that the board ask Ron to get another estimate.
Mary Gilbert, 2202 NW Parker Avenue, suggested that the board consider
closing the pool. Doug Stevens, 122 NW Oceania Drive, noted that
he had been in the pool business for years and felt that the estimate
given to date was too high. Mary Sue stated that the board needed
to decide by the next meeting what to do this year to cut costs.
For the long term solutions, she felt that the membership should be
surveyed. Connie suggested that the members be asked if they
wanted the pool replaced and covered. Max suggested that the
board needed more estimates of what needs to be done and what the costs
would be. When the possible options were provided, the board
could act if the repairs were within reason. If the costs were
high, then they could do a membership survey. He asked if the
pool could be kept open this year without spending too much.
Connie noted that the club had received an estimate in 1998 or 1999; at
that time, it was also over $60,000. Max reminded the board that
there was still an on-going issue of water loss. Mary Sue noted
that Ron had made a temporary fix to a sump stopping the current leak
while the pool was not being used. Once it is opened again, the
leak would continue. Kevin volunteered to help Ron obtain more
estimates. Ed suggested that some Bayshore homeowners may have
connections to commercial pool companies and a request for potential
quotes should be put in the Breeze. Jane Hamblet, 2205 NW Convoy,
suggested that estimates be obtained from companies with experience of
pool installation in sand. Doug Stevens asked how may people use
the pool; Mary Sue advised approximately 40-50% of members do use the
pool. He noted that the committee should look at whether it is
feasible to maintain the pool for a small group of users.
Further Discussion of Fine.
Mary Sue asked if anyone had any interest in revisiting the issue of
the Daryl Abel fine. It had been raised at the January 18 meeting
but was not on the agenda at that time. The board had tabled
sending a bill because the truck had been removed but Dorothy had
requested that the board revisit the issue. Norman commented that
if a fine was levied and the board did not enforce the collection, then
enforcement of the C&Rs would not be effective. The fines
were the most effective way of enforcing the C&Rs for violators who
refuse to adhere to the C&Rs. Mary Sue added that the truck
was again being parked at the residence on an intermittent basis.
MSP
Max made a motion, seconded by Norman, to un-table the Daryl Abel fine
issue to allow the board to revisit the issue. The motion carried
unanimously.
Mary Sue asked if the board now
wished to send a bill. Connie reminded the board that they had
agreed to waive the daily fee but felt that a bill should now be
sent. Ed asked if the board was willing to file a lien if the
bill was not paid. The board agreed that it was. Connie
asked what would happen if the bill was paid but the truck was then
parked on the property again. The property owner would be fined
again.
MSP
Norman made a motion, seconded by Ed, to proceed with the collection of
the fine by sending a bill for $100, allowing 30 days to pay, and a
letter advising that repeat violations would bring further
action. The motion carried unanimously.
Dawn Sudmeier, 405 NW Alsea Bay
Drive, advised that Ron Jones had asked her to ask the board if a
speaker on tsunamis had been arranged for the March meeting. Mary
Sue advised that the topic was on the March agenda but, as Mary Lou had
made the arrangements and was currently on vacation, specific details
were unknown.
MS
Connie noted that, as a board member, she had been asked by certain
members of the community to introduce a motion to the board. The
motion requested that the board dismiss with prejudice the lawsuit
against Mr. and Mrs. Sailer. Mary Sue advised that lawsuits could
not be discussed in open session. Kevin seconded the
motion. Mary Sue again cautioned the board that all such matters
should only be discussed in executive session.
MSP
Max made a motion, seconded by Norman, to table the motion raised by
Connie until the executive session scheduled for later in the
meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
Bylaw Revisions.
Mary Sue advised that this matter was being moved up on the agenda
(from item no. 5) as Jack Woods had to leave the meeting. Jack
advised that an unofficial committee, consisting of Connie Abercrombie,
Jane Hamblet and himself, had reviewed the existing Bylaws and were
proposing amendments. He read the cover letter to the board and
reviewed the proposed amendments. Mary Sue suggested that the
proposed amendments be inserted in the existing bylaws and be given to
the board in their next packet. The board could then vote to put
the proposed amendments on the ballot in April. She also invited
the board to bring any other suggestions to the March meeting and noted
that the bylaws were last revised in 1993. Mary Sue thanked Jack,
Connie and Jane for their work.
1. Social Committee policies and procedures.
Dorothy advised that she was the board liaison to the social
committee. She noted that the policy allowed the social committee
to expend funds in their budget without requesting approval by the
board.
MSP Dorothy made a motion,
seconded by Max, to approve the policies and procedures for the Social
Committee. The motion carried unanimously.
2. Newspaper drop box and bus shelter.
Mary Sue advised that the maintenance of the newspaper drop box had
been a recurring problem. The boy scouts were responsible for the
box but did not empty it. Trash was left around it. The bus
shelter was too often used as a garbage. She noted that the
Seal Rock fire station has a newspaper drop box at their facility in
Seal Rock and had asked them if they would be willing to put such a box
at the station in Bayshore. They had indicated that they would.
