Board of Directors
JUNE 7, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-President Chris Chambers called the regular meeting of the
Lake Moovalya Keys Board of Directors to order at 6:30 p.m.
Vice President: Chris Chambers
Board Members: Bill Risen (184), Bob Stroud (202), Trish Wikoff
(95), Russ Derby (85), Jack Sweeney (197), Joe Price (41/42),
Gary Svider (82/233), Joe Maxwell (238)
President: Chuck Baker
Board Member: Tonya McPherson
Guests: Gene Hines (130); Jeff & Jennifer Baerg (62); Carl
& Kaye Bozeman (61); Dan & Beverly Hutchison (167); Richard
& Sheryle Jaschke (170); Laura Glass & Gary Schmitt (185);
Barbara Risen (184); Lynnda Sweeney (197); Edna Price (41/42);
Squeak & Lauri Burke (122); Ken Ferguson (172); Don Lastra
(109); Bruce & Carolyn Bunker (49); Al Moroff (178); Ken Beard
(108); Bryan Herrell (52); Michael Barrett (245); Bill McLaran
(191); Steve Lassere (83/84); Nancy Lewis (36/180); David Plunkett
(219); Rob Troxler (160); Dino Gory and Kim Harsch (RGR Realty)
Legal Counsel: John C. Churchill (153/154)
Bookkeeper/Recording Secretary: Sue Thomson
General Manager: Joanne Hugaert
Mr. Risen made a motion to approve the May 24, 2004 Executive
Session Board Minutes regarding proposed rules and fines. Mr.
Stroud seconded the motion. There was no discussion, and the motion
OPEN DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED RULES
Mr. Chambers opened discussion on the first item listed on the
Rules & Fines Recap of May 24, 2004. He informed the guests
that we are having problems getting Parker Towing to tow vehicles
off Association premises. Mr. Churchill stated that the Association
is having a problem locating a tow company to tow away vehicles
in violation of our parking rules, further stating that Sheriff's
intervention is the ideal way in which to handle the situation,
and the Sheriff's Office has intervened in the past. However,
this has resulted in instances of the vehicle owner raiding the
tow yard to retrieve the vehicle. Because the Sheriff's Office
will no longer intervene for parking infractions, Parker Towing
is reluctant to tow away vehicles in violation of the rules. He
stated it is not illegal for a vehicle owner to confiscate his
own vehicle from the tow yard. Mr. Churchill stated that we have
not given up the idea, we're just experiencing problems. He also
stated that parking in the common lot is for overflow parking
for homeowners, and not for renters. Mr. Churchill stated that
homeowners could be dunned for their tenants' violations. There
was a question about the possibility of tagging trailers with
identification and a date, and Mr. Churchill stated that the Association
would have to mark, tag and trace license numbers of trailers
parked in the lot.
Question was raised about holidays and where
guests are to park when the lot is full, inadequate parking in
general, and there being no rhyme or reason for the way in which
trailers are parked in the lot--what are the remedies? Mr. Churchill
replied by stating that the Association has no obligation to provide
parking for guests, that he moves his vehicles downtown when he
is expecting guests, and that guests sometime just have to find
another way. Mr. Churchill stated that the CC&R's preclude
parking on the streets, and that the Association owns the streets.
A guest made reference to a letter dated 2/21/01 regarding the
roads, and stated that he would show this letter to Mr. Churchill.
