minutessemiannual2005

Sunshine Acres Property Owners Association.

January 22, 2005 Semi-Annual Meeting Minutes

Meeting called to order at 1:05 p.m. by SAPOA President Dave Taney.

The January 8, 2005 was canceled due to snow and rescheduled for today by sign board, January 22nd.
A quorum was established with 50 property owners, including 6 Board members.

Past Meeting Minutes:
The July 10, 2004 Semi-annual Meeting minutes were handed out and a motion to accept them as presented was made by Jim Martin and seconded by H.L. Font. The motion passed unanimously.

Treasurer’s Report:
Irma Martin’s report is in two parts and on a handout. The first part opens with August 31, 2004 at $15,759.82 Income was $2,351.62, with a balance of $18,111.44.   Part two ending balance is $40,077.15. A motion was made to accept the report as given and H.L. Font seconded the motion. The motion was passed.

Dues:
There are 402 property owners. 2004-2005; $4,130 dues are outstanding.

2004-2005 Financial Records Audit:
Jeanette Clark audited the books finding one minor discrepancy, which had to do with when a check was entered and when that check was mailed. Copies of Ms. Clark’s audit were available at the meeting.

Mussel Beach Road Lease:
Everett Stauffer reports DNR paperwork is done and an April payment will be required. Shoreline survey must be done within 5 years. Mr. Stauffer will check if SAPOA can go in conjunction with Diamond Point.

Mussel Beach Road Committee Report:
The following is a copy of BRC report presented by Sam Mrakovich at meeting.
Beach Road Report to the SAPOA Membership
January 22, 2005 Membership Meeting
   The Beach Road Committee (BRC) is very pleased to report at today’s meeting that the first phase of the Beach Road maintenance project is ongoing and about 60% complete. This phase installs the drainage system and prepares the road for paving, leaving the road in a drivable condition until it is paved. All work to date and all work planned, including miscellaneous property improvements, remains well within the 3-year funding commitment made by the membership when you approved the ballot request in September 2004.
   The Beach Road Committee has made difficult decisions. Getting to where we are today has not been without challenges. The project was started before all dues for this phase were received. There are members who have yet to pay last fall’s dues, which are needed to pay for this phase.
At the onset, the contractor hit a sewer line that was not in county or SAPOA records. The sewer line was relocated at our (Beach Road account) expense. A retaining wall was needed to stabilize the high bank at the old slide area. It was deemed necessary before the culverts were installed. Both of these items incurred a surprise expense. The need for the wall was identified soon after the last general meeting by the BRC. Cost negotiations with the contractor had been completed. As a result of a misunderstanding by the contractor, this very necessary retaining wall got a jump-start one day before a means of paying for it could be formulated. Remember, although the membership funding for the total project is adequate, the once-a-year deposit into the Beach Road account creates cash flow problems. A project of this size is going to have unexpected occurrences along the way and must somehow be kept going to avoid increasing overall cost.
Financial Decisions
For all known expenses to date, there is a shortfall until next fall’s dues are received. This shortfall results from the unpaid 2004-05 dues, the unexpected sewer line relocation, and the retaining wall installation. The shortfall sum total comes to approximately $18,000.
That brings us to the primary purpose for this meeting which is membership approval for the BRC’s proposed solution that follows or an alternative solution proposed by the membership that will allow the successful completion of the total project within the 3-year funding totaling approximately $90,000. At this point, the paving cost is only a rough estimate of about $50,000.

The proposed solution by the BRC is as follows:

1.   Accept the contractor’s offer to finance any unpaid project cost at a simple interest rate of 7.25% APR, to be calculated daily (not compounded) against the maximum balance for that day. There would be no monthly payment requirement for one year maximum at which time the full principal amount and accumulated interest charges would be due. No pre-payment penalties would be imposed for partial or complete principal payoff.
The financed amount will be less than $20,000 considering all project expenses that have been identified and are expected for this phase of the project. At least $30,000 in Beach Road funds will flow into the Beach Road account each fall for the next 3 years. Payoff of the account balance should occur next fall if not sooner. Finance charges for $18,000 for 6 months (if no pay down of principal) would be $652.50. This offer by the contractor is contingent upon approval of Item 3 below.

2.   The membership would be encouraged to make advance payments of the Beach Road portion ($75 per year) of the next 3-year’s dues obligation. This advanced income for the Beach Road account would improve the cash flow and be used to reduce or eliminate the financed shortfall.

