1512 N.W. Oceania Dr.
Waldport, Oregon 97394
Ph. (541) 563 - 3040 * Fax (541) 563 - 6489
e-mail
baybeach@peak.org * website http://www.pioneer.net/~baybeach
Bayshore Board of Directors Minutes
|
Bayshore Board of Directors Minutes |
Bayshore Home | Bayshore Board of Directors
Bayshore Beach Club, Inc.
Board of Directors Meeting
July 21, 2007 at 1:00 PM.
In attendance:
Norman Fernandes, President Division 6
Kevin MacPhee, Vice President Division 7
Jim Harlan, Corp Secretary Division 4
Nelsen Witt, Director Division 1
Larry Dahlke, Director Division 1
Maren Taylor, Director Division 2
Neil Hare, Director Division 3
Bill Stephenson, Director Division 5
Don Butler, Director Division 6
Sandie Eckerson, Secretary-Treasurer
President Fernandes called the meeting to order at 1:00 PM
Approval of Minutes of June 20, 2007
Jim Harlan referenced page 5 first line starting with President Fernandes statement about the Guidelines and asked for a clarification from President Fernandes of either the By-Laws or Guidelines as he was unable to locate it. President Fernandes read from C&Rs, Article II, Section 2 "The Planning Committee may, in addition to such other regulations and requirements, impose regulations and requirements requiring an attractive and aesthetically pleasing design for any building to be erected and requiring the placement thereof upon the subject property in such a manner as to minimize the impact upon the environment and upon other lands within the subdivision, and particularly adjacent property." Larry Dahlke asked if that is how President Fernandes saw the Guidelines being established is from that statement. President Fernandes said yes from that statement, the C&Rs give the power to the Planning Committee to make rules and regulations to be called the guidelines.
MSP
Don Butler made a motion to accept the Minutes. Maren Taylor seconded the motion. Larry Dahlke abstained from the vote due to his absence from that meeting. A show of hands by the remaining 7 directors carried the motion.
Budget
President Fernandes asked for a hold to be placed on the budget, except for wages and replacement of supplies until we get the sink hole resolved on Westward. We have a dip starting that is right over the culvert that drains into the canal. There was much discussion as to what is causing the dip and various ways to access and repair the situation. It was decided to barricade the area to prevent an accident and check on having a camera sent through to access the situation. Barbara Mullen, Division 4, suggested that we have 3 bids for any repair.
MSP
Nelsen Witt made a motion for Don Butler to contact Newport Plumbing for a camera assessment if the cost does not exceed $500.00. Don also to check with county for warning equipment to block the area. Kevin MacPhee seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
MS
Jim Harlan made a motion to put a hold on all expenditures other than those President Fernandes specifically authorizes until satisfactory resolution of the sink hole problem on Westward, formerly known as Westward Ho. Maren Taylor seconded.
Amended MSP
Jim Harlan amended motion to indicate it would be by President Fernandes direction or in President Fernandes absence, the Vice-President. The motion, with amendment carried unanimously.
Planning Committee Report
Gary Cummins reported 2 home constructions were approved since June 1. Most of the other business has been answering complaints about trees. There have been 3 complaints about too many vehicles parked at different residences. One member has taken care of the vehicles so we are dealing with 2 members. We have one committee member who has asked to be replaced. We are looking for volunteers for the committee. We have space for 2 members to the Planning Committee. There was a question whether RV permits had been issued. Gary said the committee has issued a couple of permits for 5 days of loading/unloading of RVs. President Fernandes said we have had one interested member for the committee, however, he said he did not know if it was in the policies and procedures or just common practice to not have an active contractor or realtor on the committee. President Fernandes said Mike Schlosser has asked to be on the committee. There was much discussion about how the appearance of conflict of interest could cause problems. Larry Dahlke asked about the visual nuisance of multiple vehicles. He was told it was defeated at the last Board meeting by unanimous vote. Bill Stephenson said there is already a means of dealing with derelict vehicles in the C&Rs, but if a member just has a houseful of visitors they should be able to park in the driveway. Gary explained that excess of 3 vehicles could be parked in the east parking lot with permission. Commercial vehicles are not allowed at all. Don Butler said contractors have been offered the east parking lot to park their vehicles while building. They do need to go to the office for a permit. The permit should include a waiver of liability.
Web Page Report
Maren Taylor reported the June Question of the Month was posted on the web page. There were 19 to enforce the C&Rs, 2 to enforce the C&R building codes, 2 to update the C&Rs, 3 were property issues, 2 for friendly environment towards Bayshore members, 4 concerns about dog control and dog poop, 3 concerns about the swimming pool, 2 canal dredging, 2 association dues, 1 traffic, 1 burning in Bayshore, 3 multiple issues that couldn't be classified. These are all available on the website to read. Next month's question is "What information is most important to you in the Breeze?"