Question was raised about the mechanism to
be put into place to enforce. Ms. Hugaert explained that she has
been red tagging vehicles and trailers, but there is no enforcement
until the rules and fines are passed. Mr. Stroud stated the Association
would be able to trace lot numbers for golf carts should the fine
for the rule pass. Mr. Churchill suggested that lot numbers also
be placed on trailers, and trailers with no lot ID could be considered
abandoned. Mr. Derby relayed a query from a neighbor regarding
the storage of vehicles and trailers on vacant lots; should one
homeowner move his boat from the vacant lot to the front of his
house? The homeowner doesn't understand the rule, stating that
it looks worse to store it in the front yard of his house rather
than on the vacant lot. Mr. Churchill stated a homeowner could
store it in their yard if it's in compliance with the rules, i.e.,
it's within the homeowner's lot boundaries, and the white lines
are not the homeowner's property lines. Mr. Stroud stated that
storing on vacant lots is not permitted. He stated that the location
of water meters is the approximate lot boundary. There was discussion
about Mr. Smith erroneously receiving a red tag for parking on
the vacant lot, and Mr. Price stated that Mr. Smith has letters
stating that parking on a vacant lot, either your own, or with
permission from the lot owner, is allowed for up to seven days
out of the month. Mr. Stroud concurred that seven days out of
the month is allowed.
Mr. Churchill clarified the process needed
to pass these rules; that a 2/3 vote of the members present in
the room can pass or fail a motion.
Mr. Svider made a motion to approve a fine
of $25 for each 24-hour period a vehicle/trailer is parker over
the time limit of any seven days per month, regardless of whether
or not the vehicle/trailer has been moved to a new spot within
the common lot. Mr. Price seconded the motion. There was discussion
as to the procedure for identifying vehicles and trailers. Mr.
Stroud stated that the Association would be able to identify them,
and that Ms. Hugaert patrols the lot on a daily basis, logging
license numbers and dates. He also stated that fines could be
protested. Mr. Churchill confirmed that one could protest a fine;
that there is a form of due process that would be used, with notice
first being sent. Mr. Stroud stated that the Association is merely
trying to control chaos with the imposition of rules and fines.
A vote of hands was taken, 20 voting for and 10 voting against,
and the motion failed to carry.
White Line Parking
Mr. Svider made a motion to approve a fine to lot owners of $50
for first offense and $100 for subsequent offenses for parking
or encroachment of a parked vehicle/trailer into the area between
the two white lines. Mr. Derby seconded the motion. There was
a guest comment about fining right off the bat without any warning.
Ms. Hugaert reported that she often meets with non-cooperation
when she asks people to move their vehicles back from the white
line; that when she returns to the scene from making her rounds,
the illegally parked vehicle hasn't been moved. There was discussion
regarding the $50 fine being too large, and that violators should
be warned before being fined. Mr. Chambers stated that the distance
between the white lines is 18', and that this is 2' less than
the desired 20' passage for emergency vehicles, so the Association
must maintain strict compliance with the 18' clearance. He answered
a homeowner question about how we determined exactly where to
place the lines and was a survey done. Mr. Chambers stated that
the Association could not afford a survey, that the space is 18'.
He stated that some houses are built closer to the property line
from the normal 10' setback, and these houses would have only
6' or 7' from the property line. A vote of hands was taken, 10
voting for and 16 voting against, and the motion failed to carry.
Mr. Sweeney made a motion to approve a fine
to lot owners of $25 for first offense and $50 for subsequent
offenses, with a prior warning to be given at the discretion of
the General Manager, for parking or encroachment of a parked vehicle/trailer
into the area between the two white lines. The motion was seconded.
A vote of hands was taken, and the motion was carried.
Mr. Svider made a motion to approve a fine to lot owners of unleashed
dogs, with Animal Control also being called, in an amount of $50
for first offense and $100 for subsequent offenses. Mr. Price
seconded the motion. There was discussion as to whether or not
this includes unleashed dogs on one's own property, and it was
reported that this rule does not apply to unleashed dogs on one's
own property. There was a query as to how this rule could be enforced,
and Mr. Thomson stated that the Association has a digital camera,
and stray dogs could be either photographed or reported to the
General Manager by an eyewitness. There was clarification on the
wording of the rule that the lot owner of the dog would be fined,
not the lot owner where the unleashed dog is found. Mr. Sweeney
stated that this rule is designed for those who continually let
their dogs run loose. A vote of hands was taken, 21 voting for
and 1 voting against, and the motion failed to carry.
