Board of Directors
AUGUST 2, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
President Chuck Baker called the regular meeting of the Lake Moovalya
Keys Board of Directors to order at 6:05 p.m.
President: Chuck Baker
Vice President: Chris Chambers
Board Members: Bob Stroud, Jack Sweeney, Joe Price, Gary Svider,
Tonya McPherson, Joe Maxwell, Bill Risen (7:15 p.m.)
Board Member: Trish Wikoff
Guests: Al McPherson (lot 70); Squeak (122); Jennifer Baerg (lot
62); Dusty Gravatt (lot 187); James & Debra Grybowski (lot
Legal Counsel: John C. Churchill
Bookkeeper/Recording Secretary: Sue Thomson
General Manager: Joanne Hugaert
Mr. Chambers made a motion to approve the July 5, 2004 Board Minutes
and Executive Session Minutes. The motion was seconded. There
was no discussion, and the motion carried.
Mr. Price made a motion to approve the July financial reports.
The motion was seconded. There was no discussion, and the motion
Mr. McPherson raised a question about a separate
reserve account in the approximate amount of $30,000 for future
street improvements. He requested the matter be put on the agenda.
Mr. Svider inquired about the amount of further
attorney’s fees on the Vestermark matter. Mr. Baker asked
Mr. Churchill if he knew the amount of attorneys’ fees incurred
since the June 30 statements. Mr. Churchill stated he hasn’t
done the billing for July as yet.
Mr. Sweeney stated that the construction deposit
to Hight (lot 107) should be refunded.
Ms. McPherson made a motion to approve the
July prepaid bills. The motion was seconded, and the motion carried.
Mr. Baker discussed the General Manager’s Report, stating
his concern about intoxicated minors on golf carts. Ms. Hugaert
stated that she has received no cooperation from minors’
parents on this issue. Mr. Churchill stated that the Sheriff’s
Office is treating golf carts the same as street vehicles, and
that they are not tolerating intoxicated golf cart drivers on
golf courses either. He stated that Sheriff’s deputies have
arrested people inside the gates for DUI on golf carts, and that
if we invite the Sheriff into our gates, deputies will issue DUI
citations. Mr. Chambers stated that the Association does not need
to be the police. Squeak reported on an incident where someone
inside the gates was red lighted and pulled over. Mr. Chambers
stated that he spoke with a Sheriff’s Sergeant and was told
that they cannot cite underage drivers, but they can cite minors
for curfew violations. Mr. Chambers stated that there were several
officers on site over the July 4 holiday, and some kids were hauled
in on DUI charges.
CALL TO PUBLIC
Mr. Baker presented Mr. Grybowski’s remodeling plans which
call for a carport-to-garage conversion and modernization of the
back of the house. No plot plan was included, but existing walls
are delineated on the plans.
Mr. Gravatt expressed his frustration over
his neighbors’ (Bahler) loud partying and general noise
nuisance. Mr. Bahler also spray painted “my wall”
on the end cap of the wall separating the two properties. Ms.
Hugaert reported that she took photos of the spray-painted wall,
and she talked to them about shooting fireworks out of their garage
over the July 4th holiday. Mr. Gravatt stated that he has talked
to his neighbor about the problems, but they continue. Mr. Baker
suggested calling the Sheriff, and they can get involved on a
nuisance basis. Mr. Bahler has also put a “no trespassing”
sign up, but it faces Mr. Gravatt’s property. Ms. Hugaert
states the CC&R’s allow signage only in the form of
“for sale” or “for rent” signs.
Mr. McPherson reported on a similar incident
near his house in which the Sheriff’s Office arrested people
in three separate incidents over the July 4th holiday. He stated
they responded within 15 minutes. One of the arrests involved
contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Mr. Gravatt stated that the Sheriff’s
Office told him if he removed the “no trespassing”
sign, he (Mr. Gravatt) would be arrested, because the sign is
on Mr. Bahler’s wall. Mr. Churchill asked if the location
of the wall has been surveyed. Mr. Gravatt stated that 1”
of the wall is on his property, and the remainder of the wall
is on Mr. Bahler’s property.
