Special Board Meeting August 9, 2004

CALL TO ORDER:  The meeting was called to order by Dave Taney at 2:32 p.m.  All of the Board members were present.  There were also 28 attendees in the audience.

MINUTES:    The Secretary passed out the minutes from the May 17, 2004 meeting. Dave Taney made a correction to the minutes.  Dan made a motion that the minutes be accepted as corrected and it was seconded by Lew.  The motion was passed unanimously.

TREASURER’S REPORT:  Irma read the treasurer’s report.  Dave mentioned that Irma made clear that the $4,000 that is accounted for on the Aquatic Lease will be transferred at the beginning of the year, September 1, to the Beach Road Fund, out of the General Operating Expenses.  Sam Mrakovich asked again, it will be transferred to the Beach Road Fund?  Dave said it is in the General Fund.  Sam reiterated - it will be transferred to the Beach Road Fund?  Dave said right now there is $4,000 of the Beach Road Fund that are restricted; that can’t be spent.  The indication that Dave got from the July 10 meeting (at which point he was interrupted).  Irma said that is set up as security account and needs to remain there because it will draw interest.  The monies need to stay there for up to 15 years.  Dave brought up that the State requires it to be in a savings account, not a checking account.  The Beach Road Fund is technically a savings account.  You can write a check, but it is a Money Market account, not a checking account.  In other words, if nothing changes from now until then, Beach Road Account which shows $102,225.09 will on September 1 shows $106,225.09, but $4,000 of that can not be spent.  Larry Werner wanted to know why we transferred it in the first place.  Everett said we didn’t transfer it, we just froze it.  Larry didn’t want it put back in the balance, as he thought it would then show a phony balance.  Larry said if you can’t use it, don’t put it back in.  Everett said that what you see as a balance can be used.  Larry asked if $106,000 could then be used and Everett Stauffer said no.  Dave told Larry that if he wanted to write a check today for Beach Road repairs, you could not write a check for $102,000; you could only write it for $98,000.  Larry then said you shouldn’t have transferred it out in the first place and Dave said it was never transferred out, it was just assigned.  Larry said we are showing a false balance of available money.  Dave asked - do you want it transferred in or out?  Larry said that what he wanted was the balance to reflect the available monies.  Dave said that when you transfer it into the Beach Road Account, if it shows $106,000 with a notation that $102,000 of it is available for expenditures, how much clearer can you make it?  Larry said he still does not understand why you are doing this?  Everett said that the people at the July 10 meeting said we should not have taken it out, so we are trying to correct that.  Irma brought up that we need 3 accounts if we were to do it another way.  Dave said that we were trying to do it this way to accommodate the Annual Meeting request.  If you are changing your mind, then let’s figure it out.  Larry said that the was not saying we were doing it wrong, but as long as it is notated; Dave said he would prefer to change it and notate it so that you know you have $102,000 to spend.  Dave asked if there were any questions on the treasurer’s report.  Dan made a motion to accept the Treasurer’s Report, and it was seconded by Lew.  The motion was passed unanimously.   

FINANCIAL REPORTING:  Dave Taney reported he and Irma had talked a few days ago, and he contacted Homer Smith Insurance.  Our insurance policies for general liability and officers liability policies are due every year on September 14.  It is hard to get everything handled in that length of time with the beginning of the year, bringing new officers onboard and other matters that need to be attended to.  So we have asked for
an extension to October 15, which means that this year we will pay 13 months of insurance cost and next year it will go from October 15 each year.  So it will incur one extra month of expenses this year by prepaying October.  
 
OLD BUSINESS
Boat Launch Lease:  Everett reported that Kathy Baker has all of our paper work and was getting ready to sign it, as soon as her boss gets back from vacation.  The only paper that is missing is the one we are discussing, so Everett mailed them another copy.  We should be getting the Boat Launch Lease any time now.
Board Member Ballots:  Dave reported that according to Kathleen we now have 192 ballots have been received.  We will have a valid election for the new officers for 2004/2005; and the ballot count is scheduled to be done on August 16 at 1:00 p.m. at the Fire Station.
Discussion:  An attendee brought up that there were 2 positions open and Dave said yes.  Dave also said there were no volunteers to take those 2 positions, so Neil Eckerson nominated the 2 officers whose terms were up to serve another term, which they accepted.  They then ran for election.  So assuming that they are elected, they will serve a second term.  You are limited to a second term, you can not serve a third.  Nancy Drake wanted to know what happened to the nominating committee and Dave said we never had one.  Nancy then said you had the nominating committee to get volunteers to run for the Board.  Kathleen brought up that you needed volunteers to be a nominating committee and we didn’t have any.  Nancy said she was not asked and I’ll bet that none of these people were asked either.  The point is that we should be asked.  Dave asked if Nancy would volunteer next year.  Nancy said certainly.  The Secretary is also on the nominating committee automatically.  Cecilia Eckerson also volunteered to be on the committee.  There will actually not be the need for a nominating committee next year, as no Board members term is not up until the year after (2006).  Larry brought up that he thought that at the July meeting that there were a couple of nominating committee members present.  Dave reiterated that we did not have one this year.  Dave also said that Kathleen has answered the question correctly, we didn’t have any volunteers that we were aware of that were willing to serve.  Larry said, no – I meant as far as the nominating committee was concerned.  Dave said we took nominations from the floor.  Bill Youngblood said that Neil made the nominations and then immediately moved to close the nominations, without any discussion.  It was seconded and passed.  In reality, if any one wanted to volunteer, you couldn’t have talked them into it; just a play on words.  Dave said that if there was anyone there who was willing to volunteer they would have raised their hands and we would have jumped on the chance.  Everett brought up that there was quite a bit of discussion before Neil nominated them.  If you remember there was probably at least 10 minutes of discussion; he made a nomination out of frustration, I think. 