Edna Price made a motion to approve a fine
to lot owners of unleashed dogs, with Animal Control also being
called, in an amount of $25 for first offense and $50 for subsequent
offenses, with a prior warning being given. Mr. Sweeney seconded
the motion. A vote of hands was taken, and the motion carried.
Ms. Wikoff made a motion to approve a fine to lot owners of dogs
who have not been picked up after in an amount of $25 for first
offense and $50 for subsequent offenses, with a prior warning
being given. Mr. Price seconded the motion. A vote of hands was
taken, and the motion carried.
Mr. Beard made an announcement to the general
meeting regarding the consequences of imposing fines; that everyone
should consider what they are passing, because he felt that there
would be more rules and fines forthcoming if we start imposing
fines here tonight. Mr. Chambers stated that he is against fines,
and that is why he joined the Board
Mr. Risen made a motion to fine lot owners for speeding and reckless
operation of a golf cart in an amount of $25 for first offense,
$50 for second offense and $100 for subsequent offenses. Mr. Derby
seconded the motion. There was discussion as to how the Association
plans on observing violators. Jeff Baerg questioned why all vehicles,
including golf carts and off-road cycles and quads, should not
be fined. After further discussion, Mr. Risen withdrew his motion.
Jeff Baerg made a motion to fine lot owners
for speeding and reckless operation of any vehicle, including
golf carts and off-road vehicles, in an amount of $25 for first
offense, $50 for second offense and $100 for subsequent offenses.
The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
Golf Cart Identification Number
Mr. Baerg stated that all vehicles, not just golf carts, should
post lot identification. Mr. Baerg made a motion to do away with
the identification of golf carts only. The motion was seconded.
There was discussion that golf carts are the Association's biggest
problem on this subject, and there was general disagreement on
this point among the guests. The motion failed to carry. Mr. Chambers
stated that since there is no motion to approve the lettering
of golf carts only, there is no imposition of a rule or fine on
Sleeping in RV's
Ken Beard made a motion that the CC&R's be changed to allow
people to do whatever they want to do with their RV's as long
as they are on their own properties. Mr. Churchill explained that
one can't make a motion to change the CC&R's in tonight's
venue. He stated that occupying an RV, and anything could be considered
an RV, such as a rundown trailer like the baby blue trailer painted
with a roller, is prohibited by the CC&R's, because the CC&R's
state that lots are zoned R-1, single-family residences. The CC&R's
can be changed, that's how they got changed in 1995, but changing
the CC&R's requires a 2/3 vote of the entire membership, not
just those in attendance at this meeting. Mr. Churchill explained
that the current CC&R's preclude occupying RV's and that a
system of fines helps the Association enforce the rules. He further
explained that without a system of fines the only other remedy
to enforce CC&R's is the filing of lawsuits, which is costly
and time consuming. The imposition of fines gives the Association
the least expensive method with which to enforce CC&R's. It
was reported that there were people living in RV's over the recent
holiday on Moovalya Drive and Yaqui Loop.
Mr. Price made a motion to impose a fine on
lot owners who permit anyone to occupy an RV on their lot in an
amount of $50 per night for first offense and $100 per night for
subsequent offenses. Mr. Sweeney seconded the motion. A vote of
hands was taken, and the motion failed to carry.
Mr. Churchill reported on a legal case where
a homeowner in another development with similar CC&R's was
sued for violating this regulation, and a judgment was awarded
against the homeowner in an approximate amount of $20,000. David
Plunkett asked for clarification on the subject, specifically,
whether we are talking about parking the RV on the lot. Mr. Chambers
stated that one can park an RV on their lot within the lot boundaries.