Mr. Baker stated that things have been out of hand for the past
year or so, especially on holidays. The Association recently passed
the Rules & Fines to alleviate some of these problems, and
it was looking to find a good mix of solutions for both the retired
folks and the young partiers that occupy the Keys. Mr. Baker stated
that the protest system needs refining to deal with semantics.
He recommends instituting a review committee to review citation
protests, as it is too time consuming to review protests at the
regular meetings. However, the protests that we have received
will be reviewed at this meeting.
Bozeman, unleashed dog citation. Ms. McPherson
inquired about a whether a prior warning was given. Ms. Hugaert
stated that a prior warning was given via Mr. Churchill’s
prior letter, as well as a discussion at the June 7 meeting between
Mr. Churchill, the Board and Mrs. Bozeman. Ms. Hugaert stated
there is no proof that the unleashed dog belongs to the Bozemans.
Mr. Sweeney made a motion to change the citation to a warning.
The motion was seconded and carried.
McLaran, unauthorized parking. Mr. McLaran
stated their two vehicles were on their own property all weekend,
and that they had no guests. The citation was dismissed.
Vick, unauthorized parking. Mr. Vick protested
because there were no “no parking” signs on the lot
in which someone had already removed the telephone pole bumpers.
Ms. Baerg inquired why the vacant lots aren’t
chained off. The Board responded by stating that people are removing
the barriers. Ms. McPherson inquired if we can track license plate
numbers. Squeak stated that we could track people by the last
four digits of their phone numbers. Mr. Baerg also suggested placing
ID stickers on windshields. Mr. Risen stated that parking on vacant
lots is a matter of trespassing. Ms. Hugaert stated that it took
her over two weeks to get lists from the local real estate agencies
with their lists of rental properties. Mr. McPherson asked Ms.
Hugaert if she had photos of violators’ license plates,
and Ms. Hugaert stated that she did not.
Mr. Risen made a motion to uphold the citation.
Mr. Stroud stated that the vehicles could have been guests of
his, but the protest involved the lack of “no trespassing”
signs, and the fact that the telephone poles bumpers had been
moved, opening access to the lot. The motion did not carry.
The citation was dismissed, and access to
the lot is to be blocked more securely.
Mr. Svider made a motion to readdress and
review the establishment of a policy of consistency and proper
documentation and procedures for fines.
Svider, parking violations. Ms. Hugaert stated
that Mr. Vescio’s pick up truck was parked outside the white
line for three consecutive days. Mr. Chambers asked Ms. Hugaert
if she attempted to contact the vehicle owner before writing the
citations, and Ms. Hugaert stated that she did not. Ms. Baerg
stated that this pick up truck is always parked over the white
line; Mr. McPherson concurred. Ms. Hugaert stated it was parked
over the white line the entire three-day weekend of July 4th.
Mr. Price made a motion to enforce the citation. Mr. Risen seconded
the motion, and the motion carried.
Squeak expressed his concern to Mr. Svider
that because of personal involvement in this matter, he should
abstain. Mr. Chambers stated that Mr. Svider’s motion was
for a procedure. Mr. Svider stated that he is upset because other
violators on the street were not violated. Mr. Baker stated that
he noted four cars over the white line just tonight, and that
we need to cite everyone that we see, but we need to establish
a regular policy, not necessarily dismissing these on the agenda
tonight. Mr. Churchill warned about second guessing the person
issuing the citations; the Association does have a procedure where
the homeowner can challenge the citation; after the citation issues,
the procedure comes into play wherein there is a hearing or review
by a committee or the Board. The persons cited can come to the
Board meeting to protest. That is the procedure we have in place
Mr. Stroud stated that Ms. Hugaert was hired
to issue citations; she has caught some of the violations, and
the security service may have erroneously identified some vehicles.
He further stated we need to clarify the vehicles of which we
don’t know the owner’s identity.
Mr. Churchill stated that parking in vacant
lots was not addressed in the Rules & Fines. Ms. Thomson stated
that because vacant lots are supposed to be chained, the Association
did not anticipate parking on vacant lots being an issue.
