Sunshine Acres Property Owners Association.
July 10, 2004 Annual Meeting Minutes


Meeting Called To Order at 1:08 p.m. by SAPOA President Dave Taney

    All Board of Directors members were present except SAPOA Secretary Kathleen DeStafano and 42 SAPOA property owners were in attendance.  A quorum was established.

Meeting Minutes:

    The minutes of the January 24, 2004 Semi Annual Meeting were handed out to those in attendance.  A motion to accept the minutes as presented was made by Irv Mortensen and seconded by Jim Martin.  The motion passed unanimously.

Treasurers Report:

    The Treasurers Report was presented by SAPOA Treasurer Irma Martin.  A motion was made by Marydee Countryman and seconded by Keith DeStafano to accept the Treasurers Report as presented.  The measure passed unanimously.
Irma advised the members that our efforts to collect old unpaid dues had been very successful.  Only 7 accounts remain for collection by Peninsula Collection Services and 2002-2004 back dues totaling @ $2,100 we are trying various methods to collect..  Irv Mortensen commented; what ever you’re doing keep it up.
Dave Taney advised the members that the 2004-2005 proposed SAPOA Budget Ballot had passed.  371 ballots were sent out.  238 were returned.  206 voted yes.  25 voted no and 7 votes were invalid.

     Kristen Allen questioned when the current $100 per year dues expired.  President Dave Taney explained that, the dues would remain at that level until August 31, 2005.  He explained that this issue would likely come up for vote in the January 2005 Semi Annual Meeting.

2003-2004 Financial Records Audit:

    Treasurer Irma Martin advised the members that SAPOA property owner Beverly Willison had conducted a financial audit of our records and found everything in order with no discrepancies.  She had made some recommendations.  Irma made a copy of that audit available to anyone interested.  A request was made to put the report on our SAPOA website.  We will do so.

Old Business:

Mussel Beach Road Repair Project:

    Dave Taney and Ken Clark of Clark Land, our Project Consultant, gave a presentation on a much revised plan to repair Mussel Beach Road.  Dave started with a brief history of the project.  Don Pridham a past SAPOA President commented that this matter went back over 20 years and would have been “dirt cheap” if addressed then.  Copies of the March 2001 ballot which approved the funding for this project were passed out and discussed.  $120,000 was then earmarked for the reconstruction.  Poster boards of the 1996-1997 storm damage and the original proposed reconstruction plan were displayed to the audience.  Dave commented that in 2001 we had figures of $85,000-100,000 to do the work.  This original design which utilized half round corrugated metal pipe for drainage was later modified to use ABS plastic pipe due to the costs of steel as originally drawn. Over the ensuing 3 years the costs has escalated to the point that when we asked for bids in March 2004, the 6 contractors solicited all failed to submit a bid. No bids were received.  We then selected one contractor, John Dickenson of We Dig It, who we had had prior experience with.  In May 2004 we received a bid from Mr. Dickenson and Lakeside Paving for $155,000 which we could not afford.  Dave explained that Dickenson would sublet the actual asphalt work to Lakeside as they were the most capable firm in this area.  Dave explained that the increase in costs was due to increases in materials and labor over the time period, especially petroleum related products such as plastic and asphalt. Dave explained that this left us only 2 options, either cut back on the project or continue with the $100 dues past the 2004-2005 fiscal year.  

Les Stuhr questioned the feasibility of the project since we had difficulty securing bids.  Dave explained that John Dickenson felt the project was doable.  It’s just a question of how well you want to do the project.  Similar to a Yugo pocketbook and a Cadillac appetite.  Les also questioned that with 2 contractors, Dickenson and Lakeside who would be ultimately responsible for the project.  Ken Clark explained that less finger pointing would occur that way.  Keith DeStafano also questioned if we would have 2 separate contracts.  The answer was yes.