Mr. Churchill stated that this proposed rule deals only with occupying
Mr. Sweeney made a motion to impose a fine
on lot owners who permit anyone to occupy an RV on their lot in
an amount of $25 per night for first offense and $50 per night
for subsequent offenses. Squeak seconded the motion. A vote of
hands was taken, 26 voting for and 3 voting against, and the motion
Lot Conditions/Trash at Houses
Mr. Stroud made a motion to impose a fine of $25 a day for lot
owners of unkempt properties up to 30 days, with a $50 a day fine
after 30 days, including the cost of clean-up by the Association
with a prior ten-day warning before fine imposition. Mr. Maxwell
seconded the motion. There was discussion about what constitutes
an abandoned vehicle. Mr. Churchill stated the Association could
use the Arizona statutes to define an abandoned vehicle; that
the Association can determine what length of time it wants to
use to determine abandonment. A suggestion was made to use current
registration tags as proof of non-abandonment. A 30-day notice
was suggested to notify owners that they need to remove abandoned
After further discussion, Mr. Stroud amended
his motion to impose a fine of $50 per day for a maximum of 10
days, after a 30 day notice, and if the lot is not clean after
the 10-day period, then the Association will do the clean up and
assess the homeowner for the fine and the clean-up expense. There
was discussion about being more specific as to bad structures,
referring to the river lot with the bad roof, and can't the County
assist us in this regard. Mr. Churchill stated that he has been
asked to deal with these instances on an individual basis, and
the owner of the lot with the bad roof has been sent a letter
requesting that the roof be put in good repair in condition. There
being no further discussion, a vote of hands was taken, 27 voting
for and none voting against, and the motion carried.
Lauri Burke and Squeak stated that they were required to put up
a dumpster when they did their construction, and why aren't others
required to do this, stating that there are three other construction
projects in progress at this time which don't have on-site dumpsters.
Mr. Chambers stated that some owners make their own arrangements,
via private trailers or vehicles, to haul out their construction
trash, and that it isn't a requirement for an owner to put out
a dumpster for this purpose. Their only obligation is to remove
the construction debris from the Association premises.
Squeak made a motion to approve the imposition
of a $100 per occurrence fine to the lot owner for non-household
trash being placed in the dumpsters, and any trash that does not
fit into the dumpster. The motion was seconded. There was discussion
about what constitutes an "offense", and one trip, one
vehicle is considered one offense. A vote of hands was taken,
28 voting for and none voting against, and the motion carried.
There was a question regarding when these
fines will go into effect, and Mr. Chambers stated they would
be into effect at the next regular Board meeting.
Squeak made a motion to make it mandatory
for a homeowner planning construction not only to post the $750
construction deposit, but to also place a dumpster on the property
to be constructed. Mr. Chambers stated that not all properties
can accommodate a dumpster, and that some owners choose to haul
away their owner construction debris. Mr. Churchill stated that
the previous motion could be interpreted to deal with this issue.
Mr. Stroud explained why renters should post a security deposit;
that it is to be used in the event of property damage. There was
discussion from homeowners that $500 would not be an adequate
security deposit, with one homeowner reporting the total loss
of two jet skis caused by a renter.
Lauri Burke made a motion to require all renters
and tenants of Association properties to post and maintain a $1,000
security deposit on all rental contracts. A vote of hands was
taken, 27 voting for and 1 voting against, and the motion carried.
There was discussion about the constant abuse
by renters and what our remedies are; can we stop homeowners from
renting. Mr. Chambers stated that properties that are rented out
and not owner-occupied for at least 30 days a year are considered
commercial properties, and a phone call to George Nault, La Paz
County Assessor, would result in the property being taxed at the
25% commercial rate, rather than at the 10% residential rate.
