Board of Directors
Annual Meeting
MARCH 29, 2008 9:30 AM

President Chuck Baker called the annual meeting of the Lake Moovalya Keys Board of Directors to order at 9:30 a.m.

President Chuck Baker, Vice-President Jack Sweeney; Board Members Gary Svider, William (Squeak) Kossnar, Larry St. George.

Secretary/Treasurer Chris Chambers
Board Members Joe Maxwell

John Churchill, Legal Counsel; Sue Thomson, Business Manager and Recording Secretary; Cheryl Shockley, General Manager; Hal Collett, La Paz County Sheriff; Lt. Alan Nelson, La Paz County Sheriff’s Office; Maj. Steve Biro, La Paz County Emergency Manager; Carla Faulkner Property Manager, Robert Gory Realty.

The sign-in sheet of those present at the Annual Meeting is on file with the Association.  The number of owners present at the meeting was 46.  The number of members who voted either by regular ballot or absentee ballot was 119.

The Board members, legal counsel, Business Manager and General Manager introduced themselves to the membership.  The owners and meeting guests introduced themselves. 

The Minutes of the 2007 Annual Meeting were approved by the Board of Directors on June 4, 2007.

Mr. Baker reviewed the current Balance Sheet.  The members previously received the 2007 financials with their meeting Notice.  Bank balances for each of the six bank accounts were announced, with a collective total of approximately $200,000.  Mr. Baker reported some questions from people inquiring about a possible dues’ increase.  Mr. Baker said that won’t be necessary; that we have about $20,000 to $25,000 left over at year end to transfer to the reserve account.  He said we had some major road and bridge construction costs several years ago that caused us to borrow money, but that loan was paid off a few years ago.  The roads are now in good condition, with a seal coat done in 2007.  The roads will probably need slurry in 2009.

Mr. Baker said the Association used to have to beg people to be on the Board; but we’ve had lots of interest by others this year.  Mr. Sweeney was elected Vice-President in November when former President Bill Risen resigned.  Ms. Lancaster helped out a lot with the renter situation, and she prepared new renter packets.  Mr. McPherson attended lots of Board meetings in the past, and his wife was a former Board member.

Mr. Baker was asked how we got from 8 to 10 maximum people on the rental occupancy proposition, and he replied that 10 was a compromise; he wanted it to be 8, but the agents and renters were putting up a 10-person rule.

One owner, who lives next to two rental properties, said the problem seems to be 20-year olds of the homeowners, and the partying is not necessarily caused by renters.  Mr. Baker acknowledged the problem and said they are trying to deal with that as well.  Mr. Baker was asked if he thought limiting the number of tenants would solve the problem, and Mr. Baker replied that when you have a disturbance issue where an owner is present, at least the General Manager can go take of it.  Mr. Baker was asked how the Association could enforce the 10-person limit, and he said we would rely on the Tenant Information Sheets that list all guests; we obviously can’t do a bed check.

On the double-parking of boats issue, Mr. Baker said we are not going to look for violations; we’re only concerned when it creates an obstruction, and the Sheriff’s Office can also cite for obstruction in the canals.  A homeowner stated that there are problems with fishermen blocking the canal entrances at times.  It was also noted that the river and the canals are non-restricted federal waterways.

Mr. Churchill explained the proposed amendment to the CC&R’s, section 10.2, which would allow the Association to seek compensation from a homeowner first, before reporting a damage incident to a common area to our insurance company.  For example, if someone bashes the gate, we catch them on camera, and the perpetrator says ‘screw you, turn it in to your insurance company’, we would have the option to go after the homeowner; we should have the right to go after the homeowner.  Mr. Churchill said that the Association’s insurance company has requested this change.

Another homeowner who said he was in favor of no double-parking of boats expressed his concern on how this policy could be enforced.  Mr. Baker said that the General Manager would contact the property owner and request them to move the boat, especially during a holiday weekend.  On a non-holiday weekend, we would not be so concerned.

There was a concern expressed about the danger of the crane on the dock at lot 20.  The metal, T-bar crane should at least swing back.  Mr. Baker said we would look into that, and we have talked to the owner about it, but he hasn’t done anything.