Dave passed out handouts and detailed drawings of the repair process that he was proposing.  He labeled the repair “an affordable solution with a reasonable chance of success”.  He reviewed the original plans and labeled them a “complete reconstruction” versus his recommendations which is a repair.  He explained that the original plan totally rebuilt the road surface and installed French drains under a new bed of crushed rock where the new proposal utilized the original roadbed and re-leveled the road, repaired the 150 foot damaged sections, and then laid a new 11 foot road surface with 2 turnouts versus the original at 12 foot with 3 turnouts.
H.L. Font inquired how old this road was.  The response was nearly 40 years.  Don Pridham interjected that it was dirt until the mid 70s, with the most damage occurring in 1996-1997.  Larry Werner commented that the original drainage was concrete flume like channels.

Dave Taney commented that he felt that we could not afford the full reconstruction.  Bill Barth questioned how he knew what we could afford. Dave responded that he didn’t know for sure, it was his opinion.  Irv Mortenson asked what the original $150,000 bid was for.  Everett Stauffer SAPOA V.P. responded that it was for the full reconstruction utilizing ABS pipe on the east side only.  Sam Mrakovich asked if that was for the total job.  Ken Clark advised that the bid was more like $170,000 with taxes.  Don Pridham questioned if this bid was in accordance with the Clark Land engineered plan.  Dave’s response was, it is in accordance with the latest revision of the original reconstruction and that the revisions were due to material availability and costs and did not degrade the plan.  Sam Mrakovich asked which version of the plan was presented to the membership at the time of the ballot approving the plan.  Dave’s response was the original 2001 version utilizing metal pipe.  Dorothy Barth mentioned that Helen Dent had signed an easement with the Clallam County many years ago for a drainage repair on the west slope and was concerned that it might interfere with this project.  Dave responded that in previous discussions with Craig Jacobs of the county, they had not mentioned any problem, just that they would not help us financially.  Nicki Nicklin expressed concerns that the county could come in and take over after we do the repairs due to the easement.  Dave responded that our land is private property and this would not happen.  Larry Werner reinforced that response.  Jerry Stiles commented that his personal experiences were that the county is difficult to deal with and we should not overlook this issue.

Dave Taney asked that we return to the lower cost proposal before us and stressed that this proposal was his and did not represent the SAPOA Board or the Beach Road Committee.  He stated this proposal was put together by Clark Land and himself.  Dave Taney outlined the specifics of that proposal emphasizing that there was no need to destroy the original roadbed and that all the contractors who had made on site inspections had agreed.  He also stated that all repairs would stop 200 ft short of the shoreline to eliminate the need for shoreline permitting and that Clallam County had provided in writing that we needed no county permits.
Ken Clark again restated his assurance that there was no need to tear up the old roadbed as it was already compacted by time and nature better than we could redo it.  He also explained the process of pre-leveling, armoring, and paving the existing road.  He also explained that special asphalt would be used to provide superior traction on the slope.  Ken said there was 1100 ft to pave.  Ken explained the armoring process used in the east ditch that would have runoff water going through rock of varying size to slow down the velocity.  Ken stated that he felt a lot of that water came off the east side slope from the airport direction.  Nicki Nicklin questioned what would be done in the parking area at the bottom.  Ken responded that this would be a separate project to avoid shoreline permit problems, but crushed rock would be used.  Everett Stauffer mentioned that we would need to contact the DNR before any work began.  Neil Eckerson questioned if there was any problem with the runoff going into the Strait.  Ken said no if it was natural drainage.  Everett Stauffer also stated he had some verbal assurance from the DNR that we could gravel that lot.

Ken mentioned that Walt Davy had years ago placed rock in the east ditch and had he used the quantity we were now proposing we would not have these problems now.  Irv Mortensen said he was glad to hear him say that but wondered what would happen if landslide dirt blocked that east ditch again.  Ken said if the rock armoring had gone higher up the east side in 1996 the dirt might not have slid down and blocked the ditch to begin with.  The new proposal would do this and should prevent slides in many cases.