Nancy brought up that she thought people were not aware that there was not a nominating committee.  An attendee brought up that he was not aware there was not a nominating committee.  An attendee brought up that according to Roberts Rules of Order, we did not have a discussion.  Dave called on Neil.  Neil said that he made a motion that the nominations be closed.  Number one, there could have been a counter motion or even the vote could have failed.  I closed the nominations and I didn’t hear a thing.  It was unanimous and the nominations were closed.  I admit that I was not aware at the time that there had to be a nominating committee.  But, the President put out that nominations could be in order and we had a quorum there.  I don’t see any problems with Roberts Rules of Order on that, unless the By-Laws say otherwise.  The aforementioned attendee said the By-Laws didn’t say anything different regarding Roberts Rules of Order.  We need to follow the orders in all meetings.  The only thing he was trying to point out was that there was a motion, a second and discussion.  H.L. Font pointed out that the minutes from the July 10 meeting reflect that.  Bill Andrew said that the By-Laws do call for a nominating committee.  Usually at the meeting it is pointed out that the nominating committee, which can even be one person, which includes the secretary, that they could not get nominees and then you would throw it open to the floor.  Dave said that it was probably his error of omission.  Kathleen was ill that day and wasn’t there.  So, it was probably my error of omission in that respect, but I just skipped over the fact that she was not there.  Bill said putting aside that Nancy brought it up I believe that it is still in the By-Laws.  Dave said that it is.  Bill said that secretary is a member, but if I remember correctly is not supposed to be the chairman.  Dave said that is correct.  We have never had a deft of volunteers.  I can’t remember in the last 6 years (Nancy at that point said that there doesn’t have to be volunteers, that you go hunting for them.)              

NEW BUSINESS

Plat Architectural Rep.:  Everett reported that Woody Hill volunteered to be the Architectural Rep for Plat 6/7.  I recommend that we put a ballot out with his name on it.  

Dave said: before we go onto the next subject I want to remind people that this is a Board meeting, not a general meeting.  Sam and I discussed combining a MBRC meeting, along with a Board meeting.  So, we are going to take some liberties at how we go about conducting the meeting.  Dave then turned the floor over to Sam.

Mussel Beach Road Committee:  Sam Mrakovich got up and said that he felt the Beach Road Committee should be more formalized as they are getting more and more responsibility;  especially with the latest problems on deciding on how we are going to repair the beach road.  Since the last meeting I had Larry Werner send out emails to all of the beach road committee participants that I was aware of from the past to notify them of a first meeting.  Some of them chose not to attend or were not around.  I began to gather names of those individuals who appear to be interested and were attending a second meeting, then eventually a third meeting.  I now have that list to submit to the Board.  I also sent to all the Board members a preview of what we plan to talk about at this meeting.  I just put down thought which I had of formal statements of functions of this committee that I think should go into the record.  Those are my suggestions and for those of you in attendance here that are not aware of what I sent, let me read briefly what I wrote.  Function One – which would be the primary function of the MBRC I have that as an ongoing function the MBRC monitors the beach road property and advises the membership of its condition; to recommend necessary maintenance to protect it from deterioration as a special amenity for SAPOA members.  Function Two – that as directed by the Board for special projects, the BRC performs in full concurrence with that direction as a facilitator and advisor to the Board regarding actions required to successfully accomplish these projects.  Sam said that these functions were open for discussion and modification.  Sam really thinks that we need to establish these functions or define these functions to be able to tell those people who have expressed an interest in serving, whether or not they accept those functions and would serve under those functions.  He thinks the functions need to be done first, then check with the volunteers to see if they would like to serve.  Sam then turned the meeting back over to the Board.  Dave pointed out that there was one word that needed to be changed in the first function.  Where it said ‘as directed by the membership’ should say ‘as directed by the board.’  That is in consistent pattern with the By-Laws.  The By-Laws state very clearly that the Beach Road Committee, and all committees for that matter, report to the Board.  Sam said that bothered him that things get forgotten over time and as Boards change, with new volunteers, that they may get the impression that they can direct the committee to do things that are in violation of the By-Laws.  Dave then said that Nancy had brought up about that we need a nominating committee by the By-Laws.  So if the By-Laws say that the committee reports to the Board, now which are you going to go by – the By-Laws or not by the By-Laws?  Sam said let me suggest that it be worded as follows - ‘that as directed by the Board for special projects, after compliance with By-Law Article 7 Section 5 Paragraph H, that the committee perform in full concurrence with that direction’, etc.  That makes it clear.  Sam asked if we might want to make a motion to adopt what was said.  Sam is happy with them, but was not sure if any Beach Road Committee members at the meeting had any objections to the wording.  Sam said that this was a transmittal that he sent to the Board and if there were any objections to let him know.  At that time Everett made a motion to hold them over to the next Board meeting so Sam would have time to have a discussion with his committee members and get back with us.  Dave told Sam that he could also put it in writing spelled out with the new modified version; that it doesn’t change or inhibit anything one way or the other.  

The next Board meeting will be September 1.  Joking, Dave said that meeting will be to install the improperly elected new members.