Once the tax rate is changed, it cannot be changed back for the
remainder of the tax year. Squeak stated that realtors should
be involved in the process. There was an inquiry about owner-occupied
properties being occupied six months of the year and rented six
months of the year. It was confirmed that as long as the homeowner
occupies the property for at least 30 days, it would be taxed
at the residential 10% rate. David Plunkett stated that there
is a transient rental rate of 25%, which is prorated for combination
Revisit of the 7-Day Parking Issue . It was
bought up that if someone parks a vehicle/trailer in the common
lot for a period of not to exceed seven days a month, one could
park a vehicle/trailer the last week of the month and the first
week of the next month, resulting in a 14 day park. Mr. Churchill
stated that the rule should state that no one shall park a vehicle/trailer
in the lot for more than seven days in any 30-day period, not
a calendar month. Mr. Sweeney stated that most people who use
the lot come up on the weekends and want to park there just for
David Plunkett made a motion to impose a fine
of $25 per 24-hour period to the lot owner for parking vehicles/trailers
in the common lot in excess of seven days at a time, not to exceed
14 days a month and that each vehicle/trailer must be affixed
with lot number identification by the owner. Ms. Hugaert stated
that it would be difficult to locate the owners of vehicle/trailers
in the lot, and that all vehicles/trailers should be identifiable
by lot number. The Board was reminded that the Association used
to sticker all vehicles with lot identification. A vote of hands
was taken, and the motion carried.
Mr. Churchill proposed one other subject for
rules regulation, that being if an owner changes the use of his
lot, commercial to residential, or changes the zoning, the owner
shall comply with the residential CC&R requirements. There
are some properties that have changed their zoning from commercial
(C-1) to residential (R-1) without complying with the residential
CC&R requirements. The original drafting of the CC&R's
did not contemplate this scenario. Commercial properties have
their own building and fire safety codes because many are on zero
lot lines. Height is also an issue with commercial properties,
as the commercial 35' height limit exceeds the residential CC&R's
height limit. If people are going to reside in commercial properties,
or change the commercial zoning to residential, which is done
mainly for the purpose of cheaper financing and property taxes,
then those properties should comply with the residential CC&R
regulations. Mr. Churchill stated that C-1 zoning requires a structure
to maintain certain percentages for business use and for residential
use. Mr. Plunkett reported that the CC&R's also do not contemplate
R-2 zoning for multi-family residences, and the CC&R's do
not technically approve zone changes. However, in the case of
recent duplex construction on Association lots the setback requirements
as stated in the CC&R's have been met. Mr. Churchill stated
that because we are in a gray area, the Association needs to define
what the homeowner should be required to do when changing the
property use and/or the zoning from commercial to residential.
Mr. Sweeney made a motion that all Association
commercial properties that lot owners rezone to residential shall
comply with the residential requirements of the Association's
CC&R's, or in the alternative, homeowners must retain their
commercial C-1 zoning and otherwise comply with the CC&R's.
The motion was seconded. There being no further discussion, the
Mr. Svider presented a no-wake sign that is available for purchase
by the Association and the members. If anyone is interested, they
Mr. Chambers discussed the need for waterfront
addresses being posted on houses on the canals. He stated this
is a safety issue, as the absence of house numbers on the waterside
of houses presents a problem with fire and law enforcement response
time. The house numbers would be 4" reflective numbers, with
a hyphen then the street initial letter, all on a metal backing.
Mr. Svider has a quote of $7.50 per set. It was reported that
Home Depot has letters and numbers for approximately $4.50 for
the required sequence. The Association would be responsible for
installing the address letters so that they are placed in a proper
location and in a consistent manner. They cannot be placed on
docks, as boats would cover them up.
A motion was made that the Association purchase
and install at a total cost not to exceed $12 for materials and
labor, for each 4" reflective, metal backed address id plates,
for each waterfront lot on the canals. The motion was carried.
The meeting recessed at 8:52 p.m. and the
Regular meeting of the Board of Directors reconvened at 9:01 p.m.
Carl and Kaye Bozeman presented an update on the issue of their
dogs, stating that they never received Mr. Churchill's first warning
letter. They stated that they have had to retrain their dogs to
get used to not being on an acre of land; that since Animal Control
came to their property, they have poured concrete to keep the
odor level down, they have put bark collars on their dogs, and
there are no further problems. They reported on the nipping incident
with the man who was returning a wallet and came onto their property.
They stated that it was not the dog's fault, that the man came
onto their property, and the man did not wish to file a report.