Nancy Drake questioned what would be done to the ditches compared to the original plan to slow down the runoff.  Ken responded that the lower cost proposal left the ditches mostly as is to prevent disturbing the banks anymore than necessary.  He also mentioned that the ideal situation would be to do some drainage work on the private lots above.  Everett Stauffer offered that one of his concerns with the original design was ease of maintenance and that he felt the low cost proposal was easier to maintain.

Dave Taney returned to the discussion of the low cost proposal to discuss costs.  He stated that SAPOA could not afford the original design or its modified versions without continuing the current level of dues past 2004-2005.  The high cost Cadillac version at $160,000 or the lower cost version he presented at $85,000 including taxes.  He stated that either proposal had some risks and that either would require some maintenance.  The only question is how much and that there was no absolute guarantees relative to success or failure.  The big difference was that with the lower cost version is that $20,000-30,000 would remain unspent and left to cover maintenance for 10 years or more and the annual dues could be reduced.  It’s all a matter of what the membership wants!

Dave Taney stated that past votes had established the fact that the membership wants this road useable.  Local real estate ads tout community beach access and not a beautiful ditch.  Irv Mortensen said if that was only true it would be great.  Dave mentioned that the low cost version also eliminated one concern of the original.  That being that someone’s vehicle could slide off into the ditches.  The berms and curb of Dave’s proposal would eliminate that.

Bill Barth expressed concerns that that increased runoff on the west side might endanger adjoining private property at the bottom of the slope.  Dave replied that we were aware of the boundaries and felt it would not be a problem and that runoff increased only under severe conditions.

Larry Werner disputed the contention that runoff comes from the airport.  He stated that the runoff comes via the ditches.  He went on to say that runway runoff is channeled via vaults and pipes to other areas.  He contended that all previous attempts to “throw rocks in the Beach Road ditches had failed”.  Larry suggested that only 150 ft of road really needs repair and minor repairs lasting a couple years could be done for $2,000-3000.  Larry said that he had maybe a better proposal.  He had another contractor who was willing to come out next week to discuss doing the work.  He was proposing the job be done in two (2) stages.  Patch the road and do the ditches first for $80,000 – 90,000, make sure they were doing their job for a couple years, and then do the road right.  Everett Stauffer responded by saying “comparing what we were proposing to throwing some rocks in the ditch was shameful”.  He felt what we were proposing had a good chance of success and that no matter where the runoff came from it was there and had to be dealt with.

Sam Mrakovich addressed the membership.  He said he had been involved with the Beach Road since the late 90s.  Sam said this is the first time the Beach Road Committee has seen this design in total; only stories before as Dave Taney had been working with Ken Clark to come up with it.  He asked Ken Clark how much of the original design was involved in the steel pipe.  Ken said he did not know off the top of his head, but that steel costs had doubled since 2001.  Sam said that he felt that panic had set in when the first bid came in and that the scissors came out and cutting began without working the high cost items.  Sam reviewed the dues history from 1998 at $25 to the now present $100.  Sam reiterated that the membership had demonstrated a desire to fix this road once and for all and to end a 20 year old problem.  He had been President of SAPOA 1996-1998.  He wants to fix the problem once and for all and not take a fall back position to stay under budget.  Sam does not want to throw away a $25,000 design that he feels was a good design.  Sam said that when they were walking the road the other day they discovered that 2 private lots abut the east side of the Beach Road property near the gate.  The slide in 96-97 occurred from that property and the top of the bank now meets that property line.  A 50 ft retaining wall might need to be built to solve that concern.  Sam wanted to now how much of the $170,000 bid was Dickenson’s.  Everett Stauffer responded “all but $35,000 and that would have installed half round ABS pipe only on the east side.”

H.L.Font inquired if either design would address the high bank sloughing problem.  The response was no.  Neither design could prevent all sloughing as the bank was impermeable and the dirt came from above the bank.  Everett Stauffer and Sam agreed.  Sam said there was a lot to be done yet in exploring a full solution.
Bill Barth questioned why we could not do the road in two stages.  Dave Taney responded that there was too much risk of bad weather damaging the newly repaired ditches if the road repair wasn’t complete to prevent water from getting under the half round pipe.