Sam then wanted to submit the names that he had acquired for the Beach Road Committee.  Dave said that before we accept the list, that he also had a list that he wanted to submit.  He then suggested that we go through them.  Dave asked if he had contacted committee members from the past and Sam said he contacted the ones that had shown up at the meetings.  Sam said that he had not gone back and hunted them and asked them if they really wanted to become a Beach Road Committee member.  Dave said he did a little bit of that.  We lost 2 members, Gary and Ivan, for personal reasons; I talked to Vince Convery and he wants to definitely be a part of the Beach Road Committee.  I didn’t contact Bob, as he has been to almost every meeting so that was a pretty good sign to me that he wanted to stay with the committee; Neil Eckerson is on my list; I also have Steve Ramsey.  Steve lives in Plat 1.  Steve had originally volunteered to be the architectural rep for Plat 1, but we still don’t have enough ballots back to make a decision, and Steve runs his own construction company.  So he has some familiarity with construction.  I also have Barry Olson on my list, who lives over on Manzanita, and Barry has worked for the Forest Service and has a lot of experience with stream management, water diversion equipment details and has done a lot of rip/rap type work, so he has some experience along those lines; HL Font, was involved with the county in the state of Texas for 20 some years doing drainage programs and systems for the county.  These three guys, if you would, all have engineering degrees from the University of OJT.  Sam then brought up that we already have 2 engineering designs on the table.  Dave said that he is not suggesting a third or any thing of that nature.  What I am trying to structure to some degree is the official list of the Beach Road Committee and that does not exclude other people from participating or advising or attending meetings.  As far as I am concerned, the MBRC meetings are open to the public and the same with any Board meeting or general membership meeting.  Sam then asked who sets the number of official participants for the MBRC.  Dave said, you and I, I guess.  Sam said that he is open to whoever wants to attend.  Dave said that he thinks that 2 or 3 people are too few, and 15 are too large, to get anything accomplished one way or the other.  I would shoot for a number of like 6 to 8, maybe 10 max.  Sam said that he believes Larry Werner has done more work than anyone since the annual meeting regarding the beach road repair program and I don’t see him on your list.  I would like to ask Larry to be a member and I would like to see him as a member.  He has been a key figure, along with myself, in dealing with the contractors.  There has been a lot of leg work done since the annual meeting and Larry is responsible for a significant portion of that.  Time has been short and we have been hustling.  We can’t hold a meeting every other day to bring everyone up so speed.  We felt that we had our task assigned.  We had the drawings in front of us.  That engineered design is what we are working toward, and all these contractors didn’t have to do that.  That’s the way we have been operating.  I don’t have a problem with there being more, as long as I am heading the committee.  Dave mentioned that Vince, Bob and Sam, if nobody else, has been on the committee for the past 4 years and so there is a sense of on continuity, if you will.  I deliberately left some names off his list that you had on your list, for one reason and one reason only.  I want to see this be a committee that works in harmony with the Board to accomplish this project and does not present an adversarial, secretive type atmosphere, which I think has gone on to some degree.  Sam asked – has gone from our direction, and said he didn’t believe so.  Dave said yes.  Sam brought up that he had 2 names on his list that were not on Dave’s list, Nancy Drake and Diana Davidson, other than Cecelia.  That would bring it to an even dozen if we added those.  Dave said that he would settle on 10.  Dave called on Cecelia, who said she felt the more the merrier; why the arbitrary 6 to 10?  Dave said there is a reason for that.  If you look at the By-Laws and how it is set up, Section 6; what it says basically is that the committees are not nominated by the President and approved by the Board and that the committees report to the Board; that the President is the ex-officio member of the committee.  ‘Yes Bill’  ‘Isn’t there an exception to that, for example the By-Laws committee?’  Dave said yes, but it is the election committee that the President is not a member of.  The chairman is automatically the Secretary.  Bill Andrew said that the RCW’s spell that out; that the nominations come from the membership and not for the Board to approve.  But, that is a matter of formality for getting things on the ballot.  I know there has been some conflict in the past on that, but I always thought the By-Laws were how we were supposed to be operating.  Then the membership presented through the Board, but that the membership actually controls and votes on it.  Any of the changes on here don’t need the Board’s approval, I don’t think.  Dave said that Section 5, under that article says standing committee shall be appointed at the discretion of the board for By-Laws, budget and finance, audit, maintenance, election (the one variance), social recreation activities, architectural liaison, beach road, the chair person of these committees will report to the Board.  If you go down below in Section 7, Section 1b – appoint all committees with Board approval except as for provided by in the By-Laws.  Act as an ex-officio there of and perform all duties that pertain to the office, cast a vote to decide the outcome in case of a tie.  So if you have even numbers and there is a tie, then the President swings it one way or the other.  That is the reason I said even numbers.  Bill said that under the RCW’s though that the board per say can not rule out or change that the membership wants to vote on in the By-Laws committee.  It has been a long time since I looked at them, but I think that the RCW’s itself, which we have followed, spells that out.  Dave said that as near as he can tell the By-Laws is what we go by.  I was trying to answers Cecilia’s question and I am not sure if that is a satisfactory answer.  Sam asked if Dave had talked to Tom Richardson.  Dave said that he had talked to Tom and he said he would be like to be on the Beach Road Committee and he would like to continue participating.  However, his father passed away recently and he has some property down in Oregon that he is devoting a lot of his to at the moment.  He really wants to be on the committee, but right at this very moment he is a little hard pressed for spare time.  He would like to participate, but not as a voting member.  Nancy said that she felt that this is not the kind of membership that we need at this time.  Sam said not to list Tom as a permanent member of BRC, but invite him to the meetings; and, replace his position with one of the other names of the individuals in the room who are real desirous of being on the committee; that being Nancy Drake, Diana Davidson.  So that is my request, that Tom Richardson’s position be filled with Nancy Drake; that we add Larry Werner to this list, as I see him as indispensable, and Diana Davidson.  Everett recommended that we add both of those names and Dave would make 11.  Everett then read off the names: Sam, Vince Nancy, Bob Cecilia, Barry, Steve, HL, Larry and Diana, with Dave Taney being the ex-officio.  Sam agreed with that, as did Dave.  Lew made a motion that we accept the list of membership we presently have for the MBRC.  Irma seconded that motion. 

Dave asked for discussion; the motion carried with Dave opposed.  An attendee (Jamie White) stated I oppose whatever keeps it on the path it is going, which is not well at all.  I am a local realtor and when people come in I ask how far are you willing to go, Diamond Point and they say no.  You have to beg people to come down here to look at real estate, and when you look at the amenities of the beach rights and you can’t use it.  (Dave then asked her to identify herself and she said Jamie White.  He mentioned that even though we know a lot of people, it is sometimes hard to pick up later to identify who is talking.)  When I moved here, the only reason I moved down here was because of the beach.  If it wasn’t for the beach I wouldn’t be living this far from town.  I was assured by Marydee Countryman before we bought that it was going to be done last year.  There has got to be something more than what has been happening, in my opinion.  If people are not for muscle beach, then they should surrender their keys and their rights to include it as a part of their amenity for their tax parcel when they sell it.  Dave said that he has a similar letter from a Mary Davidson on Redwood Lane.  Bill Young blood - Don’t we have to remember that this Muscle Beach Road is for the enjoyment of the property owners here; and we’re not trying to improve this so you can sell more property.  Jamie said she would like to go down with her dogs and she can’t.  I am mad because I bought it for that reason and it is worthless to me.  Dave mentioned that the road was useable when he bought his property in 1992.  We use to go down there a lot.  We don’t anymore.  (There then ensued several people talking at once regarding what they can or can’t do regarding the road.)  Nancy spoke up and said we have come a very long way to raise this money.  We are this close to completing the project.   Just be patient a little longer.  It will be very nice for all of us.  Give us this year please.  Lew said that when you have $100,000 plus dollars of other people’s money and you are responsible to spend it and get the max bag for the bucks, you don’t just jump in head first.  Sam has worked hard, Dave’s worked hard, we’ve all looked at this a million times over and we will be very careful; one step at a time.  Just cool your jets and be patient, it’s going to happen.  Irma said that about the timing people have been misinformed when this was supposed to happen.  We budgeted for 4 years and those 4 years are not up until next year to get this money in.  So, it couldn’t have happened before. 