Pool Committee Report
Barbara Mullen, chair, reported there were 650 surveys mailed out so far, which makes a 31% response. There are about 200 surveys have not been mailed out because members have not paid their dues yet. One half of the members responding would pay more for the pool. Kevin MacPhee asked why keeping the pool was not an option? Barbara said one of the questions was did the member look at the amenities before buying in Bayshore. Did that help in their decision to buy here and most people said yes. Bill Stephenson asked how much per individual to keep the pool open for 3 months per year? Barbara said that information will come at a later date, when the survey is done. She emphasized that no matter what work we have done, we should have at least 3 bids per job to help with the costs. A lot of people think we should close in the pool and keep it open year-round. Jim Harlan asked if Cam had specifically arranged for other companies to come in and look at it. Barbara said we need to have a proper bid package set up so anyone can give a bid that can be compared to other bids. Larry Dahlke asked what the specific problems of the pool are. Barbara said it seems to be an endless list. Kath Foss, Division 3, said all of that information is in the Minutes of the last 20 years. She said there was a break-in to the office 10-15 years ago and things were stolen. But she has the Minutes for the last 21 years. President Fernandes said we have discussed the pool continually because we have not had continuity. We can not get rid of the pool without 60% of the voting members because it is an asset. Barbara said there were many suggestions to cut down on the costs of the pool. One was to not have a deep pool, it was suggested to have a four foot lap pool, less water to heat and using less water. Kevin MacPhee asked about the water leakage. Jim Harlan said he had personally done an exhaustive search of information in the office, he has followed up on information he received from about 15 people who have been here a myriad of years. He followed up all of those leads. He has found nothing in writing about leaks, someone said it was traced to the kiddie pool which has since been closed. Neil said we need a long term plan to do what needs to be done. Bill Stephenson thanked the committee for their diligent hard work. Jack Woods said the comments the committee received included numerous answers.
Lap Swim Hours
Kevin MacPhee said the lap swimmers have asked that the lap swim time be extended for ½ hour in the evening, to accommodate the numerous lap swimmers.
MSP
Kevin MacPhee made a motion to extend the Adult Lap Swim from 5 to 6:30 PM instead of the current 5-6 PM. Larry Dahlke asked who was being sacrificed to accommodate the lap swimmers. What is the current schedule? Sandie said open swim follows lap swim. Currently it is 6-8 PM. This would change to 6:30-8 PM. Don Butler seconded this motion. The motion carried unanimously. It was decided that this new time would take effect on Wednesday, July 25th. Don Butler asked if this could be changed on the website immediately. Maren responded that it would be.
Canal Report
Neil Hare reported that the canal has been on the agenda many times over the years, discussed for hours with nothing being done. The canal, at the north end, is filling up with sediment and has been for 40 years, the flow from septic systems all over Bayshore run into the canal through the drainage system. The nitrogen and other things run into the canal and stimulate the growth of the algae and on sunny days the algae blooms. He has done extensive reading on the canal but most of it is old. He feels the bank needs to be stabilized. There are methods that can be used, one of which is to use what the highways use for barriers, which are 10 feet long, 53 inches high and a base of 24 inches. If you survey the canal and have a machine go in there, level it out and put these in it will cost less than $2,000.00 per lot, to stabilize the bank of the canal. We would have to have consensus to do that, it would have to be surveyed, get equipment in to do the work. Of course this would all require permits from the state and county and probably federal to do it. It would be a long drawn out thing. It is ludicrous to get people excited if Bayshore will not approve the effort. I would like to ask the board to put money in reserve to get the canal surveyed. Bill Stephenson asked if the board could share what the attorney said. President Fernandes said the attorney had put privileged information on it. Neil said it was very simple, Bayshore owns the bottom of the canal and is responsible for basic part of the canal. The property owners are responsible for any sloughing off of material that goes in to the canal. The people who dug the canal created this problem. Had they put in a drainage system that did not include the canal we would not have this issue. There is no point in doing all of this work if Bayshore is going to say no. President Fernandes said there will be a special meeting of the board to address the canal. We need to know more. We need to know what we are spending and what we are spending it on. There was audience discussion about how this problem has been over the last many years. Kevin MacPhee suggested that property owners on the canal get together and try to come up with solutions. Don Butler suggested the Board call a special meeting to address these canal issues, with a small committee to do research as to where the canal was originally, the depth, relative sea level and the history of any construction that has led us to this point and present that information to the board. That will give the board a basis for budget considerations.
