Board of Directors
Regular Meeting
NOVEMBER 1, 2004

President Chuck Baker called the regular meeting of the Lake Moovalya Keys Board of Directors to order at 6:15 p.m.

President: Chuck Baker
Vice President: Chris Chambers
Board Members: Bill Risen, Bob Stroud, Jack Sweeney, Joe Maxwell, Squeak, Gary Svider, Joe Price

Board Members: Tonya McPherson, Trish Wikoff

Guests: Ken & Mimi Ferguson (lot 172); Carl & Kaye Bozeman (lot 61); Ed Ruhman (lot 64); Barbara Risen (lot 184)
Legal Counsel: John C. Churchill
Bookkeeper/Recording Secretary: Sue Thomson
General Manager: Joanne Hugaert

The Minutes from the October meeting having been previously reviewed, Mr. Svider pointed out the typographical error on the date of the meeting, which should read October 4

A motion was made to approve the October Minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded; there was no further discussion, and the motion carried.

October Financials. The two National Bank accounts have been transferred to Horizon Community Bank, and the Association now has five bank accounts (checking, reserve, capital improvements, Kenko repairs and security deposits). Total funds on deposit as of 10/31/04 were $101,389, including $10,250 in security deposits. October income was $30,551 with operational expenses of $9,235. Accounts receivable at month end were $9,164. Four property owners are delinquent over $300. Regarding the work done by Mr. Vescio, Mr. Sweeney reported that one of the poles installed on lot 198, nearest the sewer pump, is not stable and that the cement-bag mess is still there. Ms. Hugaert stated that she has been attempting to reach Mr. Vescio to ask him to remove the mess, and she will also ask him to stabilize the pole. Mr. Chambers asked for approval of two additional bills, which include Big River Landscaping’s invoice for $490 and River Septic’s invoice from April for $50 for portable toilet rental.

Mr. Chambers made a motion to approve the October financial reports. Mr. Price seconded the motion. There was no further discussion, and the motion carried.

Mr. Ferguson reported there is miscellaneous junk lying around on the old Father’s property (lot 226) across the canal from his property. He stated the Toscana folks are renting this property, and there are metal parts and junk that has accumulated on the property for over three months. Mr. Baker asked Ms. Hugaert to have them clear out the junk. Mr. Ferguson stated that David Plunkett told him two weeks ago that they would clean it up.

Mr. Price had a question regarding the poles and chains on lot 149, which are too far into the street. Ms. Hugaert stated that letters were previously sent out to homeowners whose poles and chains are too far into the street, lot 149 being one of them. The homeowner with the pavers in the driveway called to state that he can’t move the poles and chains because of the pavers. Mr. Baker instructed Ms. Hugaert to call the homeowner to inform him that the present location of the chains and poles is unacceptable.

Squeak inquired of the status of the lot clean-up requests on lots 9 and 10. He stated that two stored vehicles have been moved off the property, but it didn’t appear much else had been done. Ms. Thomson stated that she spoke recently with the owner of lot 9, who informed her that he plans on finishing up his tree trimming this winter. Mr. Churchill reported that he has had no feedback from his letters to the lot owners.

Mr. Baker asked Ms. Hugaert about the nature of the homeowner inquiries regarding their rental status. Ms. Hugaert stated that a few homeowners who do not rent were confused about the letter (which was sent to all homeowners indicating their respective status), and they did not note the rental status line that stated “None—Owner Occupied.”

The Bookkeeper’s Report was reviewed, and a protest for a white-line citation issued to the owner of lot 75 was discussed. Ms. Thomson reported that the homeowner whose children broke the buoy light has paid for the replacement light.

Mr. Baker asked if the five streetlights have been replaced. It is believed that they have all been replaced. Mr. Baker asked Mr. Chambers if he spoke with Angel of Big River Landscaping about his specific trash pick-up duties. Mr. Chambers stated that he has not, and Ms. Hugaert reported that Angel hasn’t returned her calls. Mr. Baker asked that Ms. Hugaert and Mr. Chambers both meet with Angel right away to go over his duties. Mr. Chambers stated that for $300 Angel could put in a five-hour timer with short pieces of hose bib to the water boxes to irrigate, as an alternative to the previously proposed bubbler system. The batteries would last about one year. Squeak stated he felt this would be a waste of water. No action was taken on the alternate proposal. Mr. Stroud asked if the oleanders have been trimmed, and Mr. Chambers stated that Angel has trimmed the outsides of them. Mr. Baker stated that the small ones need shaping.