Dave said that if we complete the road or construction by September 1, 2005 we will be right on schedule; right dead on.  Sam said that the report he wrote re: MBR he thought should be placed on the web site.  It contains some historical background and information to remind people of where we are and what we have done regarding getting to the point we are today.  Dave asked if Sam meant the report dated August 9th and Sam said yes.  Sam said it mentions the annual meeting motion and the fact that the BRC was given 2 weeks to search for interested contractors.  It also states that as a result of that search it didn’t take but the first couple, three days we had 4 interested contractors identified, and 3 eventually submitted a bid.  It is still early in that process.  We have only talked in detail with 1 of those contractors.  We still need to meet with 2 others; and, as is always the case in discussing the details of the plan, there can easily be some cost saving, doing things a little differently.  We have 1 bidder now with a firm not to exceed bid.  Now none of these bids include the paving for the road.  This one bid that we have is within the budget ballpark.  And what we would do is to install the drainage according to the plans, with round corrugated steel pipe, and would create the turnouts for the road and level the road and leave it in a drivable state, using primarily the base that is on it now.  But, it would be cleaned up and finished off up to the half-round sections. Everett asked doing the half-rounds per the drawing and Sam said yes.  Everett than asked – concrete under it, tie downs, the whole thing?  Sam than said it is an engineered improved alternate.  We’ve already talked to Dave Hanna about it.  We got, what we did essentially, we talked to Dave Hanna to have him define requirements as to why he designed it like he did, rather than to try to hold contractors to that particular design.  He identified the concrete as a way of insuring good support under this half round pipe.  So that in case someone dropped off the edge with a car and into the pipe, it would not collapse.  So his concern was getting good support.  So what we have done in talking to contractors was to go into the detail on how they would to these, so that we would insure that the support was provided in any other alternate schemes.  This contractor provides an acceptable way.  We can’t give details until the competitive process is over with. 

Everett made a statement – We had a drawing with Hanna’s signature on it for repair that was unsatisfactory because it wasn’t engineered.  I don’t know how you can get a PE signature without it being engineered.  But now we have got something that we have discussed with him which was the same thing we had and now it’s acceptable?  I don’t understand.  Sam said it is not the same thing.  Everett reiterated that we have another change to the plan that has been discussed with Mr. Hanna.  Sam said it is not a change to the essential elements of the plan.  Everett – Oh it certainly is.  Sam – the plan.  Everett – when you take that concrete out that is going to hold the half-round down, you have changed the plan drastically.  Sam – Are you saying that’s the only thing you can put in besides (At this point Sam and Everett are talking over each other and it was too hard to figure out many of the words.)  Sam – Are you an engineer?  Are you a professional engineer?  Everett – No.  HL – I don’t know what you mean by professional engineer design.  Paster Na said I have been a professional engineer, have you Sam or has Larry?   What do you mean professional engineer?  I have worked with thousands of engineers; some are brilliant and some are very stupid.  Nancy – You are jumping the gun.  You’re not letting this man tell you the plan.  I was at the engineer’s discussion.  There is a plan.  Give him time and let him tell it.  Sam – essentially the drawings haven’t changed.  Everett – They are either the same or they’re not the same.  If you take out all that concrete that was holding that half-round down you have significantly changed the plan.  Sam – Not according to Dave Hanna.  Everett – The drawing we had before wasn’t a significant change either, according to him. 

Dave stepped in and asked Lew to speak, as he has attended the meeting.  Lew – I saw the pictures; I heard the discussion in how to keep the pipe down.  It was totally sound as far as I was concerned.  The only thing that I would modify or change is just the discussion of what kind of pipe between the plastic and the steel.  But, the program that he presented to hold the pipe down; the scheme that he presented to provide drainage under the pipe; the packing of the gravel; all of that seemed very appropriate, in my mind.  I’m not an engineer, but I have done worked on storm water management committee for Jefferson County for awhile.  Water is going to push things up out of the ground if you allow it to stay there; this plan doesn’t allow it to stay there.  As far as I am concerned, it looks like a good plan, and like I said the only thing that you could leave to conjecture or to modify might be to use a different kind of pipe.  Plastic might save some money.  I propose that we allow Sam to proceed here because the plan he has in hand is a viable working plan, as I see it. 

Sam – The point I am trying to make is that we have a bid that is within our budget number to produce this drainage scheme system with corrugated metal half-round pipe and give a drivable road.  It could be done this fall.  It will require the extension of this $100 a year dues for another 2 years to cover the cost of the asphalt, top coat paving to complete this project and that is what we propose to do.  We are ready to go with a ballot with statements pro and con.  We have real numbers now from at least 1 contractor who can do that job at or within our budget number.  Someone asked now what that number is?  Sam – We’ve been telling the contractors that the target number is $120,000.  I’ve called and talked to Irma and if I understand it correctly if all dues due SAPOA are eventually collected and all of that money due the beach road account is accumulated in that account, it should be more like a $125,000.  We are within that number.  We are so close. 