MSP
Bill Stephenson made a motion to hold a Special Board Meeting to address the canal issues. Neil Hare seconded. Mary Lou Morris, Division 1, suggested a mail-out to the property owners on the canal notifying them of the meeting. Jim Harlan said he intended to vote no at this point and the reason for the no vote is because listening to the discussion today he did not think it was focused enough to have a meaningful meeting. He thought there should be more ground work done.
Yea vote:
Bill Stephenson
Neil Hare
No vote:
Jim Harlan
The motion carried 7 yeas to 1 no.
President Fernandes said a date needed to be set. August 18, 2007 at 1:00 PM will be the meeting date and time. (This was changed after the meeting to August 11, 2007 at 1:00 PM)
Legal Opinions from Attorney
President Fernandes started to read the letter from Dennis Bartoldus, attorney, to have in the Minutes for all future use. Jim Harlan interrupted the reading of the letter to make a motion to have the letter incorporated in to the Minutes.
MSP
Jim Harlan made a motion to incorporate the letter from Attorney Bartoldus to the Board dated June 21, 2007 verbatim into the official Minutes of this meeting. Larry Dahlke seconded. Jim Harlan further stated this is the letter dated June 21, 2007 that is not otherwise involved with restrictions of attorney-client privilege. Jim Harlan said those in the audience who wanted a copy could have one. The motion carried unanimously. (The letter is as follows)
Dennis Bartoldus
Attorney at Law
PO Box 1510
Newport, OR 97365
June 21, 2007
Board of Directors
Bayshore Beach Club
1512 NW Oceania Dr.
Waldport, OR 97394
Re: Questions Presented by Norman Fernandes
Dear Folks:
Dear Board Members:
Norman Fernandes presented me with 10 questions to which he requested answers on behalf of the Board. This letter comes to respond to those questions. Of the original 10 questions, I believe 3 should be subject to attorney client privilege because they involve present litigation or possible future litigation. The questions that I am responding to separately are questions 3, 5, and 9. My responses to those questions are in two separate letters. Those responses should not be shared outside the board. Question 5 regarding the Dahlke litigation should not be share with Mr. Dahlke (thus the reason for 2 separate letters).
If you would like me to further elaborate on my responses to any of these questions, please let me know.
There are two applicable bylaw sections to analyze this question. The first is Article IV, Section 2 that reads as follows: Directors shall be elected at each Annual Meeting to serve for a term of three years and until their successors are duly elected and qualified, to replace the Directors whose terms have expired. Each Director shall be a member in good standing. No Director shall serve more than two consecutive terms. The Board in existence at the time these Bylaws go into effect shall be determined by lot: two members to serve one year terms; two members to serve two year terms; and three members to serve for three year terms.
The second applicable section (in light of the fact that there was a recall of most of the board a couple of years ago) is Article IV, Section 3. That section reads in pertinent part as follows: " ….Any vacancy occurring in the Board of Directors shall be filled by appointment by a majority of the remaining Directors. A Director appointed to fill a vacancy shall hold office until the next Annual Meeting of the members, at which time they shall elect a Director to fill the unexpired balance of the term, if any, of the office in which the vacancy occurred.
There could be several ways to interpret this section. The bylaws seem to contemplate that after the initial board (who determined by lot), all directors would be elected for 3 year terms. Since the bylaws indicate that a director cannot serve more than two consecutive terms, one reasonable interpretation of this section would be that a director cannot serve more than six consecutive years.
In light of the recall and the provision in the bylaws that says the new person elected is elected to fill the remaining unexpired term, it is also a reasonable interpretation to say that a person elected after the recall to fill the unexpired term fills that term as one term and then can elected to a second term. These two combined terms (which would be less than 6 years) could also be interpreted to be two consecutive terms.
When I discussed this matter with Cliff Collard, the other attorney in my office, he was of the opinion that the wording meant that a director could not serve more than two full terms. In other words a director could be elected to fill an unexpired term and then be elected to serve two full terms. This is also a reasonable interpretation.
I think the board is entitled to reasonably interpret its bylaws and I think any of these three interpretations are reasonable given the wording in the bylaws.
The procedure for foreclosing association liens are set forth in Oregon Statues. The statute governing liens is ORS 94.704 and following. A copy is provided. When a homeowners association levies an assessment against a lot the association has a lien on the lot for any unpaid assessments. The lien includes interest, late charges, attorney fees, costs or other amounts imposed under the declaration or bylaws or other recorded governing document. The lien is prior to homestead exemptions and all other liens except tax and assessment liens and a first mortgage or trust deed.