The meeting adjourned at 10:22 am for a recess.
The meeting re-opened at 10:32
am. Dorothy recommended that the board give the boy scouts a time
limit to remove their box and to ask the Seal Rock Fire Department if
they would like to burn the bus shelter, as well as put a newspaper
recycle box at the station. The board agreed, by unanimous
consensus, to have Mary Sue contact the fire department.
3. Surplus office equipment.
Mary Sue advised that there was an old Xerox copier and two old
printers that needed to be disposed of. She suggested that the
board put a notice in the Breeze to see if anyone would like
them. Connie suggested that a notice also be put on the
Wheel. Clark Clayton, 2806 NW Bayshore Loop, suggested that the
Youth Center in Waldport might be able to use them. Mary Sue will
check to see if the equipment is still in working order.
4. Noise and noxious activities guideline revisions.
Mary Sue discussed the proposed revisions and asked that item 2,
regarding burning, be discussed separately. It was agreed to
change the "quiet time" to start at 10:00 pm. Mary Sue noted that
the survey indicated that most homeowners want to have fireworks on the
4th of July. After discussion, the board agreed to include the
firework provision to allow the use of fireworks on July 3 and 4 unless
weather conditions are such that the board feels it is unsafe to permit
the use. Chris Furney, 2105 NW View Ridge, asked if the board
would consider allowing fireworks on New Year's Eve. He was
advised that fireworks were not legal in Oregon at that time.
Jack Ofelt, 113 NW Alsea Bay Drive,
noted that the county had the duty to protect the public; the C&Rs
cover only homeowners and their guests in Bayshore.
Mary Sue reviewed the issue of
burning. She advised that the E&E Committee had reviewed the
topic and were biased in favor of banning all burning. In
January, the board had received a letter from a property owner
requesting the banning of burning. However, she noted that the
issue of burning had not been on the last survey and, before deciding
whether it should be banned, the board should survey the membership and
give possible alternatives. Connie stated that most people burn
sensibly. Clark suggested that burn barrels be allowed but report
people who are burning products that produce noxious odors. Max
suggested that the board try to get the word out that a dumpster was
going to be available for limbs, brush, etc. as an alternative to
burning.
MSP
Norman made a motion, seconded by Dorothy, to approve the proposed
revisions to the Community Livability Guidelines, as amended, omitting
Item No. 2. The motion carried with Connie and Ed opposed.
6. Violations referred by Planning and E&E Committee.
Ed gave a report regarding the appeal by Mr. Furney of the Planning
Committee's decision. Ed advised that Mr. Furney had made
significant changes to the grade of the property on View Ridge Drive
before the average original grade was established and before seeking
construction.approval from the planning committee. He had also
added fill to the site. Therefore, because of height restrictions
in Bayshore, before permission for construction could be granted, the
average original grade needed to be determined. For those
reasons, the planning committee had not approved the
construction. They noted that the plans put forward by Mr. Furney
did meet all planning committee requirements; the only issue was the
grade. Norman suggested that the grade could be determined by
using the average original grade of neighboring properties; however, Ed
noted that only one was available. Ed showed pictures of
the property before and after the grading. Mr. Furney addressed
the board, apologizing for doing work prior to gaining approval.
He advised that he believed he was conforming with Bayshore
requirements by removing trees, resulting in the removal and
repositioning of soil. He also advised that the average original
grade where the house would be located had only been raised by 6
inches. He had not planned to begin construction without
approval.
MSP Dorothy
made a motion, seconded by Kevin, to accept the building plans
submitted by Mr. Furney for a maximum height of 14 ft. 6 ins. and refer
the matter back to the planning committee for approval. The
motion carried with Ed and Norman abstaining.
Mary Sue advised that the tree issue
with Martha Schell had been brought to the E&E committee in July
2004. The property owners had been trying to work it out amongst
themselves; when that did not work, the matter came back to the
committee. The E&E committee had two major areas of
responsibility. The first, to determine whether there was a view
obstruction where the view would be restorable if the tree was trimmed;
and second, to determine if the tree was original (under the definition
of the C&Rs). The committee determined that the view
was restorable. However, the property owner felt that the trees
were original. The committee had undertaken research to
determine that. Mary Sue passed out photos of the tree in
question and photos showing the area after the C&Rs had been
enacted. Several photos showed that no trees were in the
location at the time of the enactment of the C&Rs in 1963.
Photos taken four years after the enactment of the C&Rs showed no
trees in the location.
Mary-Lou, 2002 NW Renz Court, asked
when, since 1969, had this issue been raised? Mary Sue noted that
she was aware that property owners had complained in the mid-90s about
trees that had grown to block views. Mary-Lou stated that people
were more interested in money than trees.