Mr. Baker asked Ms. Hugaert about the status of the block wall estimates. Ms. Hugaert stated that she needs input on who to contact. Mr. Chambers suggested that she contact Michael T. and Steve Stanton. Also, Super Dave is working for Steve Stanton. Russ Derby uses Michael T. Mr. Baker asked that she get bids from both of them. Mr. Stroud stated that he could get the name of a wall guy at Havasu Springs. Squeak suggested remodeling the entrance area by removing the existing wall and making the southbound right turn easier to navigate. Mr. Baker asked Squeak to draw up a plan for presentation.

Mr. Baker asked Mr. Sweeney about the proposed new card reader status. Mr. Sweeney stated that he is still in the process of investigating all the new types of readers, some of them being very high tech.

Regarding the building plans for lot 75, Mr. Sweeney reported that he took some measurements, and there are discrepancies in the plans, but he didn’t think there was anything of concern. He stated that there is only 9’8” between houses on one side, and he believes a survey should be done since one of the houses is off 4”. Only one existing wall is staying, but because it’s in the middle of the garage, he wasn’t able to determine if it actually meets the 10’ setback requirement. Mr. Baker suggested the plans be disapproved until a survey is done. The foundation is on the river side, and the owner proposes to build to the existing sea wall. The only issue that Mr. Sweeney saw was that on the elevation plan it shows the lower level 4’ down from finished floor, and on the foundation plan, it shows 2’, so if it’s actually 4’ down, then the plans meet the 18’ height limit; if it’s 2’ down, then the structure tops out at 20’. The various plan sheets were overlaid to compare the proposed remaining, existing 2-1/2” wall which would be inside a larger garage in relation to setbacks.

Mr. Sweeney made a motion to disapprove the remodel plans for lot 075 submitted by Mr. Sapp because a lot survey is needed to determine property lines, and the garage must be 10’ from the surveyed lot line, and because of the discrepancy between the foundation plan and the elevation plan regarding the level of the proposed finished floor. There was further discussion, review and interpretation of the plans, and the 4” structure discrepancy. Mr. Churchill stated there is no problem with building a structure to the footings. Mr. Baker stated the Association’s concern is meeting setback requirements, front and side. Mr. Churchill stated if the owner is going to remove the wall, he should comply with the side yard setback, just like a new house would. Mr. Chambers stated that a certain percentage of a structure must be retained in order for it to be classified as a remodel. Mr. Churchill stated that we don’t have a problem with his plans as submitted, since his plans comply with the CC&R’s, but we have a problem with their reality. Mr. Sweeney reiterated that it’s only 9’8” between houses. Mr. Churchill stated the Association can make Mr. Sapp comply with the plans, and if the plans call for 10’, and he doesn’t comply with the 10’, we can make him comply with the plans. We can compel him to build per the plans. We can approve the plans conditioned upon his establishing that the plans do, in fact, conform to what is there. His plans show the correct setbacks, and if he doesn’t do that, we can make him move it. The plans show he’s doing it right. We can’t disapprove the plans, if the plans show he’s doing it right, although there is a conflict in the plans. Mr. Sweeney again mentioned the plan discrepancy and stated that in order for the height to be under 18’, the floor has to be 4’ below finished floor, not 2’ as shown on the foundation plan. Mr. Churchill said that we should conditionally approve the plans on the grounds that his plans show that all the CC&R requirements have been met, but also put him on notice that we note these discrepancies, and that we’re going to watch and make sure he complies with the CC&R’s. Mr. Churchill stated he doesn’t think we can compel him to do a survey; we can only compel him to comply with the CC&R’s. We can’t deny his plan based on what we think might be a violation. Also, Mr. Sweeney believed that at over 3,000 square feet, it would probably need to be engineered. There being no further discussion, the motion failed to carry.