The association must record a notice of claim of lien in the deed records (ie file it with the county clerk). The notice must contain the amount due, the name of the owner of the lot, the name of the association and a legal description of the lot. It must also contain a statement that if the owner of the lot thereafter fails to pay any assessments when due, as long as the original or any subsequent unpaid assessment remains unpaid, the unpaid amount of assessments automatically continue to accumulate with interest without the necessity of further recording. The notice must be signed in front of a notary by someone with knowledge of the facts.
If the owner fails to pay after the lien is filed, the association has six years to foreclose the lien. This would require filing a foreclosure action with the circuit court.
4. What is the status of the Sanders/Dahlke lawsuit?
The lawsuit is primarily being handled by Mr. Aronson's law firm in Portland that was appointed by the insurance company. Mr. Aronson's firm filed a motion against the original complaint filed by Mr. Dahlke. As a result of the motion Mr. Dahlke's attorney filed an amended complaint that more clearly sets out the claims he alleges. Mr. Aronson's office will be filing a response to the complaint. Mr. Vandehey has filed a response to the complaint through his attorneys. However, since an amended complaint was filed, Mr. Vandehey will need to file a response to the amended complaint. If the case does not settle, the lawsuit will still go on for an extended period of time. After the pleadings are completed, there will be depositions prior to trial.
6. Can a Bayshore Division secede from Bayshore?
I won’t say it's impossible for a division to secede from Bayshore but it would be extremely difficult. The developers of Bayshore developed Bayshore in seven divisions with the same CC&Rs being recorded for each division. The lots in all seven divisions are all required to be members of the Bayshore Beach Club, Inc. Therefore, at a minimum I believe that for any one division to secede there would need to be an amendment to the declaration that was passed by a 66.67% affirmative vote of the membership (ie all seven divisions). It is possible the 66.67% has been raised to 75% because of a state statute enacted by the legislature. ORS 94.590 provides that a declaration may only be amended by 75% of the total votes. That statute also raises a further complicating issue. That statute says that no amendment may change the boundaries of any lot or the dues to any lot or unit restricted as stated in the declaration or change the method of changing liability for common expenses, the method of determining the right to common profits or the method of determining voting rights of any lot or unit unless the owners affected lots or units unanimously consent to the amendment. In essence this could require unanimous consent of everyone in Bayshore to allow one division to withdraw. If this becomes a serious issue, then a great deal more time needs to be spent researching the matter. However, because such research would generate significant legal fees, I did not take this matter further.
7. Would it be legal or possible to enter into a contract with the rental companies regarding the conduct of renters as pertains to our rules?
This is a complicated question. I think it would be legal to enter into a contract with rental companies regarding conduct of renters. However, I question why any rental company would want to enter into such an agreement where they may in essence be guaranteeing the actions of someone they probably have never met. If an agreement were required of rental agencies would it also be required of individuals who rent their homes? Perhaps rather than have the rental companies enter into an agreement with the Bayshore Beach Club regarding the conduct of renters the agreement should be entered into with the owners who allow their homes to be rented. If any agreement was to apply to renters would it apply to anyone who used a home at Bayshore even if was a friend or a relative of the owner who was using the home without paying a rental fee. Arguably, if rules are being violated by someone using a home the owner of the home is responsible for any violations. It may be possible to hold the owner responsible under the present CC&Rs and adopted rules. However, keep in mind there is an issue of whether the fine schedule is in effect so if the Beach Club wants any enforcement mechanism it may need to readopt the fine schedule or some other form of enforcement regulations. It might be easier to hold the homeowners responsible rather than the rental companies because if the homeowner doesn't pay a fine it could attach as a lien to the property. You would need to file an action against a rental agency to recover for any damage. If the board wants to pursue this avenue I think it would be important for the board to determine what rule it feels need to be enforced and what a remedy would be for violating those rules. We would also need to analyze whether specific rues pertaining to renters could be done by adopting rules or whether there would need to be amendments to the CC&Rs. I have not done that analysis because I did not want the Beach Club to incur additional attorneys fees until the board has consider the comments I made here to determine if this is a direction it wants to go.
8. Can Bayshore require a bond of some type from the building contractors insuring that they follow our CC&Rs and guidelines?
Legally this may be possible but I'm not sure a bond can even be obtained for this type of thing. I have a call into Bayshore's insurance agent and he is checking to see if such coverage exists. If such a bond could be obtained, you would probably want the homeowner to obtain the bond rather that the builder as the homeowner is ultimately responsible for what happens on the homeowner's lot.
9. Our bylaws state that: "The premises of the Bayshore Beach Club shall not be rented to any commercial or non-commercial organization for soliciting orders for, or the actual sale and delivery at the time of the meeting, of any material item or service. Any non-profit organization which may be sponsored by the Bayshore Beach Club is exempted from this Bylaw."