Dave – Now you are within that number with the asphalt and everything totally completed.  Sam – No, not including the asphalt.  Dave – So the real numbers are higher than $125,000?  Sam – The real number to do the drainage and the road leveling, and make it drivable is at the $125,000.  Any extra, the paving, will be paid for by the extension of the dues.  Dave – I was at the meeting we were talking about too.  I listened to the changes that you and Dave Hanna discussed.  When are we going to see the name of the contractor that’s going to be selected for the bid; the real figures; and, a drawing or explanation in detail of what’s going to be used as a repair method?  This is what I was talking about when I said I want some information that I can hang my hat on, and I am not getting it.  We’re talking about we got some real numbers, but I am not seeing those numbers.  Sam – Let me inform you that time is critical if we want to do that this year.  What I am telling you today is we have a firm not to exceed bid from 1 contractor that puts him in the ballpark of what we can afford.  That is what I am telling you.  Dave – You have that in writing?  Sam – Yes.  Lew – before we can go out for a vote from the membership to extend dues, we have to tell them why.  Dave called on Steve Ramsey.  Steve – It seems that the point of dissention here is that you had the original plan, Everett saying concrete under the pipe.  Now we have an altered type plan that is supposedly approved.  But my question is when this contractor says he can do it another way, is the warranty going to be there to?  Like with the initial plan are we going to have a warranty for a year or two years, the saving of that pipeline down to the beach?  They were going to redo it?  Or, are we going in now with a whether superior or inferior design, dump all this money in there and what if it goes out in the first rain?  Are we throwing good money after bad?  Dave – The thing that bothers me Sam is that if you have real numbers, and if you have it in writing, why don’t I have a copy of it?  Sam – Because we are in the middle of a competitive bid process.  We haven’t talked to other bidders to see what their bids are.  Dave – but why is the board being kept in the dark?  Sam – They’re not; everyone’s being kept in the dark; we can’t make it public.  Dave – You can make it to the public to the board.  Sam – It is a bid process; as soon as we tell you it’s gone to other contractors and they know how they are competing. 

Everett – I have 2 problems.  One was, we have a resolution that we have to deal with from the other meeting.  And, that was to get a contractor to come in and take care of the drainage and that stuff for the cost of $101,000 to $102,000.  Another problem we had is Ken Clark stood up and said that the engineering that they give us is no good if you don’t pave at the same time.   So that tells me that what we are doing has no value at all.  Sam – Can I interrupt you here?  Ken Clark is not a professional engineer.  Dave Hanna told us that we could do that.  He has the stamp on the drawing.  You’re discussing designs  Everett – Nobody is guaranteeing anything.  Sam – There are warranties, there are no guarantees on anything. 

Dave – Ken Clark and Clark Land are no longer viable in this discussion, as they have terminated their contract with us.  In fact as recently as last weekend asked Ken Clark to give us a final billing for any fees or anything that was owed so we can wipe that slate clean.  Sam – We’ve assumed that; I would like to request that Larry Werner be given a chance to say something.  Larry – I have some comments regarding this discussion about concrete or no concrete.  If you look carefully at the drawings, and you don’t even have to look carefully, it says unpressured input for different methods to hold that are perfectly acceptable.  Everett – Not on the drawings.  Larry – It does.  Everett – It’s on the bid patterns.  Sam – It’s on the drawings.  Everett – And that’s exactly how we ended up with what we ended up with, with $85,000 for the road and now we’re talking $120,000 plus. 

Larry – It’s on the big drawings.  Plus at the meeting we had with Dave Hanna he said very clearly that discussions between the contractor and an engineer have many times come up with better solutions than simply the engineers ideas put on papers.  That’s exactly what we did in that meeting; we came up with some very creative ideas.  We have shared those with the contractors that are bidding; they’ve said great ideas and here’s a little switch that we would like to make so that we can improve it even more.  The thing that we have to do now and the reason that Sam is stating the position he is, is that we must now go back to these guys with a full understanding of what they are talking about and what they propose, and now we can sit down with Dave Hanna, who’s always said that for 2 hours he can sit down and red line the drawing to meet whatever we come up with a plan design position.  And he will bless that.  That is the whole key that we have proceeded with this thing on; that it must be approved by the design engineer, absolutely. 

Now, let me talk about concrete for a minute.  The concrete concept, looking at it, the very first time I ever saw those drawings, I had a major problem with the whole idea.  We know historically we get a heavy water down there, we’re going to get erosion underneath, if that pipe starts to sink, which it will because of the weight of the concrete, we have a maintenance nightmare that none of us want to afford; none of us would ever want to address.  What that concrete does not do is provide support for the pipe.  It holds it down, it weighs it down, and it does not support it.  It is a very poor design really, if you look at it from an engineering standpoint.  Everett – Well, that is the same guy who’s recommending the concrete.  Larry – We pointed this out to him and he acknowledged this and said you’re right.  So, what we are after and what we told the contractors is that we want to hold down the pipe, we want support for it in case the worst happens and stuff gets underneath it and washes out everything underneath it.  Now the approach some of them have taken is creative to solve both of those problems.  And I think that they deserve the opportunity to explain much further in detail to us.  And then we can arrive at a final number that really makes sense that we can come back to you with.  Sam – May I point out that this bidder that we have received a firm bid from is using a method that was discussed with Dave Hanna, on backfill for these pipes.  So we feel comfortable that this will be acceptable with Dave Hanna when we present it.  We don’t want to wait another week, 2 weeks, whatever, before we get around to and then have another board meeting to discuss this and that, and lose the opportunity to get something started this fall. 

Dave – Sam, if I’m reading between the lines correctly, (Sam – I just hope you hear what I am saying.  Sam -Go ahead.) you are asking us to go to ballot without a contractor name, without a figure to write?  Sam – Why do you need one?  Dave – Why?  Kathleen – There is no way the membership would accept a ballot without a name and a figure.  (Now there are too many people talking and nothing can be distinguished.) 