Ms. McPherson stated that if we don’t
have enough information on citations, a warning should instead
be issued until such time as the system is perfected. Mr. McPherson
stated that parking over the white lines is cut and dry, and if
we have a photo of the vehicle in front of a house, the citation
should be valid. Mr. Chambers stated that he has knowledge that
Ms. Hugaert spoke to a worker on Yaqui, whose truck was over the
line, that he needed to move his truck. Ms. Hugaert confirms that
she has talked to workers regarding this problem whenever possible.
Bozeman, parking violation. This violation
involves a worker’s truck parked over the line. Mr. Price
made a motion to enforce the citation Mr. Sweeney seconded the
motion, and the motion carried. Ms. McPherson stated that homeowners
are going to have a problem getting worker’s to come into
the Keys to perform work if they have no place to park. Mr. Stroud
stated that in his association in California he was cited for
one of his workers caught speeding, and Mr. Stroud deducted the
cost of the fine from the worker’s pay.
Allen, unauthorized parking. Ms. Hugaert reported
that Mr. Allen is protesting multiple citations for the reason
that the former lot owner authorized him to park vehicles on the
lot in return for maintaining the lot. Further, Mr. Allen stated
that Mr. DiNolfi told him he could park in the lot for not to
exceed 72 hours. The citations were dismissed with a letter of
clarification to be sent to Mr. Allen stating that the current
property owner does not authorize anyone to park on her lot. The
chains/cable to this lot will be put back up in a more secure
manner, and anyone tampering with the chains/cable on any vacant
lot may be subject to consequences for property damage.
Mr. Baker inquired of Mr. Churchill if the
Board can change a rule without a general membership meeting,
and Mr. Churchill stated that it could not change a rule, nor
set fines without a general membership-meeting vote. Ms. Hugaert
stated that Mr. Allen received another citation the weekend following
the first citation. Mr. Price stated that the CC&R’s
state “no storage” of vehicles on the premises. Mr.
Stroud asked, what is the purpose of the chains then? Mr. Baker
stated that the Association needs to call another general membership
meeting, with legal notice to homeowners, to put to a vote a rule
and a fine assessment for parking on vacant lots. Mr. McPherson
stated that a homeowner who authorizes others to park on his vacant
lot should submit to the Association a letter of authorization.
Ms. McPherson stated that violators can be fined after the general
membership meeting, but until then, the Association should take
the position that they are violating the CC&R’s. Mr.
Stroud inquired if the Association has on file any authorization
on the older lots. Mr. Baker stated that if the Association has
permission to block access to lots, then no one could park there.
Mr. Churchill brought the Board current on the status of the Vestermark
case by stating that both parties walked away from the lawsuit,
each paying their own attorney’s fees. Mr. Vestermark will
comply with the CC&R’s, other than the 5’ setback,
and Mr. Vestermark agrees to limit his building height to 18’.
Mr. Sweeney stated he would laser shoot the building to confirm
its height. Mr. Chambers stated that we should let Mr. Vestermark
know that we are going to shoot it, and it was decided that Mr.
Sweeney, Mr. Chambers and Mr. Vestermark would, together, shoot
the building. He also stated that Mr. Vestermark was upset that
pictures of the inside of his building were taken without his
Mr. Baker asked Mr. Churchill about the section
12.9 provision of the CC&R’s, and Mr. Churchill explained
that it is a procedure that gives the Board discretion to modify
restrictions on commercial properties, assuming procedures are
Mr. Baker discussed Mr. Derby’s recent
resignation as a Board member, stating that one of the reasons
for his resignation was his displeasure at the amount of attorney’s
fees charged by Mr. Churchill, not only on the Vestermark matter,
but on his charges for attending Board meetings. Mr. Baker stated
that he researched Mr. Churchill’s attorney’s fees
over the past year for attending meetings, and Mr. Churchill charges
for only half of his time to attend meetings. He further stated
that it is more time efficient and inexpensive to have legal counsel
present at meetings to answers questions on the spot, as opposed
to waiting at least another month to get answers to legal questions
that come up during meetings in which legal counsel is not present.