Last week we found that a person (Celia) had rented the meeting room and planned to solicit orders for products she would be demonstrating to the attendees. Upon discovery of the fact, she was denied the use of our building. Celia pointed out that another member (Julia) has reserved our meeting room for "thank you lunch" in which she would be demonstrating products that could be ordered, at a later date, directly from the company she works for. No solicitations would take place at the lunch. Does this second meeting (Julia) fall into the same category as the first? (Celia). Norman needs to know immediately as Julia will need to find another location for her lunch if she cannot use our facility.
It is my opinion that both gatherings fall under the quoted bylaw provision. It seems to me that the purpose of both meetings is to generate interest in a product for sale. While I suppose some fine lines could be drawn over the definition of solicitation, it appears to me that both meetings are geared toward generating interest to sell items. Both could reasonably fall under the prohibition in the bylaws for using the facility.
If you have further questions or would like further clarification, please let me know.
Very truly yours.
Dennis L. Bartoldus
Seal Rock Water District-Rampley letter
President Fernandes said Mr. Rampley of the Seal Rock Water District responded no our request to have the fire hydrants shut down to the winter. Don Butler said there were many issues at hand, contractors time has already been let, the contractors have a clause that allow them to collect even if the schedule is adjusted, the paint is probably complete and in the seasoning part of the cure before water can be put in the tank. President Fernandes said the letter will be an attachment to the Minutes.
Tsunami Siren
President Fernandes said there was not much to report. It has been our understanding that PUD has the pole, now we are told that may not be the case. If it is there, it will be delivered to our site within two weeks. The pole will have to be held off the ground while the siren is mounted. Jim Harlan asked should we send another letter; do something to move this project along? We have been dealing with this for over a year. President Fernandes said he had spoken with Barry Anderson of PUD and he is waiting on Mark Jung. He is the go-to person, the buck stops with him. Larry Dahlke volunteered to contact Mark Jung to help expedite this. Neil Hare asked who will be responsible for maintaining this siren. President Fernandes said the Seal Rock Fire Department will maintain it.
Fine Schedule
President Fernandes asked what do we do, what do you want to do, what are we going to do if anything. We have responses back and the majority have been in favor of some sort of fine system, not all but most. Bill Stephenson reminded the board that he is strictly against the fine system and wanted to point out the ramifications such as it will become a lien on your property, playing Russian roulette with your deed as far as he is concerned. It will wind up on your future credit score if there is a lien on your property. These are some things to look at. Kevin MacPhee said that is the whole idea of a fine schedule to teeth in the C&Rs. Bill said this is not a magic cure all; it will not keep us out of all the legal problems. Someone will sue us over the fines. President Fernandes said there may be something in what you say but then if you do nothing it is the same thing. Something has to be done. Ezra Morse, Division 4, said the ramifications of being irresponsible in this society having it go on your record. A responsible property owner isn't going to ignore letters they receive. The fine is not the first course of action. Every responsible property owner in Bayshore is going to respond to the letter. Carl Johnson, Division 1, said that in a previous HOA that he lived in was 10 times more strict than here. This idea that a fine schedule is prohibitive is crazy, he lived there for 10 years and it worked. Don Butler researched 7-8 HOA in Oregon and virtually all of them have a fine schedule, fine system that is very much like the one that was rescinded. The HOA Handbook recognizes fine systems as a way to get the C&Rs adhered to as best as possible without a bunch of attorney fees. It's virtually the only way in today's world to enforce the C&Rs without imposing large attorney fees. If we want our C&Rs adhered to then we are obligated to fulfill the wishes of those people who have spoken. This is not a small group pushing, it is a diverse group of people and it is our responsibility to find a way to enforce the C&Rs. Jack Woods, Division 4, why not publish what the other HOAs do, what there results are, what they've done and haven't done to make it work. Don Butler said the method for enforcement is right down the line of the HOA Handbook. This was put out by a legal firm in Portland; this is what they do for homeowners associations in Oregon. Neil Hare asked for hard data. President Fernandes said it all came in over email which all board members received. President Fernandes asked again, how do we approach this. Where do we go from here? Is it sent out as a vote? Do we abide by the vote? Do we arbitrarily impose a fine system? You saw what happened there. How will it be entered as part of our rules and regulations?
M
Larry Dahlke made a motion to call a general meeting to be held for the members of Bayshore. The meeting should be in the second or third week of August. There to be determined by a consensus of the membership of our next move in this matter. President Fernandes said we will have the meeting August 11 at 1:00 PM Larry suggested two mailings to the membership to get them to come to the meeting. President Fernandes said we are getting input, we are required to inform the membership when we make the decision.