Then someone brought up about the 1997 flood and what they saw/went through; was any one on the road during the flood; did anyone actually see the conditions?  Some one else said afterwards – and the discussion went on for awhile about the flood and the damage to the road.  Some one else came up with an idea of putting a groove across the road for the water to run across.  Someone brought up that we paid $25,000 to have an engineering analysis, a hydroelectric analysis of the entire drainage area out there to determine the peak flow for a 100 year drain, and from that the pipe size was determined.  And pipe was called for on both sides of the road at 30 inch half round on the east side, which carries just about all of the water.  It was stamped by an engineer and I’m trusting him.  That was the whole purpose of going to an engineer because we have all of these, I’m not an engineer but I think.  This is a way to solve the problem.  We’ve been fighting that for (then someone else interrupted and started talking about how a hydrologist is not an engineer, unless we happened to get one that was.  I know how you are going to use corrugated, that is going to fill in with dirt.  (Then several voices)  Everett – The problem we have is that the engineers have put stamp on anything that we have come up with, including the rocks and the ditches.  He put his stamp on it.  Sam – He also put a disclaimer on the rocks.  (Now there are about 5 or 6 people talking at once.)  Then someone said how can it be competitive when we are trying to get ideas from different contractors – how can it be competitive if they are all different?  Sam said they are all bidding to the same plans.  Someone said – to the very same plans?  Sam said yes.  (Now there are a lot of people talking again.)

 Dave – If I can bring this back on track, I’m going to go back to what I said.  I’m not going to put a ballot out, unless the board overrides me, until I’ve got a name of a contractor in front of me, a copy of the plans with specifications, and an exact dollar figure in my possession.  So, now if that is a week or 2 years, until you can tell me that Joe Blow contractor has agreed to bid this project at $155,000 and this is what he is going to use in the way of material, there is not going to be a ballot.

Sam – I can show you personally a written bid, confirmed bid, to do what I told you could be done; everything less the paving.  Dave said well let’s see it.  Sam said to name a contractor; now we have 2 other contractors, I guess we’ll just have to forget the other contractors.  Dave – No, no – I’m asking you, as the chairman of the BRC, Sam – Well, I’m telling you as a person who’s working on competitive bid process, that right now is to early and I can’t tell you that.  Dave – Then I’m not going to send the ballot out until somebody selects the contractor; which is up to you.  Sam – When we get information that the people will need to make a decision (There are too many people talking to understand what is being said.  Dave then called on Nancy.)  Nancy – Why was it (can’t understand word) to force our presentation of 3 contractors, when there was 1 design presented with 1 bid from 1 contractor.  That is even a balance equation.  Now here you’re quibbling over our 3 and you have 1 that is a non-competitive bed that was a first bid and from a contractor who has gone on record to members of your board, saying he didn’t want the work and didn’t like the design.  Now let’s level the playing field (Dave tried to say talk) No, let’s level the playing field and give us a chance. 

Dave – I don’t care what kind of competitive bid process you use, I want to know which contractor you have selected.  Everett – A dollar amount and what that encompasses.  Dave called on Dr. Welch (?)  If there is a need to require 2 more years of dues to what is now is anticipated will that be part of the ballot?  Dave said yes.  (Too many people talking to distinguish words)  Dave – reiterated that his first problem is to sell the board. 

Sam – We haven’t talked to other 2 contractors, we haven’t had time.  We received their bids but have not been able to get back to them.  We are anxious to see a ballot go it.  What we feel is we have received some real numbers (too many people talking and Sam can not be heard.  Kathleen spoke up and asked that people please be quiet as she is trying to record and can not hear what Sam is saying.)  We feel we received some real numbers and a firm bid from one of these contractors which tells us that yes this job can be done as I described within our budget.  Kathleen – You still need to give the board the name of the contractors, whether it is 1 or 3; we have to know who they are and what there bids are.  Sam – I can tell you who are bidding.  Kathleen – that’s what we need, the name and the dollar amount.  Sam – You want all of the details?  Kathleen – You are supposed to report to the board; we have to look at it.  We can not send a ballot out with that information.  (2 people talking not sure of words)  Yes, we want it in writing. 

Nancy – I don’t understand what all the discussion is about.  All you have to do is get the bid; get the amount and when you have it send a ballot out.  Kathleen – That’s all we’re asking.  Larry – What Sam is trying to accomplish here, this is after all of the bank deposits, for 30 days if the ballot went out today; you’ve got to give them 30 days.  Dave – That’s not correct Larry.  If you read the By-Laws carefully it says that on the ballot state the time that they are due back and the time they will be counted and the place they will be counted.  It does not stipulate 30 days.  You could use 2 weeks if you wanted to.  (Then there was a 3 way discussion about people being impression it was 30 days, but Dave looked it up to make sure of what the By-Laws actually said.)  It was asked if Dave was willing to put out a ballot for count in 2 weeks and he said he would if he has the numbers, names and a firm figure. 

Dave – The other part of that equation, if I remember your comments, you want to extend the dues for 2 more years.  Okay, now are you going to package that?  Let’s say that we put out a ballot that says I want to extend the dues for 2 more years at $100. If it fails, now what do you do about funding for the project that you don’t have enough money for?  Everett – We have another problem Dave, we’ve got this other one we have to put out for vote that was a resolution that was put out by the board about membership that this other one had to go out.  Dave – But my comment is again back to the funding – you’re going to have to package it.  If the funding goes down, the project goes down.  Otherwise it won’t fly.  Larry – If you are willing to do a 2 week turn around ballot, Sam - I think you guys better read Article II, Section 4, about balloting.  (Dave then looked up the suggested Article and Section.)  Dave – It says within 30 days Sam.  There then followed a discussion about ballots and waiting the 30 days or not; about if you still had to count ballots that came in after the 2 week time limit. 