Jerry Stiles asked what was the value added if the road was eventually repaired.  Jerry felt we could repair/patch the road ad hoc for many years for the cost of these proposed repairs.  You might band aid it for 30 years for this money.  Dave reminded Jerry that in 2001 the members had voted to fix this road and we had an obligation to do so.  Dave stated that we could not afford the high end repair.  Several people were in disagreement and wanted to know “how do you know we can’t afford it”.  Dave stated that we have pre collected $6,500 in 2004-2005 dues leaving only $23,000 more to collect and that would give us a maximum of $124,000 to do this repair with high bids reaching $ 175,000.  We simply will have to ask for more dues to afford this expense.  As President of SAPOA he spear headed the approval in 2001 for this funding, but had promised the members that he would not keep coming back for more and more money.  Dave said this was his personal position.  Not the Board’s, not the membership’s, but his alone.

Dave Taney stated he felt it was time for the Board to fish or cut bait.  Make a decision and not wait for another 20 years discussing this version or that version.  Treasurer Irma Martin reminded the audience that well over 100 members had Beach Road keys and try to use this road or at least would like to.  Irv Mortensen asked why we couldn’t borrow the needed extra funds.  Dave explained that this had been discussed, looked into, and shot down.  H. L. Font asked how rapidly cost was increasing.  Dave responded that originally estimates were $85,000 in 2001, $100,000 in 2002, and now $170,000.

Dave Taney asked the Beach Road Committee members to stand.  He named the members and introduced Ivan Harvard, Bob Zuehlsdorff, Irv Mortensen, and Sam Mrakovich.  Bob stated his desire to do the job right and Ivan favored the lower cost option.

Sam Mrackovich reviewed the Sheppard hanger agreement when Mr. Sheppard agreed to donate $3,500 to the Beach Road fund rather than put in a water retention system.  This agreement was worked out with Clallam County.  Sam stated that this was one of his reasons for staying with the original design.  Everett Stauffer stated that at the June 30th Beach Road Committee Meeting there was a consensus to go with the latest low cost solution.  Sam disagreed and said there was no vote just an agreement for Dave Taney to make a presentation today.  Dave Taney said that he and Ken Clark had worked very hard over the last month and a half to get this bid from contractors and the drawings were just finished 2 days ago  Dave said he had verbally explained the new low cost version to all Committee members at their meeting with all members present.  Dave said he thought he had the committee’s backing but now that seemed to have changed.  He said basically he’s for it and 2 members present are against it.

Les Stuhr commented that spending $ 175,000 on this road will never eliminate maintenance.  Dave agreed.  Les also said that contractors unwillingness to bid borne out the fact that this was a difficult job.

H. L. Font stated that it was time for a vote.  Dave Taney asked for a motion.  Dr. Welch made a motion that we go with the $85,000 version.  Sam Mrakovich called for a Point of Order and stated that this group could not vote on this issue.  Everett Stauffer stated that this issue had already been approved in 2001.  Dave Taney said the original design was based on an engineered design and that was still the case.  Several property owners disputed the contention.  Ken Clark said that Dave, the engineer and him had all worked to approve the current design.  They had not however gone so far as to redo all the original drawings due to $ 15,000 in possible costs.  He felt as did the engineer that this plan would work with some maintenance involved in the case of 100 yr – 50 yr floods.  Dave stated that the engineer had signed off on the documents.

Marydee Countryman asked if Dr. Welch’s motion had any reference to the original plan and vote.  Dave said no and asked Dr. Welch to restate his motion, which he did.  He also said this thing had been talked to death and if we don’t want to do it then just refund everyone’s money and forget it.  Dave agreed.