3.   The retaining wall cost would be paid from the Beach Road account as any other completed expense item. Financing would begin upon depletion of the Beach Road account and pay down of the principal would occur as Beach Road dues are received.

           This 3 part solution will allow the first phase of the project to be completed without interruption. Accepting this small finance cost now will save several times more in added expenses if construction had to stop until the September 2005 funding is received.

The Beach Road Committee

   The Beach Road project underway is the biggest project SAPOA has ever undertaken and most likely the biggest it will ever undertake. It is being managed by the Beach Road Committee (BRC) with oversight by the SAPOA Board of Directors, who write the checks. The Committee, comprised of 10 members, was formalized in two ways shortly after the July 2004 annual meeting. First the 10 current members were decided upon and approved at a SAPOA Board Meeting. At a later Board meeting, the following functions and responsibilities for the BRC were approved by the SAPOA Board:

   “ 1. That, as an ongoing function, the BRC monitors the Beach Road property and apprises the
           SAPOA Board of its condition and recommends necessary maintenance or closure to
           protect it from deterioration as a special amenity for SAPOA members. The Beach Road
            is considered to be both the roadway and the adjoining drainage system.

2.   That, as directed by the SAPOA Board for special projects, in full compliance with Article VII, Section 5, paragraph h, the BRC shall act as facilitator and advisor to the SAPOA Board regarding actions required to successfully accomplish these projects.

In all cases of maintenance of the Beach Road property, the BRC shall determine what
maintenance will be required, the costs, and the timetable for implementation.”

The current BRC is comprised of the following volunteer property owners:
   Vince Convery   Sam Mrakovich, Chairman
   Diana Davidson   Barry Olson
   Nancy Drake   Steve Ramsey
   Cecilia Eckerson   Larry Werner
   H. L. Font   Bob Zuehlsdorff

The BRC thanks you for attending this meeting. (End of report.)

Mr. Mrakovich reiterated what the membership voted on before work began on the road and that Mr. Taney has been active in attending Mussel Beach Committee meetings in the planning process, including deciding on the contractor. The engineered plans that SAPOA paid for in 2001 have proven to be a challenge to work with on several points. The design engineer has been involved with the present committee, redlining the initial plans as the project progresses. Mr. Mrakovich talked about how dedicated each member of the BRC has been and still is. The members being approved by the Board last fall, are diverse and independent thinkers. Of course, being property owners and anxious to use the launch ramp, they have an interest in getting the project completed. They are conscientious and knowledgeable. It is important that, if property owners who care about the road have questions, in all fairness to contact the members of the committee as well as the Board. Barry Olson has many years experience with stabilizing banks. Steve Ramsey has been the foreman, communicating with the contractor and committee. The BRC has been involved with many meetings: 3 in July, 5 in August, and 3 in September, October, November. The contractor we chose and the Board approved had some innovative ideas that made sense. He is conscientious and patient, especially in waiting for materials to work with. Juniper Avenue is a problem as far as water entering the slide area. The retaining wall was installed in order to stop any slides from happening now and especially over the culvert which is being installed. The retaining wall has been a part of the plan and was discussed with the BRC and Board in August. Again, Barry Olson’s expertise was instrumental in figuring out a viable stable wall and how it was to be done. Mr. Olson’s plan saved us money from the initial plan. The wall was “prematurely” put in according to contract, although it is timely according to need. The problem lies in the cash flow and payment of the retaining wall.

The usual questions from the members that are asked ad nausium at each meeting were asked. The usual arguments ensued until those members were up to speed on the current status of the beach road. (This is a synopsis of this portion of the tape.)

Steve Ramsey homeowner and foreman on this project talked about the missing compaction tests on road and banks by Clark Land. Mr. Ramsey stated that he believed the retention wall was needed and at the time it was done. The rockery is basic to the Olympic Peninsula. Mr. Ramsey stated that he has met many homeowners and found dissension among them. His personal feeling is that we have a plan, let’s stick to it, and finish this project. Let’s take a sensible approach and quit the bickering and name-calling. It seems to him that every time one goes down to the road there is a new surprise. He wishes we could have had a better engineer, but states that we got what we paid for. Mr. Ramsey has confidence in the contractor. He says he is doing the best he can with what he has to work with. It was discussed and he remembers Mr. Stauffer being a part of this discussion, the turn-out needed to be narrower or retaining walls would have to go up on both sides. The road is not level with a 2% crown. So it has to be built up – the contractor is using quarry rocks to work on that. It is easier to do now while he is going down the road. It will cost more if done later. Mr. Ramsey says that we have been dealt a hand, so let’s play the hand and try to get the best results possible. Mr. Ramsey is resigning as of today for personal reasons.