Mr. Churchill advised that the waters running thru the Keys are federal waterways; the land under the water belongs to the homeowners, so the waterways have federal jurisdiction, including obstructions and fish.  The state has jurisdiction over certain laws on federal waterways, so it’s a shared jurisdiction with the state.  Docks belong to homeowners, but the Army Corp. has control over them because they are over the federal waterway.  The Board can intervene as well, so there are multiple jurisdictions.  If someone ties up to your dock, you have power as the dock owner.

Another homeowner suggested re-wording the proposition to say ‘obstruction’, not just ‘double parking’. 

Mr. Baker reported that Cliff Edey, District 2 Supervisor, could not be present today due to the flu.

Mr. Collett reported that their biggest problem is private property.  They can only enforce state laws, not Association rules.  They can, however, enforce obstructions in the canals and speeding on streets and waterways.  They have the expertise to answer homeowner questions.  Regarding the posted speed limit in the Keys, the state law says the residential speed limit is 25 MPH, and he admits 25 is too fast, but that’s the state law.  Reckless driving and DUI are state laws, as is disturbing the peace, and they can deal with those issues.  These are misdemeanors, and on a second visit after such a complaint, they can formally deal with the problem.

Mr. Collett was asked by a homeowner if underage drivers can legally operate golf carts, and Mr. Collett said it is permissible on private property, but not on the streets, and the golf cart must be street legal.  Mr. Churchill announced that the Sheriff’s Office feels the Keys’ streets are fair game to the Sheriff’s Office if a driver is driving under the influence; be warned, they will be cited and arrested for DUI on a golf cart.  An arrest can also be made on private property for DUI, in a golf cart or other vehicle.  Mr. Collett confirmed this is correct and said that juveniles who drive recklessly can be deemed a ‘dangerous operation’, and they can enforce that law.  Mr. Collett said the deputies will patrol the Keys, but it’s complaint driven.  At times, when the officers are slow, they can drive through the Keys.  Mainly, they respond as call takers, as they have limited resources.

One owner on Riverside Drive across from Circle-K reported others using their dock for parking while they make trips on foot to Circle-K, which has occurred even while they, the owners, are there on their dock.  No Trespassing and Private Property signs posted are ignored.  Mr. Collett said if signs are posted and folks are trespassing, please call the Sheriff’s Office, and they will respond.  Call numbers from the boats can be reported as well, and the Sheriff’s Office will seek out the boat.

Lt. Nelson said he has talked to Mr. Svider, owner of JT’s on the Keys, about double-boat parking and obstruction.  He has also talked to the County Attorney.  The Sheriff’s Office are call takers, but ultimately prosecution comes down to whether or not the County Attorney prosecutes.  If a homeowner asks a trespasser to leave, and he or she refuses, the Sheriff’s Office can take action.  He also advised that NO PARKING, NO TRESPASSING signs must include the Arizona statute that applies, which is ’A.R.S. 13-1502A1’.  That statute must be stated on the sign.  The Sheriff’s Office cannot tow a boat or vehicle from private property, but the homeowner has the right to have it towed away at the vehicle owner’s cost.  It’s the homeowner’s responsibility to have it moved.

Concerning a homeowner question about DUI in a paddle boat, two things must both occur:  It has to be a motorized vessel (a bass boat with its motor off is still a motorized vessel), and the motorized vessel has to be underway (floating is considered underway).  Both those criteria have to be met on a DUI situation.  There is no Arizona law concerning kayaks and DUI, but there’s no ‘half the River’, and California can enforce their rules on both sides of the river.  Both states can patrol both sides of the river, but there are no open container laws regarding kayaks.

Lt. Nelson clarified the criteria on the obstruction issue as any ‘unreasonable obstruction’, and reasonable access is determined on a case-by-case situation. State law terms it ‘unreasonably obstructs’ and results in ‘impairment of health and safety’.  It is a mandatory action item.  The Sheriff wants to increase patrolling on the river, and they want the authorities to be more visible to deter people, but the Sheriff’s Office should be called if there is a legitimate problem.  However, they do not want to be involved in neighbor disputes.  They will do their best to rectify problems.