Mr. Baker stated that attorney’s fees for Mr. Churchill
to attend meetings last year averaged less than $300 per month;
that Mr. Churchill would just as soon not be here, but if he weren’t
at the meetings, the Association could end up with outrageous
attorney’s fees, with telephone calls back and forth, and
research, and then not getting answers until possibly three or
four months later.
Mr. Baker stated that he wouldn’t be
on the Board if not for Mr. Churchill’s presence at the
meetings, as he keeps the Association out of trouble, and it makes
things easier, and it saves the Association a lot of money. He
stated that the Keys has the lowest dues around, that we have
about $60,000 in the bank over what is needed to maintain expenses,
which can go into a reserve account to be used to spend more on
additional operational needs, or set aside for future work on
bridges and roads. The Association needs only a few thousand dollars
to keep up the roads.
Mr. Baker continued by stating that Mr. Derby
was also upset that Mr. Baker misses a lot of meetings. Mr. Baker
stated that he did miss the last two meetings, one being a special
meeting to discuss a groundskeeper job description, which issue,
he stated, is in his scope of responsibility. Mr. Baker presented
a Board member attendance report prepared at his request by Ms.
Thomson indicating the percentage of meetings attended by each
Board meeting over the past two years. Mr. Baker stated that it
is not a fun job for him to set here and argue; that he does not
want to be President of the Association, and that if the Board
members want him to continue to serve as President, things will
be done in a such a way as he feels comfortable doing it.
He stated Mr. Derby was also upset that issues
get dragged on month after month. Tonight is a good example in
that we did not address in the Rules & Fines the matter of
parking in vacant lots, as well as the Vestermark battle, because
the Board made a hasty decision to approve his plans. Mr. Baker
stated that the Association should run smooth once the Rules &
Fines system is streamlined. He also stated that he hasn’t
been in town much since Ms. Hugaert was hired as General Manager
and that things have been thrown at her, and her job description
has changed since the Rules & Fines were adopted. Once her
job description is established, then the Association will be in
a position to review her performance.
Mr. Stroud stated that the Grybowskis had
to leave the meeting to return to California, but that they will
submit two more plan sets for him to present for review.
Mr. McPherson enlisted the Board’s interest
in the possibility of Board meetings being changed to a weekend
day, as Ms. McPherson must take a day off work to attend Board
meetings. Mr. Baker stated that the matter has come up before,
and he is not personally interested in attending meetings on a
Saturday or Sunday. A straw vote was taken on the matter, and
no one else was interested in attending Board meetings on a Saturday
Mr. Svider again brought up his earlier motion
to readdress and review the establishment of a policy of consistency
and proper documentation and procedures for fines. No action was
Mr. Baker reported on an incident with a neighboring
renter who parked his boat on Mr. Baker’s beach. He reported
that this particular rental property is rented for $2,800 per
week, and that there are regular problems with its renters. He
stated that a $25 fine to a person who has paid $2,800 a week
to rent is nothing to them. Mr. Baker expressed his disappointment
that the general membership did not vote affirmatively on the
higher, suggested fines at the June 7 meeting.
Mr. Baker opened discussion on the new dog
bite incident involving someone on a jet ski who broke down in
the canal and climbed on the Bozemans’ dock and was bit.
The victim did not fault the dog, and because of this, and the
fact that the dog was on its own property, no Board action was
taken. Ms. Baerg stated that no action is going to be taken until
there’s another incident reported. Mr. Churchill stated
that when someone comes onto a dog owner’s property and
is bit, you enter a gray area, with only a 50/50 chance of succeeding
in a liability issue. Ms. Baerg stated that a fence with smaller
slats would prevent someone’s hand fitting through the Bozeman’s
Mr. Baker reported that Kenko has dropped
off the radar, and Mr. Churchill stated that he’s never
heard a word from them in response to his letter. Mr. Risen stated
that the Buckskin Sanitary newsletter discussed a settlement with
Kenko, but it was not clear who settled with whom. Mr. Baker stated
that he would meet with Ms. Thomson to get a reserve account going
for the approximate $20,000 that will be used to improve some
of the drainage problems that have existed since the sewer installation
and items that were on the punch list submitted to Kenko.