More questions from members are shouted out with Mr. Stauffer talking in the background and agreeing with arguments about their suspicions.

Mr. Stauffer reiterated his suspicions and points at details from contract with contractor. The question regarding the crown is whether it is 2% or whatever. Mr. Ramsey pointed out that some additional materials may be needed – the road has proven to be a challenge even without the gnashing of teeth (arguments). He urges us again to get along and get the project completed.

H.L. Font stated his opinion that the problem lies with the contractor. Mr. Ramsey stated that we could go back further to the engineer and the problems he did not address. Mr. Mrachovich stated that we are NOT asking for more money. The wall is budgeted in the contract, and was put in before it had been planned. There are ways to handle the issue.

Brenda Newman expressed her opinion that the BRC is lying and that they are all going to Hawaii with the SAPOA funds or something. Nancy Drake expressed her dismay by pointing out personality flaws between the Board and BRC that are hindering the flow of the project.

Barry Olson stated that he has 25 years of contract experience. He asks for members to submit their contract opinions in writing. Mr. Stauffer brought out AGAIN that the wall was okayed by a BRC member. This item was previously discussed at another Board Meeting and tabled.

Mr. Taney states that we are $6,000 short for contract payment. The retention wall was done on the contractor’s dime. The contract says that he is to complete the job in 60 days.

Karen Brandmeir called the BRC liars and left.

Sam Mrakovich tried over and over again to talk about how to pay for the wall. Larry Werner told about the engineer’s failure to address the retaining wall. The project is progressing in right order, and perhaps not to the liking of those who are of the adverse opinion. We are learning as we go along because it is not a nice clean job. Therefore, in spite of being called names, the BRC trudges on in order to complete the project. Larry Werner shares that he has pictures that show the necessity of retaining wall and more surprises. The pictures show the wet clay (with Mr. Stauffer’s shoe in the picture). The project will help dry out the clay. Mr. Stauffer said he would agree with us, if, if, if. Nancy Drake asks, “Who approved the engineer’s plan?” Mr. Taney agrees with Mr. Stauffer that services over $100 must be approved by the Board. The point is made that the BRC did not just spring up from nowhere. The BRC was created with Board approval last August.

Sam Mrakovich states that the BRC has been working against time. The handout of Beach Road Committee, page 2 is a viable plan. (Please see above.) The contractor has offered to finance at 7.25%, until next fall. Applause.

Mr. Stauffer’s solution is to let contractor “eat” the cost of the wall.

Bill Andrew talked about a point of order that a motion cannot be gained because the entire membership was not property notified of the January 22, 2005 meeting today. Discussion of by-laws protocol is reiterated by Mr. Taney after the fact.

Barry Olson suggests that a portion of job be dropped to pay for retention wall. Mr. Stauffer did not like that idea, but offered no solution.

Elimination of problem may be to ask people to pay ahead.

The contractor declined to come to meeting. Nancy Drake states that the contractor met Everett Stauffer at the road and said he will not deal with a five-year-old attitude because he has a five-year-old at home to deal with.

Somebody thanked the BRC for volunteering and all their time!

Mr. Taney asked Barry Olson to take Steve Ramsey’s place. Mr. Olson is to report BRC findings and contractor progress to the Board.

Marydee Countryman stated that the wall needs to be paid for. The BRC needs to let the Board know of any expenditures.

Mr. Taney suggested that we pay for the materials and the contractor pay for the labor.

Larry Werner said it is not costing more money. The retention wall is part of the project.

Barry Olson suggested that we pick up at a later date. Mr. Olson knows contractor from another time. It is not in our interest to have him take the wall out. We got what we paid for in engineering.

Mr. Taney suggested a sit down meeting with contractor, Board, and BRC.

Someone suggested that the contractor should be asked to defer payment until we get the dues paid.

The surprise sewer line and retaining wall caused a shortfall this year.

A special membership meeting will be called.

Animal Control:
No one has called or written Mr. Taney regarding animal problems. The name and number of animal control is on website.

Dues:
Prepaid dues are encouraged. Operating expenses for 2006-7 will increase slightly.

SAPOA Board Vacancies – Kathleen DeStefano is working. We need a new secretary. Someone is needed to at least type the minutes. The secretary does not have to be an elected Board member.

A prepayment notice will be included in the next mailing to membership. Put year you are paying for on check.