Maj. Biro announced a multi-agency, comprehensive emergency evacuation drill that will occur in the Keys on May 14.  It involves a hypothetical haz-mat catastrophe at the gate, blocking that escape route.  The Sheriff’s Office asked for volunteer evacuees, including those who are mentally and physically challenged.  They want to see how quickly they can evacuate people from the Keys via boats, and transport them upriver to the boat house where other agencies will take over their food and shelter needs.  FEMA, Homeland Security, Red Cross and many other agencies, federal, state and local will be involved.  On the morning of May 14 authorities will be knocking on doors, so if owners do not wish to be involved, they would appreciate them posting a do-not-disturb note on their front doors.  Those who wish to volunteer for the drill in advance should fill out a waiver which can be obtained from the HOA General Manager, or from the Boating Office upriver.  The deadline for submitting waivers is May 6.

They are interested in determining how well their first-responders do, and six or seven of their goals have never been tested in Arizona.  The drill is scheduled to start at 9 a.m. and should conclude by 3 p.m., but it could be concluded as early as noon if timely evacuations are made.  Maj. Biro reported that a haz-mat incident is 1,000 time more likely to occur than a fire or flood.  When the drill is over, they encourage folks who participated to get together and share their comments.  The La Paz County Emergency Planning Commission is looking for people to help.  The Commission works from grants, hospital and volunteer groups, and search and rescue.

Mr. Baker announced the election results with the following persons being elected to the Board:


Mr. Baker stated that the purpose of a large Board is so owners can easily find someone to talk to.

Mr. Baker announced the three ballot propositions* (the 10-person occupancy limit for short-term rentals, the mandatory submission of completed Tenant information Sheets prior to check-ins by short term renters, and the prohibition of double-parking of boats in the canals), as well as the  section 10.2 CC&R’s amendment all PASSED.  

*[The 10-person-maximum proposition was later deemed a FAILURE TO PASS by a very narrow margin.]

The streets were seal coated.

A Small Claims lawsuit filed against Brooke Water to collect damages for street repairs due to a water main break on Hopi Drive resulted in a favorable outcome for the Association. 

The Board worked with rental owners to come up with solutions on renter issues.

An audit was done on the 2006 books and records.

Poles and chains were installed at vacant lots on Hopi Drive and Moovalya Drive.

The Sheriff’s Office was in attendance at some of our meetings to address problems.

Continuing discussions and evaluating options for redoing the front entrance are in progress.  The property owner to the north of the Keys has requested access to his property via our gate.  We’re not sure that’s going to be necessary, but we are evaluating the options.  Mr. Sweeney reported that 12 units are planned on the adjacent property, and that entry via the Keys is possibly their only access.  He also said the property owner is willing to file a lawsuit, and in Mr. Sweeney’s opinion, he thinks we might lose.  We could use that opportunity to redo the front entrance.  Mr. Churchill advised that Mr. Sweeney’s comment about the outcome of such a lawsuit is just his personal opinion and does not reflect an opinion of legal counsel or a consensus of the Board.  A homeowner asked if it might be possible to move the gate further in if the front is redone, and Mr. Baker replied affirmatively.

In reply to a comment about building height, Mr. Baker said a building’s height must not exceed 18’ from the center of the street.  No part of the structure can exceed 18’.  If it looks close to the limit, we will shoot it.

A homeowner expressed appreciation for the HOA putting out the running candidates’ bios to the members.

Another owner inquired about the safety issue at the south ramp, due to its slippery nature.  Mr. Baker said we could look into it.  He also noted that the north ramp belongs to Brooke Water.

A homeowner asked about the Riverside Drive road-widening status, and Mr. Sweeney reported that public works is waiting for the sewer project to go forward, and the County is ready to proceed with the road widening as soon as the road is dug up for the sewer project.  Mr. Sweeney said that the survey for the sewers is done.  Mr. Baker said it would probably occur in the next year or two.

Ms. Shockley answered a homeowner question about lot 10 by reporting that the County sent the owner a compliance letter demanding the building be brought up to code or it will be demolished, at the owner’s expense.

A homeowner asked about the possibility of putting in another overflow parking lot, and Mr. Baker said that is no longer an option.

There was a question about the building plan status on lot 198, and Mr. Sweeney said he hasn’t seen the owner for about two years.

A homeowner asked if the bridges are sound.  Mr. Baker said we were going to do some repairs to the bridge fascia, but the river wasn’t lowered enough the past two years.  He said the bridges are structurally sound.

The meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m.
Submitted by Sue Thomson, Recording Secretary