But since all of these issues have been remedied, they expressed
displeasure at receiving a second warning letter from Mr. Churchill
stating that they need to remove their aggressive dogs from the
Mr. Churchill responded by stating that the
Association asked him to write the letter, as the dogs are a nuisance
because of loud barking and aggressive behavior. Mr. Churchill
stated that the first letter was dated 3/1/04, and the second
letter was dated 5/14/04. The Bozemans stated that they did not
receive the first letter. Mrs. Bozeman stated that the dogs are
not disturbing the peace, that they are not a nuisance, that they
wear bark collars, but that they do snarl and growl when people
walk by. She doesn't even walk the dogs anymore. She stated that
even though they growl when someone walks by, people get used
to it. The dogs are not vicious; they have just had to adjust
to their environment. She also stated that one dog is more aggressive
than the other.
Mr. Churchill stated that he owns two large
dogs, and if they snarled, that would be a nuisance, even though
they snarl and growl on one's own property. This is a hazard,
and would result in his having to remove then from his property.
Mrs. Bozeman asked if the letter stands, requiring them to remove
the dogs. While the Association states it has received other complaints,
Mrs. Bozeman said she was not aware of any other complaints. It
was decided that if there were any further complaints about the
dogs, they would have to go. If the problems have been fixed,
as the Bozemans state, then the Association won't require their
removal. Mr. Churchill will send a copy of the 3/1/04 letter to
Mr. Price made a motion to approve the May 5, 2004 Executive Session
Board Minutes. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion,
and the motion carried.
Mr. Price made a motion to approve the May
5, 2004 Regular Board Meeting Minutes. The motion was seconded.
There was no discussion, and the motion carried.
Mr. Price made a motion to approve the May
19, 2004 Executive Session Board Minutes. The motion was seconded.
There was no discussion, and the motion carried.
Mr. Price made a motion to approve the Bookkeeper's May report
and all prepaid bills. The motion was seconded. Mr. Stroud questioned
the $50 petty cash lunch expense, and Ms. Hugaert stated that
this was in trade for the use of a hydraulic forklift to reinstall
the flag and flag rope. Mr. Stroud stated that APS would assist
in flag installation in the future at no charge, and that the
Association does not wish Ms. Hugaert to put herself in danger
by going up to that height in a forklift.
Ms. Thomson requested approval for current
statements due to John Churchill, Davis Building Supply, Precision
Striping and We Monitor America (gate clickers). A motion was
made, seconded and carried to approve payment of the bills due
to John Churchill, Davis Building Supply, Precision Striping and
We Monitor America.
Ms. Thomson reported on the premium quote
for increased insurance coverage on the bridges. A motion was
made to approve the quote for $20,000 bridge coverage for the
upcoming policy renewal. The motion was seconded and carried.
Ms. Thomson reported a complaint by VDMA owner
Phyllis Gormley on standing water behind the berm between the
ramp and the dumpsters. She stated Mrs. Gormley is concerned about
West Nile Virus. The Board stated that the water periodically
appears as a Brooke Water operational function, and that the pool
of water is on Brooke Water property. The issue should be brought
up directly with Brooke Water.
Ms. Thomson reported on Christie May/Charlie
Ward's (lot 227) follow-up e-mail letter of May 29 regarding the
burnt out street light, the chaining off of the adjacent vacant
lot, the mail box key request and gate code request. Ms. Thomson
stated that she contacted Ms. May regarding the gate and mailbox
matters. Ms. Hugaert stated that she was attempting to get the
light replaced, and the Board informed her that although the Association
owns the light fixtures, APS is responsible for replacing the
light and that APS should be requested to replace the light. The
Board also stated that as soon as we have permission to chain
off the adjacent lot 228 to the south of their lot, the Association
would install the poles and chains.
Ms. Thomson presented an e-mail letter from
Peter Becker (lot 115) submitted on June 3 regarding excessively
loud music during the Memorial Holiday. Mr. Becker explained that
this wasn't just loud music at a loud party it was concert-intensity
loud, uncomfortable to hear, and sitting outside on their patio
wasn't an option, as the offending speakers were located outside.