Irv Mortensen stated that back in 1999 it was established that these kinds of votes could never again be made in Annual or Semi Annual meetings and must go to the full membership.  He felt that 40 some members in attendance could not decide the issue for 400 and some members.  Dr. Welch modified his motion to say: that this group recommends to the general membership that we go with the $85,000 proposal.  The motion was seconded.  Bill Barth questioned how, when we have spent 1 ½ hours discussing this, that we are going to explain the issue to voters.  Dave Taney agreed. Dave stated that he felt the Board of Directors should make the decision.  That suggestion was overwhelmingly rejected.  

Nancy Drake addressed the group and read a letter from Ken Clark dated 03-06-2001 responding to assertions made by Dan Higday and published in the Spring 2001 SAPOA Newsletter.  She urged everyone to read it and asked that it be republished.  Dave said that this was possible and agreed to put it on the SAPOA website.  Dave reminded Nancy that this letter reflected things as they were in 2001.  However, Nancy felt it addressed all issues current and past.  

Dave Taney asked that we proceed with the vote and called for the question.  However, Marydee stated that the question must come from the members present.  H. L. Font spoke up and asked how long the $85,000 bid was good for.  Dave responded 90 days.  Irv Mortensen asked how long it would take to get a ballot out.  Dave responded 30 days.  Larry Werner asked why we were limiting ourselves to one contractor when there were others out there.  Dave responded that Sam has the opportunity to get other bids if he wants to.  Marydee called for the question.  The motion failed 22 to 17.

Sam Mrakovich made a motion that the Beach Road Committee be given the authority and 2 weeks time to search for at least 2 more interested and suitable contractors to bid and accomplish all but the paving work on the 2001 Clark Land design and if the SAPOA Board receives any bids they let a contract to the lowest bidder if funds available are sufficient to cover the costs of doing the ditches.  Dave asked just what does that include.  Sam responded it includes the ditches with possibly some minor modifications due to materials and construction methods, but not to sacrifice the integrity of the original design.  Everett Stauffer reminded Sam that the $170,000 bid was for one ditch on the east side only. After some discussion Sam reviewed his motion.  He again stated his motion covered the grading, the ditches, and the turn a rounds, but not the paving.  Dave reminded Sam that we now have only $101,000 and the $120,000 would not be available until early 2005.  Kristen Allan asked Sam why he had not previously found a contractor.  He replied he was going to now.  Dave asked Cecelia Eckerson if she had a question on her mind.  She said no and I doubt if you can read my mind.  Dave did clarify that the full $120,000 was not in the bank and we could not count on it until sometime in 2005.

Larry Werner seconded Sam’s motion.  Irv Mortensen spoke up and said he had the same objection to Sam’s motion that he had to Dr. Welch’s.  He would like to see both proposals go to a vote of the membership.  Details of the proposals could be put on a ballot and let the members make a choice.  Dave Taney reminded the members that we needed to vote.  Additional discussion took place to clarify further what was being voted on.  Sam was asked by Irv Mortensen if he would entertain a modification to his motion.  Brenda Eaves stated she had been a SAPOA property owner for only 4 yrs but didn’t want to see this issue go on for another 20 years looking for more plans and contractors with nothing happening.  Someone has to make a decision or forget the Beach Road and give the money back.
Dave Taney stated that we are now discussing 2 or 3 versions.  The Beach Road Committee will have to write up their version and Dave will write up his version for the ballot.  Bill Barth suggested that each versions proponent have the opportunity to write a pro and con statement for each proposal.  Dave said that will be easy because his statement against would be “it’s to damn expensive”.  Everett Stauffer interjected that the original design called for the work to be done all in one go and not 2 separate jobs.  Ken Clark stepped in and said you can’t do the ditches one year and the paving another year.  He wanted to go on record that the plan to separate the repairs would not work.   The reason is that the paving must be tied to the half round pipe.  Kristen Allan asked what the original plan would now cost.  Everett replied that since a modified version would cost $175,000 the original plan with no modifications could go s high as $250,000.  Ken Clark restated his objection to doing the project piece meal and further stated “his firm will not stand behind it”.
Cecelia Eckerson asked if the 2 weeks requested would be a problem.  Dave replied he saw no problem in waiting.  Cecelia replied that the way this Board operated she would be glad to see another bid.