Mr. Price made a motion to conditionally approve Mr. Sapp’s remodeling plans for lot 75, the conditions being that the structure comply with the Association’s CC&R’s. Mr. Svider seconded the motion, and the motion carried. Mr. Churchill will contact Mr. Sapp to explain the conditional approval.

Mr. Baker reported that he drove around the complex after the rains on all streets except Hopi, and he stated that it didn’t look that bad. Lot 112 on Apache was ponding. Ms. Hugaert reported that she spoke with Mr. Green, lot 112, and he suggested that water could be run through his property to the river to alleviate the problem. Mr. Baker stated that six or seven houses are affected, and that the people across the street from him haven’t complained.

Mr. Stroud presented numerous photos of a mudflow into his garage after the first recent rain, then more photos of the increased mudflow into his garage after the second recent rain. He stated he put in two 4” drains on October 27, but they did no good, as he had a mudflow 4’ into his garage on October 20, then a mudflow 20’ into his garage on October 27. Mr. Sweeney came by to view the mud.

Mr. Risen stated there are two properties on Yaqui needing flooding remedies, and Mrs. Bozeman stated that lot 60 is bad, even though the Bozemans put in three drains. Mr. Ruhman asked who takes care of water problems. Mr. Baker stated that with the exception of the problems created by the changed roads relative to the sewer project, water problems are the homeowners’ responsibility. Mr. Ruhman offered to put in a drain to alleviate problems on Papago. Mr. Churchill stated that the Association can put drains in the street, but not on private properties. It was suggested that since vacant lots are lower in elevation, when those lots are proposed for development, the Association should compel those owners to put in drains.

Mr. Stroud stated that he can’t take on other people’s water, and that if he hadn’t been home during the rains, he’d have been in trouble. Doug at Buckskin Sanitary suggested that the road be lowered. Mr. Sweeney stated that it will never be precise. He stated that Mr. Warmoth’s drain didn’t work and was supposed to be rotor-rootered this weekend. The Verkamp drain also needs to be cleaned out. Mr. Churchill stated that when the Jaschkes built their house, which is below street level, they put drains out front all the way across to drain runoff to the river. Mr. Baker asked Mr. Sweeney to help Mr. Stroud find a solution. Mr. Churchill also stated that Gory’s old house on Yaqui has had a problem forever and that it needs drains. Mr. Baker stated he would view the problem on Papago again when it rains. Mrs. Bozeman stated that lot 60 collects water all the way from the end of the cul-de-sac.

The citations previously under investigation issued to the owners of lots 8, 115 and 183 remain under investigation, as no new information has been obtained.

Mr. Sweeney made a motion to dismiss the white-line citation issued to the owner of lot 75, as the owner identified the vehicle as being that of a neighboring homeowner. The motion was seconded, and the motion carried.

Ms. Thomson stated that she has received numerous authorizations to install the address plates, and she was instructed to place the order for the manufacture of the plates. Ms. Thomson mentioned that a few homeowners have special instructions regarding installation. Mr. Svider volunteered his services in connection with the installation process.

The meeting convened to executive session to discuss performance and salary reviews for Ms. Hugaert and Ms. Thomson. The meeting reconvened after approximately twenty minutes. Ms. Hugaert was complemented on a good job, and her monthly service fee was increased to $1,000. An area of improvement would be for Ms. Hugaert to be on site when the gardener is there to ensure all trash gets picked up. Ms. Hugaert was also asked to maintain striping of the streets when paint fading occurs.

Ms. Thomson’s monthly service fee was increased to a $1,050 base.

Ms. Hugaert relayed to the Board a lot owner’s displeasure at being asked to pay a security deposit for a long-term tenant in his commercially zoned duplex. Mr. Couch (lot 224) lives in the other unit of the duplex. Mr. Baker stated that it doesn’t matter what the zoning is, and the requirement still applies. Mr. Svider inquired of the legality of this subject and requested a workshop to develop policy regarding security deposits. Mr. Baker stated that the Board would devote one hour at the December meeting to discuss the matter. Mr. Svider stated that weekenders were intended to get the fines.

The meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m.

Submitted by Recording Secretary, Sue Thomson