Connie advised that Mrs. Schell was
too ill to attend the meeting and noted that the tree in question had
been cored. She showed the report of the arborist. Mary Sue
stated that trees may have been moved to locations so coring would only
show the age of the tree, not when it was relocated to the
property. In this situation, the photos proved without doubt that
the tree was not an original tree in its original location.
Norman commented that the photos seemed to provide absolute proof that
the tree was not there originally. Ed noted that, if prior boards
had enforced the C&Rs, it would not be an issue today. Kevin
stated that both parties should be present to discuss the matter and
that the board should go and look at the property in question.
Max stated that people who bought property with ocean views should be
able to keep their views. He cited an example where neighbors
worked together to resolve such a problem. He felt his
responsibility was to help homeowners maintain their property values.
Dawn Sudmeier, 405 NW Alsea Bay
Drive, stated her belief that complaints had been received from
property owners who had no view when they purchased their property but
now wanted to create a view to increase their property values.
She also berated the board for her perception that they, and members of
the audience, had been snickering while this issue was discussed.
Norman stated firmly that the board had not been making fun of anyone;
Max concurred. Ed stated that the board cannot selectively apply
the C&Rs; it has to be done evenly. Mary Sue advised that no
complaints had come through the committee from people who had no views
originally. Dorothy reiterated that if prior boards had enforced
the C&Rs, the current board would not have to try to fix the
problem. As a very early resident of Bayshore, she knew that the
trees were not there originally and, only because the C&Rs had not
been enforced over the years, had trees been allowed to grow to the
height they have now reached. Norman emphasized that the board
had to decide whether to enforce the C&Rs uniformly or to start
granting exceptions. The only issues in question are whether the
tree is original and if it is blocking a view. The board agreed
to table the matter to the next meeting to allow Mrs. Schell to be
present.
7. Open Forum.
Mary Sue advised that a couple of board members had suggested having an
open forum before the next board meeting. Dorothy suggested that
the board could have an open discussion before the board meeting;
during the meeting, business items have to be dealt with and time
becomes very limited. It would give property owners an
opportunity to have an informal discussion with the board. Ed
suggested that it might be an advantage to hold a forum on a different
day from the board meeting. Max noted that a similar forum was
held in the Spring of 2003 and a list of concerns was
established. The board of that time began working through that
list. He was in favor of having such a forum again. The
board, by unanimous consensus, agreed to hold an open forum before the
March 19 board meeting.
8. Picnic tables. This matter was tabled to the next meeting.
Duane Peltier, 2005 NW Parker Avenue,
offered to the Association a gift of a wireless router. This would
enable property owners with laptops with wireless capacity to come to
the clubhouse and access the internet. It would be an additional
service to offer to members. The board thanked Mr. Peltier for
the gift.
Jack Ofelt advised that he had been
the individual who asked Connie to put forward the motion regarding the
lawsuit. He noted that Mr. and Mrs. Sailer had not asked him to
do so; it had been others. He asked the board to work with
property owners before things got too far; why wasn't a lawsuit filed
when construction was going on?
CORRESPONDENCE
(Interruption from Dawn Sudmeier).
E-mail from Hal Culbertson regarding
Road District meetings. Mary Sue noted that there still was
confusion about the Road District, which is a separate entity and not
part of the homeowners' association. Ed suggested that whether a
board member should attend road district meetings it be made an agenda
item for a future meeting.
Letter from Neal Myers regarding
board attitude and solutions to problems. Ed noted that
members complain when the board enforces C&Rs and also when the
board is lax about enforcement. Dorothy is to respond.
E-mail from Mrs. Sawyer. Mary
Sue advised that Mary Lou had responded to subsequent e-mails before
leaving on vacation. Dorothy noted that members can request to be
placed on the agenda to speak at a meeting. That had been posted
in the Breeze.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
MSP
At 12:50 pm, Norman made a motion, seconded by Dorothy, to adjourn to
an executive session to discuss annual staff performance appraisals and
lawsuits. The motion carried unanimously.
At 2:00 pm, the board came out of executive session.
RESUME REGULAR SESSION
Ed advised the board that Jack
Whipple had expressed an interest in becoming a member of the planning
committee but the association records do not indicate that he is a
member. Connie is to check on the title to the property showing
ownership.
MSP
Dorothy made a motion, seconded by Max, to accept the staff performance
evaluations, to award a salary increase of $0.25 per hour to Gillian
Rampley, effective at the next pay period and to give both Ron and
Gillian a 3% cost-of-living raise beginning in July 2005. The
motion carried unanimously.
MSP
Max made a motion, seconded by Dorothy, to continue tabling Connie's
motion regarding the lawsuit pending further investigation as indicated
during the executive session. The motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN MEETING
A motion to adjourn was made at 2:05 pm by Ed, seconded by Dorothy, and was carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned; next meeting March 19, 2005 at 1:00 pm.
Approved by the Board of Directors on March 19, 2005.
/s/ Gillian E. Rampley , Secretary-Treasurer