Everett reminded everyone that a modified motion remained on the floor.  The question was called for and the motion passed 25 to 10.  The original motion now modified was restated by Sam Mrakovich.  I move that the Beach Road Committee be given the authority and 2 weeks time to search for at least 2 more interested and suitable contractors to accomplish all but the paving work of the 2001 Clark Land design.  The modification says that after this we send the options to a vote of the membership.  Someone asked what the time frame was for sending out the ballot.  Dave said normally 30 days.  However he reminded the audience that each ballot cost @ $400 or 2 would be $800.  He would like to send out just one to save costs.  Dave mentioned that a Board Member election was coming up and a ballot on this must go out within 30 days of this meeting per the bylaws.

Irv Mortensen called for the question and Sam’s motion passed 20 to 8.
Dave again asked Cecelia Eckerson if she would expand on her comment regarding how the Board was operating.  Cecelia responded that she had no further comment.

That concluded discussion on the Beach Road Project.

Mussel Beach Boat Launch:

    Vice President Everett Stauffer made a presentation on the Mussel Beach Boat Launch
    Everett mentioned that our lease on the boat launch expired some time ago and the State of WA. lost documentation so we are renewing our lease.  Everett has mailed the documents to the state with a check for $282.  They received it 6-3-04 and we are waiting on a signed copy to be returned.  Everything is in order.  However, in the next 3-4 years we may need to spend $3-4,000 to do an aquatic land survey to fully complete the lese requirements.  Diamond Point will need to do the same and we may be able to combine efforts and both save money.

    Larry Werner questioned setting aside for the boat launch lease, $4,000 of the Beach Road funds as untouchable.  He wondered if that could be done.  Dave Taney and Everett explained that we considered that all part of the Beach Road property.  Irv Mortensen offered that there was precedent for that and it had been done before.  Dave also explained that it was done to save the actual expenditure of funds and to save money. Larry applauded the motive, but doubted the legality.  Dave said the issue could be revisited.  

New Business:

Board of Directors Election:

    Dave Taney advised the members that Everett Stauffer and Lew Morello’s 3 yr terms expired August 31, 2004 and we needed volunteers to fill the spots and deal with the Beach Road.  No volunteers offered their nomination.  Neil Eckerson nominated Everett Stauffer and Lew Morello to second 3 yr terms.  Neil made a motion that the nominations be closed.  Dr. Welch seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Architectural Representatives:

    Dave Taney stated that every plat has the need for an architectural representative.  Plat 1, 6&7, and the Industrial Plat currently have vacancies.  A ballot was sent out in Plat 1, but not enough were returned to have a valid election.  In Plat 6&7 Chuck Rice has sold his house and is moving, so that created that opening.  Dave applauded his efforts considering the tremendous growth in that plat.  We need volunteers.  In the mean time Everett Stauffer the SAPOA Representative steps in.  

Property Owners Complaints / Letters:

    Dave Taney said that occasionally we receive anonymous letters.  He responds to all signed letters and just files the unsigned.  He felt if you feel strongly enough to send a letter you should be willing to sign it.

Greater Diamond Point Initiative/Reader Board:

    Dave combined discussion of these items.  He explained what was going on with the water hose across Diamond Point Road at Rhododendron Drive.  Washington Water Services is supplying water to Diamond Point homes through Aquarius Water System.  Aquarius’s system had failed.  Everything should be back to normal by next Wed or Thur.  He also mentioned that more chlorine is being added to prevent cross contamination by bacteria.  