He explained that this continued for almost 48 straight hours.
He reported that asking them to turn it down was of no avail,
and that one older couple on his street ended up going home early
because of this. Mr. Chambers stated that all noise nuisances
should to be reported to the Sheriff's Office, as they will deal
with these nuisances. The matter was tabled for further discussion
at the next regular Board meeting.
Mr. Risen made a motion to approve the May
Profit & Loss Statement and the May Balance Sheet. The motion
was seconded. There was no discussion. The motion was carried.
Mr. Risen made a motion to approve the General
Manager's May Progress Report and Memorial Weekend Report. The
motion was seconded. There was discussion about the openings on
Chuck Baker's lot 251 that straddles the exit gate. People are
using the openings to bypass the gate. The proposed lot buyers
apparently made the openings, but escrow has not yet closed. The
Board will request Mr. Baker to close off the openings on the
lot. Mr. Stroud said he received one minor complaint about the
security guards towing someone on the premises, and he wondered
what other feedback we received on the new guard service over
the holiday. Ms. Thomson stated she received their report by fax
today and had given it to Ms. Hugaert, who reviewed the report
with the Board. The report includes a total of seven incident
items. There being no further discussion, the motion was carried.
Mr. Sweeney reported that he has installed
another camera provided by Al McPherson (lot 070) and that the
addition has greatly improved surveillance. We are now able to
zoom in and capture license plate numbers of all vehicles at the
Mr. Sweeney also reported that the camera
system CD player has been installed and is operational. He also
stated that Richard DiNolfi dropped off two no-wake signs at his
house, which will be installed.
Squeak reported on his volunteer efforts to
keep the lawn and oleanders watered. He stated that the automatic
watering system had to be turned off, and he spends 4-5 hours
hand watering. He stated that no one has mowed the lawn in weeks.
Mr. Chambers explained that we lost our lawn guy, and we haven't
replaced him as yet. Squeak also expressed his displeasure at
the trashy conditions in the entire entrance area from the oleanders
up to and including the dumpster area. There is trash in the bushes,
and trash around the dumpsters. He encouraged the Association
to hire a maintenance/grounds person to take care of these issues.
Mr. Chambers stated maintenance is one of Ms. Hugaert's duties,
but that the Association does need to hire a gardener.
Mr. Risen made a motion that the Association
hire a Groundskeeper to assist the General Manager, and that Ms.
Hugaert look for someone to fill this position. The motion was
seconded and carried.
Mr. Svider suggested that the Board pursue
the matter of the Richard DiNolfi inventory shortages at its next
Ms. Hugaert presented her detailed fence installation
estimate for the area between the boulders and the oleanders to
keep off-road vehicles from using it as an exit/entrance. The
estimate is for a 4' high wood fence approximately 25' long at
a cost of $474. Mr. Chambers stated he is opposed to the fence,
as this would just detour riders over the lawn and out the opening
by the entrance; that we should just move the two Fontleroy boulders
off that lot and space them out with the other boulders in the
subject area to slow down riders, thus keeping them away from
the lawn and entrance area. Mr. Risen stated he is concerned about
liability should a rider hit a boulder. Ms. Wikoff suggested using
bigger boulders. Mr. Churchill stated that we used to have a split-rail
fence at this location before there were boulders. Mr. Price stated
that fencing off the area would result in riders tearing up the
lawn. Mr. Chambers stated that riders need access, and that the
opening by the gate would be too dangerous. Mr. Stroud stated
that the area by the mailboxes is also a dangerous situation.
Mr. Sweeney made a motion to move the Fontleroy
boulders over to the area by the mailboxes and space them out
with the other boulders to slow down off-road vehicles. The motion
was seconded and carried.
The meeting adjourned to Executive Session
at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened the regular meeting at 10:05.
The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Submitted by Recording Secretary, Sue Thomson
APPROVED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS JULY 5, 2004