Larry – What I and Sam were trying to express was that we have numbers from contractors that say yes we can do it, X the final bidding, within the amount of money we know we will have at the end of this year.  Now, the idea being that you will have a road and road surface and a drainage system that will be approved per an engineering design.  It doesn’t really matter to me what  the contractors nor the final actual numbers are, as long as we fall below what the money we have in hand as of the next cycle that is coming up in September.  The bidding doesn’t matter, the dollars don’t really matter; even the concept, do we want to start it this year (hard to his words clearly as people are talking behind him)?  Or, do we want to wait another year?  Everett – Exactly what is covered does matter.  Larry –Exactly what is covered is very clearly defined all the way through.  Kathleen – If we don’t give all of the information to the members they are going to vote it down and you’re not going to be able to get project started.  (Can’t make out exactly what is said)  Yes, because when you go to our Annual and Semi-Annual meetings there is no much discussion and head banging because they can’t agree on anything.  They want all of the information and we have to give it to them.  If we don’t give it to them we have failed. 

Larry – I think that is an assumption.  Someone said – Maybe I am the only one in the room with a bad memory, but can some one tell me what we voted on 4 years ago?  Seriously, I talked to my neighbors and they want to do it for this $100,000 that is in the letter.  Anything about that, they’re going to have another vote on it.  Dave – The vote in March or April of 2001 was that we would change the dues from its current level to $100 a year for a 4 year period of time and $75 of that $100 would go to the MBR account; and over a 4 year period of time would generate $120,000 to be spent on the plan that was drawn up originally by Clark Land in April of 2000.  Which was a concept for paving, everything.  That included half-round pipe on both sides and paved all the way down.  Dave then asked Sam if he was still talking both sides.  Irma – people that I talk to when they inquire about the dues, everyone says how much more.  They all say then it will be more.  Everyone is just worried about more.  So we do not know if they are going to be willing to spend more.  Sam – We can take a name, this contractor today and name them and give you their bid price; but, we could possibly get it down for less by working with a couple of other contractors, with a little more time.  But once we throw this out, we’re done.  Everett – What if we do this – what if we have him write up exactly what is going to be accomplished, the maximum dollar amount and cost; what this all entails, including more money for a longer time, the whole thing and just submit it that way, along with the other one that it is an either or vote, and see what happens.  When you come up with your dollars, you’re going to have to put up a big inflation factor.  Sam – We’re talking about doing it this fall.  Everett – No, not the asphalt.  That’s what you are asking more funding for.  Sam – Well, it’s more funding and we should generate $60,000.  Asphalt, from what we see now, that should be a cushion over today’s price.  Dave – Based on the past history, if you wait 2 more years down stream and it follows the same curve, will that be enough?  Everett – Right now it is $39,000 for paving.  Sam – We will have $60,000 in 2 years.  Everett – And that’s up about 30% from last year.  (At that time a lot of people start talking.)  Steve Ramsey – By the time 2 years has passed we may need more grading and more rock before they can put the paving down, it might take us way over what we have mapped out.  Everett – The way we are doing this there is nothing to hold that half round down in the road side.  Sam – Yes there is.  You don’t know the design.  (Much talking)  Everett – The integral part of that was the asphalt going over it to hold it in. 

Dave – Sam, it goes back to my original statement – if you know this information, why are you reluctant to share it with the board?  Sam – Back to my original answer we are in the middle of a competitive bid process.  We haven’t talked to 2 other contractors.  Dave – And the board is going to screw that up?  Sam – We might be able to do it for less.  Dave – But what is the board going to do to hinder your process by knowing what is going on?  Sam – You might expose the number.  Dave – Expose it to whom?  Kathleen – We won’t tell anybody.  You need to tell us what it is.  We can’t expose it or tell it to anybody.  Sam – I can’t do that.  Kathleen – Then we need to have a meeting where we don’t have anyone but us.  (Then a lot of people are talking about never giving out the bid; the competitive bid process, etc. In the competitive bid process what counts is what the other bidder is bidding.)  Kathleen – Sam, what we are asking is not for you to say the bid in front of these people; but just put it in writing and give it to Dave and me.  That’s all we’re asking.  We don’t want you to say it out loud in front of these people.  Then it won’t go out to the public.  Sam – Then you’re going to do what, sit on it?  Kathleen – We’re going to look it and discuss it.  Dave – Sam, what do you think we’re going to do with it?  Put it on billboards?  Sam – I thought you were going to put it on the ballots.  Kathleen – Why would we do that until we have somebody and you have finished your contracting?  Sam – When would the ballot go out?  Kathleen – As soon as you finish; I think you had 2 more people you want o talk to.  You talk to them and give us the names; you have to give us the 3 people you are talking to.  Sam – You’re telling me (too many people talking to distinguish)   Dave – Just a second.  Sam, Bill Youngblood has a good point.  For Bill’s benefit the comment I made going to back to what I was saying, is technically I am a member of this committee; and you can’t share it with the president of SAPOA and a member of the committee?  And what about the other committee members, have you shared it with them? Does Bob know?  Sam – I haven’t shared it with the world either, which is what you are asking me to do. 

Dave – You can’t trust the committee members?  Sam – No you can’t.  You can’t trust the board either.  The board leaks, I remember one time when (2 other people are talking and I can not make out any of what is being said.)  Nancy(?) – The BRC will have to write up their version and the board will write up their version for the ballot.  Lew – If we put something on the ballot, the people elect us to make that (unsure of word); so if we put something on the ballot and there is no recommendation for approval for or against by the BRC and by the board members, Joe Blow who lives in Nevada most of the year wouldn’t have a clue or an inclination or any indication at all that it’s a good plan.  Unless you recommend it and we recommend it.  Nancy – Do you really think we would write up such a thing?  I mean these people here who are articulate, and know how to write, do you really think they would put something like that in a ballot for people to vote on?  They would make it very clear. Lew – No, not all the technical aspects, pictures, circles and arrows, I don’t expect that on a ballot.  But the people will be feeling well how does the board feel about this?  Well, how does the BRC feel about this?  It is going to have to go to ballot with pros and cons.  (There are 2 any people talking to distinguish who is saying what.)   Some of what is being said is that people are hearing that there is only one alternative.  Everett – We have the plan that was submitted at the annual meeting.  