Amended M
Larry Dahlke made a motion to hold a meeting for the general membership on August 11, 2007 at 1:00 PM (This was latter changed to August 18). The membership will vote up or down on the fine schedule. At that time the board will decide how to move forward. Either that or we take it off the table and continue with civil lawsuits. Gary Cummins said we have to have something specific for the people to get into. Either the fine schedule that was passed before, use that as a basis to start from, get people to react to something specific. Jim Harlan wanted to clarify that this special meeting was an up or down vote on reinstating the fine system. President Fernandes said Larry wanted to do it now. Jim said he thought President Fernandes proposed the members to be called to a special meeting to vote up or down on instituting a fine schedule as the fine schedule was before it was rescinded. He did not understand why Larry opposed that, why it was not satisfactory. President Fernandes said we would have to mail to everyone and then we are required to do another mailing to notify the members. We are talking $600-700 per mailing. Gary Cummins said this is an important enough issue to not have to put a monetary value on it.
Amended MSP
Larry Dahlke made a motion for a special meeting to be called for August 11 to vote up or down on a fine schedule. The fine schedule will be published and mailed to the general membership, a mailing before and after. Nelsen Witt seconded. Don Butler asked if we could include a voting ballot for those who can not make it to the meeting. Jim Harlan clarified the motion that the meeting is for the general membership to vote on a fine schedule. We need to be specific as to what is in the fine schedule. We have had some talk that it will be the fine schedule that was in place previously that had been rescinded: if it is going to be something else then he wanted to know what that is. Barbara Mullen, Division 4, said the fine schedule should be in the mailing as many people have not seen it. Mary Lou Morris, Division 1, pointed out that at the beginning of the meeting the board had put all expenditures on hold until you find out what was happening with the road. You know how I feel about the fine schedule; I really want to see it put in place or die. But I think you need to backtrack and take a look at what you have already done. President Fernandes said that was taken care of because the board left the decision of expenditures up to him. Mary Lou asked if there are enough funds in the budget to cover the expense of what might happen with the road. Sandie said we did not know which is why she recommended the temporary budget freeze. Gary Cummins said to hit the membership flat out with the fine schedule is pretty cold. He suggested that pros and cons be given to the members. (Maren Taylor had to leave the meeting for a prior commitment) President Fernandes said it would be slanted and he preferred it stand on its own. Larry Dahlke volunteered to get together with Bill Stephenson and he would represent both of their views in a form to be mailed out in the packet. Bill Stephenson suggested Gary Cummins and another member at-large to join the group. President Fernandes reminded the group to put forth only facts, not opinions. We are on a tight time-line for this. Neil Hare said it would need to be very explicit as to the advantages, disadvantages, how will it be administered, who will administer it, when it will be administered. President Fernandes said that is already in the package. Neil said it should have first and last names. He was told that will change with each board. The committee will consist of Bill Stephenson, Larry Dahlke, Gary Cummins and Jack Woods. Jim Harlan was concerned about the admonition that the statement be factual. He thought it should be written as advocates. He was thinking in terms of voter packets in the general elections. Those are statements of advocacy. You have to assume the residents of Bayshore can read that and understand that it is an advocacy position. To ask these four people to draft something grounded in fact, 1) I don't think they can do it and 2) it serves no useful purpose in his opinion. The people know what the fine schedule is, they know what the authority for adopting the fine schedule, but they need people like Bill to say this is what I think; this is why I oppose the fine schedule. They need people like Larry to argue the other side of the issue, not scurrilous, not slanderous, not libelous. This should be a heart-felt position. President Fernandes said the group can give a balanced list. The time was set for Monday, July 23 at 3:00 PM. President Fernandes should give the final ok. Nelsen Witt said we need to approach this to be very clear for the members. President Fernandes asked if our motion is clear. Larry Dahlke said the committee needs to be separate from the motion.
Yea vote:
Larry Dahlke
Nelsen Witt
Kevin MacPhee
Neil Hare
Don Butler
Nea vote:
Jim Harlan
Bill Stephenson
Motion carried 5 to 2.
MSP
Larry Dahlke made a motion to form a committee consisting of Bill Stephenson, Gary Cummins, Jack Woods and Larry Dahlke to represent the pros and cons to the general membership by way of the mailing previously discussed on Monday at 3:00 PM. Don Butler seconded. Jim Harlan felt compelled to reserve his right as a member of the board to at least weigh in on whatever statement is prepared for the board. Bill Stephenson asked that it be presented to the board by email prior to it going out. Neil Hare asked that the committee be fair and equitable. Trust me doesn't go very far. Dan Butler said and with President Fernandes review. Alvin Mushkatel, Division 1, how the board defined membership, those who have paid their dues or all property owners. President Fernandes said the mail-out would be to everyone however to vote you must be a member in good standing, liens on their property or owing dues.