Squeak suggested chaining off the old Fonteleroy
lot instead of relying upon the telephone poles to block access
to the lot.
Mr. Churchill reported that the quiet title
action has been successful on the lawn area, so the Association
now has title to that piece. He stated that he is still working
on the mailbox area, that the only thing remaining in completing
that parcel was “closing” the legal description, which
has been done by Lemme, and he expects the deed to come in soon.
Mr. Churchill stated that he has not worked on the launch ramp
area yet, but he will go after title on that area, as well as
seek access of the ramp itself, which is probably a quiet title
action against Brooke Water. Mr. Churchill stated he is working
with Lemme by walking the ramp so that the subject parcel will
have an accurate legal description.
Mr. Baker asked Ms. Thomson to obtain Mr.
Derby’s formal resignation in writing.
Mr. Chambers made a motion to fill the vacancy
created by Mr. Derby’s resignation on the Board of Directors
at the next regular meeting in September. The motion was seconded,
and the motion carried.
Mr. Churchill stated that the topic of filling
the vacancy on the Board of Directors needs to be put on an agenda,
and Mr. Baker stated that he would start doing a meeting agenda.
Ms. McPherson mentioned the large no-wake
sign, which Jodi Hale requested at the conclusion of the 2004
annual meeting; one that she thought the Association had agreed
to pay for. Ms. Thomson stated that she followed up with Mr. DiNolfi
shortly after the annual meeting to discuss the status of the
matter, and Mr. DiNolfi told Ms. Thomson that the sign would cost
$320 and that he informed Mrs. Hale of the cost. Ms. Thomson stated
that she was confused by Mr. DiNolfi’s comment, because
she recollected that the Association was to pay for the sign.
Ms. Thomson will research the matter and get back with Ms. McPherson.
Mr. McPherson stated that the no-wake sign by the ramp at the
first bridge needs repainting. Mr. Sweeney reported that he has
replaced the sign at the first bridge.
Mr. Svider reported that Laser Brite quoted
$6.50 for each set of 4” reflective numbers for the house-numbering
project. There was discussion about the need for homeowner permission
to install the numbers.
Mr. Chambers made a motion that the Association
purchase another card reader for the gate. The motion was seconded
Mr. Baker opened discussion on the various job duties needed to
keep the Association running smoothly, stating that Mr. Derby
desired one person to serve as General Manager/Maintenance Person/Groundskeeper.
Mr. Baker stated that the Association is almost at the point where
it needs a security officer. He stated that with the recent sale
of two interior lots selling for approximately $450,000 to $500,000,
we can’t have a ghetto. Having a security service all year
is the extreme, but Mr. Baker stated that the Association needs
to have more security service than just on holiday weekends. He
would like to see a couple of people alternate under the General
Manager’s supervision to patrol the streets.
Mr. Baker specifically addressed his concern
about underage drivers, and he referenced page 41 of the CC&R’s
prohibiting unlicensed drivers. Mr. Chambers stated that this
matter was heavily discussed at a prior meeting. He stated that
for every intoxicated minor, there are ten intoxicated adults.
Mr. Baker stated that the Association needs to regulate this problem,
as someone’s going to get killed, and the Association will
be sued. Mr. Baker reported that he’s come close to having
two wrecks inside the Keys, and his girlfriend has almost had
a wreck. Ms. Baerg stated that the streets are not well lit. Mr.
Chambers stated that the Association needs to control renters.
Mr. Chambers also stated that the Association needs to spend more
time with our security service concerning their duties. Mr. Stroud
stated that Webb Security, who does regular security service at
Havasu Springs, would be willing to provide regular security service,
not occasional, and that Webb is willing to discuss the matter
with the Association. Mr. Stroud stated that these incidents are
getting out of control. Squeak stated that a full-time person
would assist with patrolling.
Mr. Baker stated that Ms. Hugaert’s
proposal for maintenance service is comparable to Don Braun’s
duties as former groundskeeper. The Association could bid out
the maintenance on the trees and shrubs, and we could do the rest
in house. Mr. Baker presented Mr. Braun’s former, itemized
invoices and log, which should be done by the new groundskeeper.
