Board of Directors
Regular Meeting
AUGUST 2, 2004

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 201)
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 carried.

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.

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 now.

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 knowledge.

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 followed.

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 or Sunday.

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 taken.

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 fence.

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 and carried.

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 lot.

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 Thomson