Yea vote:
Yea vote:Jim Harlan
Larry Dahlke
Nelsen Witt
Kevin MacPhee
Don Butler
Bill Stephenson
Nay vote:
Neil Hare
The motion carried 6 to 1.
Pool Fees
Pool Fees
President Fernandes asked the board to consider pool fees. Fees have gone up sharply; attendance is down by those paying. Even as ratio to those coming in, for instance last year in the same time period we had 300 renters to 2600 members coming to the pool. This year the ratio is 200 renters to 3000 members. It is possible we are charging too much. It is currently $4.00 per person per day and $15.00 per family of 5 per day. This is only for your consideration. Kevin MacPhee asked the reason why the renters aren't here is the fees are too high? President Fernandes answered yes. Kevin asked how do we know that. President Fernandes said the amount of visitors to the pool has increased and the renters has decreased. Kevin said he was going to ask the fees to be increased. President Fernandes said he had had Lisa, the pool attendant, to get the numbers. Kevin said it could just be the rental agencies are not as busy. He thought we need some kind of income to help keep up the pool. President Fernandes said we are making less money in the same time period. Between 5/28-7/16/2005 we brought in $753.00 for 296 renters. From 5/26-7/16/2007 we brought in $688.00 for 203 renters. The renters went down and the amount we took in is less. He just wanted to tell the board and asked if they wanted to do anything different. Larry Dahlke asked how many people came to the door, found out the cost and left. President Fernandes said just a few. Some were outraged, but paid then didn't come back. Don Butler asked how the rental agencies are doing compared to last year. If it is down it may level itself out. Let's wait until next year. President Fernandes said this is just a report and something to think about.
Security Lighting
President Fernandes said we are paying $1000.00 a month for lights. 72 of them, 22 lights at least are not street lights, they are security lights. They are on the right-of-way; most are to the north of the clubhouse. He would like to cut this in half if he can by telling PUD we are not going to pay for the security lights. Each one is $11.80 a month to have the light there. Ezra Morse, Division 4, likes the security lights give. Jack Woods, Division 4, said the reason for the lights originally was for security according to a deputy sheriff who visited us. President Fernandes maintained that we could have street lights but not individual security lights. Security lights light up everything. We need street lights but not pay for security lights for individuals. These lights are not metered; it is a set cost every month, whether the lights are on or not. Neil Hare said many HOA along the coast do not have street lights. He wanted to know if their crime rate is any different than ours. Bill Stephenson asked why we are paying for individual lighting. He also mentioned the Dark Sky Theory. President Fernandes said a member would get a security light, when they sold there house the new owner would not want to pay so Bayshore would pick up the bill. The costs are based on wattage.
Donations
We have had the following donations made to the club: The Bayshore Waterobics, via Nancy Peterson, made a $250.00 donation to Amerigas on behalf of Bayshore. Barbara Rae made a $25.00 donation to the pool, Jerry and Debbie Butler donated a foosball table, and Mel Williams made a second donation of $30.00 to the pool. Sandie has sent thank you letters to each of these people.
Audience Comments
Ezra Morse, Division 4, expressed grievances for CC&Rs that are not enforced, CC&Rs that are misinterpreted and denial of due process. He had a beautiful view 3 years ago when he bought his house. This view is now taken up with trees which were not there when the house was completed in 1965. He made a complaint of these trees to the Planning Committee on June 3, 2007 as he has lost 45% of his view in the last 2 ½ years. Gary Cummins investigated the complaint, telling Ezra that he told the property owners of 1918 Caravel to cut their trees, move their cars, clean up their house and paint their house. Non of which has been done to this date. Ezra offered to Gary Cummins to pay to have the trees cut. Gary found an arborist to cut the trees for $200.00. Ezra agreed to the $200.00. Gary contacted the property owner and relayed to Ezra that it was ok to go ahead. Then Gary left a message to Ezra to only cut to the ridgeline of the house. Ezra relayed to Gary that ridgeline was unacceptable. Gary classified the trees as natural so could only be cut to ridgeline. Ezra wants the view restored, the C&Rs enforced. He wants to appeal the Planning Committee's decision. He still does not have a written, official decision that he can not cut below the ridgeline of the house. He felt he has no means to appeal without a letter from the committee. President Fernandes says basically this is all true. He talked to all of the committee members and their interpretation is original, natural means someone did not plant it. Bill Stephenson commented he knew of other members with the same complaint. So we need to make a decision as these trees are growing and in years will cause more complaints. Ezra said if a tree grows for 20 years no one will know the difference. There is no legal grounds one way or another. Kevin MacPhee said Sandpiper has a strict tree policy. There is hope. President Fernandes asked about the possibility of injury to the person cutting the tree. The next regular scheduled meeting is September for you to bring your appeal to the board. Jim Harlan said on this specific issue