Mr. Baker presented the General Manager’s log from 1987,
indicating a drive-though at least daily. Mr. Baker stated that
we haven’t been getting that. (Ms. Hugaert’s log was
submitted to the Board after this meeting.)
Mr. Baker stated that expanded General Manager’s
duties now include citations and some other things. The job description
Ms. Hugaert was given at the time she was hired was read. Squeak
stated that Ms. Hugaert needs assistance by a dual-purpose, groundskeeper/security,
person. Ms. Hugaert stated that she is no longer interested in
the groundskeeper job as outlined in the 42-item proposed job
description, which was recently drafted by a committee consisting
of Mr. Risen, Mr. Svider, Mr. Sweeney and Squeak. Mr. Baker stated
that the Association has thrown Ms. Hugaert to the wolves, in
that she has been asked to look for a groundskeeper for which
there is no pre-determined job description. Mr. Baker suggested
that the Board condense the job descriptions and come to a consensus
in a separate work session. The separate work session will also
address refining the procedures for the Rules & Fines. The
meeting was set for 6 p.m., August 3, 2004.
Mr. Risen stated that Willie, the applicant
from Sandpiper, has no problem with the 42-item job description.
Ms. Hugaert questioned what should be done,
if anything, about the no-trespassing sign on Mr. Gravatt’s
Ms. McPherson suggested putting a digital
photo of the proposed lettering on the website.
Mr. Chambers made a motion that the Association
send a letter to all homeowners requesting permission to install
address lettering on the canal side of all houses, in a consistent
manner and location. Mr. Baker suggested that we incorporate a
vote on the lettering with the other matters that need to be addressed
to the general membership. The letter should include the photograph
of the installed lettering.
Mr. Churchill stated that a general membership
meeting, with proper notice, is required for certain issues, where
only a majority of the Board be needed for a decision. Different
types of general membership meetings, such as imposing fines,
require proper notice, and a 2/3 vote of the entire membership
present at the meeting.
Mr. Baker presented a drawing from the Wimpy’s
owner for a carport request, stating that it meets the 5’
setback, the 32’ boundary and is to be 17’ 8”
tall. Mr. Stroud stated that three sets of better plans are required.
Mr. Churchill reminded the Board that it has 35 days within which
to approve or disapprove the plan.
Mr. Sweeney presented plans for a residential
construction on lot 251. Since the plans were drawn, the homeowner
has stated he would reverse the plan, putting the garage on the
right side; that the plot plan has been reversed, but the drawings
do not show the reversed plan. This is the lot that straddles
the exit gate, and there was discussion about the homeowner putting
up a wall on the south end of the front property line. There were
questions about whether or not the Association can dictate driveway
access, and Mr. Churchill stated that the Association could dictate
matters relating to security. Mr. Sweeney stated the height is
acceptable at 15’. Mr. Churchill advised that a wall be
required to block public access into the portion of the lot that
is outside the exit gate.
A motion was made for the conditional approval
of the plans for Lot 251, the conditions being the plan being
reversed to place the garage on the right side of the house, and
on condition that public access be blocked on the south side of
the front of the property. Mr. Risen opposed the motion. Mr. Chambers
suggested an architectural committee consisting of Mr. Stroud,
Mr. Maxwell, Mr. Sweeney and himself to review plans; that the
purpose of the architectural committee is to formulate its recommendations
before monthly meetings, and not approve any plans prior to Board
meetings. The General Manager’s duties in this regard should
be only to collect plans, collect the construction deposit, turn
over the plans to a committee member, and turn over the deposit
to the bookkeeper.
Squeak discussed his desire that it be mandatory
for all homeowners with construction projects to have a dumpster
brought in specifically for construction debris.
Mr. Churchill stated that the Board has 35
days to approve plans; that we have three options. We can ask
the owner of lot 251 to close off the public access area at his
expense; at the Association’s expense; or the Association
can put up a wall on the Association’s property line. He
suggested we approve the first option.
The motion for conditional approval of the
plans for Lot 251 was rescinded and tabled for the August 3 meeting.
The motion was seconded and carried.
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Submitted by Recording Secretary, Sue
APPROVED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS SEPTEMBER 6, 2004