    Dave advised the members that now there is nearly 800 homes in the greater Diamond Point community.  We are almost a community unto ourselves.  Emergency, fire, and water services affect us all.  That is the purpose of our CERT program.  We have been contacted by Diamond Point individuals inquiring if we would allow them to use our reader board and if we could make it bigger like 6 x 6 ft.  Dave said the Board was in favor of the project.  Nicki Nicklin asked who was going to pay for the modifications.  Dave responded that Diamond Point would.  Dave said he had talked to Neil Eckerson who maintains the reader board.  Guidelines would have to be drafted to govern the use of the board.  Like who has priority.  Neil wondered if people could read the board going by at speed.  Dan Abbott said the county had OK’d the size increase to 6 x 6.  Something would have to be done to differentiate information such as different colors.  Neil would do the actual sign changes and get info from one person at SAPOA such as Dave Taney and one person from Diamond Point.  Dave said this program was still in the discussion stage and was not etched in stone.  Dave asked the audience for their feedback   A straw vote indicated the issue was generally favored.

C.E.R.T.

    Director Dan Abbott discussed the Emergency Training program.  He has 19 people now fully trained and 22 new members who will start training on July 15th .  Most come from the immediate Diamond Point area.  C.E.R.T will have another emergency drill like the previous airport exercise when the second group completes training.  Dan introduced Jim Coulter as the local ham operator coordinator with C.E.R.T.  Jim mentioned that the fire department was responsible for donating the equipment.  A grant will also pay for more equipment such as a generator.

    Dan talked about how Diamond Point was divided up into Diamond Point, Beach Club1 and Beach Club 2 and that they did not get along.  We are trying to work through C.E.R.T. and the reader board to foster a better community spirit.  The yard sale promotion was also part of that effort.  $75 was donated to C.E.R.T. as a result of the sale and would help buy blankets, etc.

    Dan mentioned that 4 new volunteers were training for the fire department also and this would improve our local fire safety.  Dan thanked Chief Marydee Countryman.

Open Discussion:

    Neil Eckerson thanked Hank Morse for his work in making the reader board sign letters.  Kristen Allan commented that Neil currently was doing great in that work.
    Steve Sanhow also was thanked for his cleanup efforts picking up litter along Diamond Point Road.  Dave referred to him as Mr. Motor Scooter.
    Dave advised members of our SAPOA website address:  sapoasequim.com.  He also thanked his wife Vicki and pointed out that she did all the work associated with the website.  He mentioned that she had been ill in May and June and they had some catching up to do.

    Dave said that a property owner, Bill Youngblood had seen people cutting up and removing driftwood from the beach and park land.  If you see anyone doing that, remind them that it is frowned on.  The State Park staff will furnish some signs.  Ivan Harvard does occasional cleanup down there to remove driftwood from the boat launch.  Dave thanked Ivan as the official Beach Road caretaker.

    Dave implored everyone to be extremely careful with fire due to the dry weather.

    Nicki Nicklin inquired about stopping fireworks.  The response was no, if they shoot them off during legal dates and hours.

    Jerry Stiles inquired if anyone had anymore information on the dead deer issue.  The response was that WDFW was investigating the possibility of poisoning but no response had been received.  Disposing of the carcasses is the problem.  Suggestions were discussed.  Larry Werner stated that there was someone in Blyn who would haul them.  Marydee mentioned that West Nile Virus affects mainly crows and suspicious dead crows should be report to the county health department.

    Bill Youngblood went back to the Beach Road discussion relating to value added and suggested that once the road issue was resolved we should look at enhancing that area for more use by everyone.

    Sam Mrakovich asked that anyone who had a favorite contractor to have them contact him.

    Dave Taney stated that the only reason he was serving a second term was to complete the repairs to the Beach Road during his tenure and that he still had 2 yrs to go.

    Brenda Eaves inquired about the local leash laws.  The response was that there was that law and plat covenants require it.  She was advised to call the county animal control officer.  Everett Stauffer also suggested taking loose animals to the Humane Society and have them impounded.  The owner will have to pay substantial costs.  Sara Kincaid reminded the members that there was only 1 officer for the whole county.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.  The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.