Larry – That’s the single source of it.  Nobody else was asked to propose on that.  Everett – Yes we did.  Kathleen – We sent out 6 six bids and we only got one back.  Everett – This is the only guy who was willing to talk to us.  At this point there are several talking and it is hard to distinguish what is being said by whom.  Someone said it doesn’t matter Larry.  Larry – It certainly does.  Everett (?) If he has a reasonable dollar amount for the work Larry – I had correspondence with Ken Clark and that is not true at all. I had correspondence with Taney, that is not true at all.  You guys are accepting a single source bid.  Dave then called on Cecilia.  Cecelia – The board and the people here go on the computer and read the minutes from the last meeting, July 10th.  There were motions that were made, additions to motions, it is all here.  Someone did a really good job.  Dave – I did it and Cecelia, if you want to listen to 3 hours of tape.  Irma – Also, a ballot costs $400 to send out so it better be explained well.  Dave – What I am proposing and what Sam is proposing, I think, and what goes back to the minutes that were on the web – whatever Sam gives me from the BRC will go out unedited, unchanged, unmarked and unredacted.  That was always understood by me and what Cecelia is saying back there is that the BRC drafts their ballot word for word unchanged, unredacted, whatever you give me will go out.  The opposite situation will be whatever I put out will go out the way it is. 

As you write your letter, you can write the cons for me and I can write the cons for you.  Sam – But as a board you are telling us that you have to be convinced we know what we are doing and what we’ve done.  Dave – No - we are asking you to share information with us and that’s it.  I’m not saying you have to prove it or otherwise.  Dave then calls on Nancy.  Nancy – I have heard this reversed by membership, that the cons mean that you present your opinion of your design and you critique your design. (About 3 people talking at once)  Lew – Wait a minute, I would like to go out with a more positive note.  How about if we propose the one that we have with the pros and pros and let the voters decide.  Everett – Because we have a resolution that says we will put cons. 

Nancy – There are cons and history tells us what those cons are.  And, in the meeting, I was told that the letter that I read would be posted.  Dave – It was.  Nancy – It was not there.  It was not retrievable.  Dave – It most certainly is.  I don’t know about retrievable, but it’s on the web.  Nancy – I have tried.  I have got emails that it is not retrievable.  Dave – It is there and it is printable.  Vicki – This is a problem we are having with the website, that when we put graphics out there, with dial-up people are not giving it enough time to load or something.  Nancy – I have DSL and I can’t pull it up.  Dave – It is fine off of ours.  It is there.  Nancy – I am going to put input and it isn’t there.  Under Beach Road, then it states that is the (talking over what Nancy is saying) March 16th and nothing comes up.  I get a little red x and I try pulling that up and it won’t open.  And that’s too bad, because that letter, we refer people to that, and you should read that.  The value is in the history that that tells and advise given by engineers, not Clark himself.  Dave – All I know Nancy is that on our computer at home it is there and you can retrieve it and print it.  Everything works fine.  It is just plain old Microsoft word. 

Dan – This is a thought that I have and I don’t know whether, Sam you have one bid or 3 bids in basically, right?  Sam – Yes.  Dan – Hopefully the one you are talking about is the best of the 3.  Sam – So far.  Dan – What I would like to see happen, the way the bidding goes you should keep the bids secret, whatever they are, until you have your final contract and then give that information to the board, but not before then.  Sam – I thought would the board be amenable to calling a special board meeting as soon as we reach this point where we can name names & numbers.  Dan – I am sure they are willing to do that.  Sam – This may be another week or so.  Dan – That’s fine.  Get your information, select your contractor and then give us that information.  That stops all what we are doing right at the moment.  Neil – I have a question.  Can’t the board vote by telephone?  I’ve heard of others doing that.  Dave – No.  It is expressly forbidden.  It has to be an open meeting.  Someone one said – shouldn’t we have all 3 bids brought to the board. 

Everett – No, that’s why we have a committee to bring us the best recommendation.  That’s there job.  Dave calls on Rusk Sahnow but it is hard to understand what she is saying.  She said something about the BRC.  Dave – Yes.  Sam, on the information that I gave you I gave you phone numbers.  Sam – Yes, I think there are. Steve – What are you going to do about the first resolution you keep referring to?  Everett – It will go on the ballot.  Steve – So you will have that plus a new one. Dan(?) – We’ll have that and then Sam’s; the one that Everett did and Sam’s.  Everett – The ones from Sam is going to be somewhat different from the resolution and I hope no one comes back and punches us in the nose later.  Because it was supposed to be to the original plan less paving, and the amount and it was supposed to be done 2 weeks ago.  Larry – I would remind Everett that the drawings, the engineers drawings where specifically called for contractor input for better ways to do things.  These gentlemen with their contracting backgrounds have played with that, so statement is misleading.  Dave – We can debate and debate, and I don’t think that we are going to come to an agreement.  But we’ve agreed on (several people asking questions – not sure who) Dave said that’s right to one question. 

The other question was – what is our window for doing this project this year?  Dave called on Sam to answer that question.  Sam – There is no hard window.  It depends on the rains, the weather.  Several people talking saying end of September, middle of October; 2 months or less.  Everett – If we can get a firm bid for next spring, we are not that far off.  Too many people talking and meeting had to be called back to order.  Dave – Larry asked a minute ago whether it was official or not and I said no because we needed a vote.  But, we don’t have anything to vote on until we get to the next meeting.  Lew – I’d like to make a motion that the board give Sam and the BRC 2 weeks to finish up and finalize and chose a contractor and bring it to the board.  It was seconded by and Dave asked for discussion.  Dan – I don’t like holding the BRC or anybody else to a firm time.  Dave asked - How about a modification to the motion that it be done as soon as possible.  Sam – I agree to as soon as possible, yes.  Larry – We’ve had a pretty good response from the contractors.  Dan – If you can do it sooner that’s fine.  Dave – Sam, between you and I, that when you have selected a contractor and you have dollar and cents figures in front of us, and plan to do this, that you will come to me and we will schedule an emergency board meeting post haste.  Now, is that agreeable to you?  Sam – That is agreeable.  Dave – Any further discussion?  The amended motion was unanimously voted in.  Dave then said he would accept a motion to adjourn the meeting.  

MEETING ADJOURNED:  Lew made a motion that we adjourn the meeting; which was seconded by Dan.   The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 pm.