it is insane the process Ezra has had to go through. I can not find anything that requires a written filed decision before it can be carried to the board. It is a good idea but there is nothing, even in the rescinded policy that requires it to be in writing. President Fernandes asked what did he find. Jim responded with "a decision made by a Bayshore committee may be appealed to the Board." In this instance, we have a statement of the complainant, we have corroboration from Neil that yes in fact we have interpreted it that way on the Planning Committee and that is what we are holding to. Jim and President Fernandes had heard the recording from Gary making the statement that it has to go to the ridgeline. Based on those kinds of things, the board today could address the issue and resolve it. President Fernandes said as much as he would like to he could not agree. He thought they needed to have it in writing because that is a formal rejection. Jim asked where does the ordinary resident go to besides your representation or my representation that the action of the Planning Committee has to be in writing. He has been told by the chair, by Neil and you have. President Fernandes said where do we decide if they rejected him. One says they did and one says they didn't. When you get it in writing and they sign it, you have a formal rejection, and then the board can step in. Jim questioned again what did the President base that on other than a good way to do it. There is nothing in writing that requires a written action for an appeal. President Fernandes said if the Planning Committee is not here can we take a complainant at their word. Jim said Neil is a member of the committee. Neil said he is aware of the situation. If these trees in questions are natural trees they are exempt from this conversation, if they are planted trees they are not exempt from it. Jim pointed out the resolution was to cut to the ridgeline. Neil said Gary decided to cut to the ridgeline. The draft letter will cover that. Jim maintained we have to balance written resolution against what he has gone through to get to this point. Kevin MacPhee agreed with Jim that this man has gone through enough and we need to act on it. President Fernandes asked Sandie if we have the draft letter. Neil said the committee has not seen this draft letter and may want to make changes to it. Jim said this is exactly the kind of situation that upsets a number of owners of this association. It's getting caught up in this kind of Kafka-like process when people are pulling things out of thin air and it is incredibly frustrating. Don Butler asked if the Planning Committee maintains Minutes of their meeting, do we have a copy available, is this issue of ridgeline part of the Minutes. Then it becomes a one person action which may invalidate the ridgeline issue all together. President Fernandes did not want to usurp the power of the Planning Committee. Larry Dahlke said the member has already received a phone call from the presiding officer of the committee saying he was rejecting or not going to do anything about the request other than bring the trees to the ridgeline that would be the most. What more do you need Mr. President? President Fernandes said a signed statement so we are not going around the committee. Neil said if the board is going to micro-manage the Planning Committee you might as well get another Planning Committee. President Fernandes asked Neil if the committee could sign the letter on Monday and when it is signed; President Fernandes would then poll the directors by email and phone to ask what they want to do. Neil said the chair needs to make that decision, but he would call Gary Cummins. President Fernandes asked if the board would be willing to do a poll. Don Butler asked for a copy of the letter to be emailed to directors for consideration.
Executive Session 4PM
Return from executive session 4:45 PM
MSP
Jim Harlan made a motion to increase the hourly rates paid to the three wonderful pool employees that we are fortunate to have this season as follows:
$9.50 for the lead attendant
$8.50 for the individual in her second year of employment
$8.25 for the first year associate
These raises are effective July 15, 2007.
Larry Dahlke seconded the motion. A show of hands carried the motion unanimously.
MSP
Jim Harlan made a motion to adjourn which was seconded by all present.
Minutes Approved by Board of Directors September 15, 2007
Sandie Eckerson-Secretary-Treasurer
(attachment to minutes)
Seal Rock Water District
July 10, 2007
Mr. Norman Fernandes
1512 NW Oceania Dr.
Waldport, OR 97394
Dear Mr. Fernandes,
Thank you for your letter dated June 28th, 2007. I can certainly appreciate your concerns pertaining to fire danger in the summertime, particularly with the illegal use of fire works on the beaches. I have had several conversations on this subject with the fire chief. Unfortunately, there is no period of time during the year when all risks of fire disappear. The primary structure fire danger in our area, according to the fire department, is from people burning wood to heat homes. The wood heating season generally runs from October to April or May. As such, taking the tank off line in the winter time would in reality create a higher danger of a fire while the tank is off line.
In the nearly 18 month planning process, you are only the second individual to contact us regarding these concerns. We hold regular scheduled meetings on the second Thursday of each month at 7:00pm. All interested individuals are welcome to attend to learn more about the water district and to share their concerns with the board.
Thank you,
Alexander Rampley
Field Supervisor