C.E.R.T.(Community Emergency Response Team):

Marydee Countryman said that volunteer citizens trained for 15-20 hours, are ready for disasters, and can be deployed to fire station and community. “Help” signs were handed out for putting in window. Nancy Drake asked if these signs can be used during power outages? Yes, power outage is a disaster to some people especially the elderly.

It is important to identity those who are handicapped and keep a watch for them.

More classes are coming in the spring. It is basic and you do not have to be a fireman. How to approach an emergency situation safely is taught and how to help your neighbors. Please consider joining.

We have 5 firefighters now. Applause. Wendy Abbot was acknowledged and Bob Meyer. Nancy Drake was thanked for her services over the years as she has retired.

The siren will be installed soon. Hopefully, it will be within a month or month-and-a-half. It is loud enough.

John Moore ham radio chief will be monitoring citizens (CB9) 24 hours a day. 65 ham radio operators are available throughout the county. Have a $10,000 grant to set up around county. Applause.

NOAA radio is VHF and tells of local problems like floods, etc. You can buy one at the County emergency office.

Should a disaster occur, one could check at the fire station to find out evacuation orders.

John Moore said that a ham radio station is set up at the fire station.

Neil Eckerson told of jack lighting going on where someone is using a flashlight to hunt at night. Please report any unknown car parked along the road, especially if you see someone flashing a light in the woods.

Mr. Taney thanked Neil Eckerson for working with Hugh of Diamond Point with the reader board. Applause.

6 and 7 Covenants

Platt 6 and 7 covenants have a tree planting issue. They must be shorter in order to preserve views. For redress you must go through the Architectural committee, who apprises the Board, who writes a letter to owners. There is no enforcement by Board. If this does not suffice, the homeowner must find legal satisfaction.

Nancy Drake asked about a home at 82 Hemlock Way, which is in violation of covenants. Mr. Taney asked for a memo from Nancy Drake stating the problems and Mr. Taney will write to homeowner.

New Business
Mr. Taney brought up the fact that running a business from your home is addressed by most covenants. People coming to the home and running a retail business is not allowed. Accepting advertising on the website and newsletter is a form of endorsement. It is the general consensus of the group that it not be done.

Larry Werner told the group that there was an attempted break in at the contractor’s trailer. The sheriff said that he found cowboy boot prints around the trailer. Please be aware and know that he may be after your stuff. The truck is a white Ford diesel pick up truck with dual wheels. Mr. Stauffer said that the truck matches the description of the truck that was thought to have picked up some siding from a Manzanita address.

Larry Werner supported what Mr. Mrakovich. said today. As a part of the Beach Road Committee, they have been called liars. He said that he does not take kindly to that and that it is flat out not true. Thank you.

Variance requests are never posted whether issues are passed or not. The protocol is to discuss with your Architectural Representative first. If there is a chance that it will pass, Vicki Taney will provide a list of property owners in that Plat, plus two sets of labels for the property owner to create and mail their own letter in their own words. Once the property owner receives the answer to his letter back he/she takes it to the AR. If a certain percentage passed, according to the Platt number, the AR takes it down to the County auditor for recording. Platt 6 and 7 is rapidly developing and the # of variances is an exception.

Platt 1 needs an AR.

Open Discussion
Bill Andrew discussed the by-laws, which he had addressed to the Board by letter with no response, and especially Article 6, which states the term Board members serve and is up for interpretation according to Mr. Stauffer. Bill said that the Officers can serve one year and another year consecutively. Mr. Stauffer gives his version again, stating that the Board members can serve up to 6 years. Bill asks that the by-laws be reviewed.

Mary D. Countryman said that revision of by-laws by committee is overdue. They should review all, not do it piecemeal. Therefore, the question about Bill’s version of by-law specifically Article 6 can be included.

Nancy Drake brought up the fact that a election nomination committee has not been used. Mr. Stauffer said that the Board has been remiss and may be remiss again if no one volunteers. Bill said Article 6, Section 7 covers the nomination committee question.

A corner lot with entrances on both streets must have one front setback. Mr. Stauffer argues that some are done so and some are not.

Nancy Drake brings up a question whether the Board is making Architectural Representation decisions, which Mr. Stauffer admits is not what the Board should do. She has a letter from Mr. Taney that states the Board authorized three houses moved. Mr. Stauffer said that he was unclear about such a letter.

Lew Morello moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded and passed

Respectfully submitted by,
Cecilia Eckerson