Date: March 13, 2013
Present: Don Austin, David Decker, Joe Nicoloff, Jason Hicks, Gary Kluckman, Michael Parker & Gerald Theodor.
††††††††††† Quorum Present: Yes
††††††††††† Holishor Members Present 8
††††††††††† Glenn Dalton and Michelle Magos from Holishor Office
Meeting called to order at
Pledge of Allegiance Recited
Board Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2013
David Decker motions to approve, Jason Hicks seconds.
Action: Motion carries.
Transfers of Property †
3 Transfers. Informational Only
Bills & Salaries
Don Austin: We had a leak in the roof, Glenn hired a company to come out and see where the leak was and they indicated we had some tremendous storm damage and it wasnít properly installed to start with. The insurance company came out, looked at it and paid for everything except what our deductible was. Thereís a brand new roof on the building now.
Gerald Theodor motions to approve, Jason Hicks seconds.
Action: Motion carries.
Profit & Loss
Read by Glenn Dalton
Jason Hicks: With regards to the lights, is there a reason we canít get all three of those synced up together? Iíd actually like to know the cost difference. Thereís a potential in my mind for some confusion, if someone knows there is a light out there and it isnít on.
Glenn Dalton: The cost, Jason. Thatís why we indicate those two lights at the dam and the North end are only for high or low water periods. Sunrise to sunset is the common rule. Itís uniform throughout the community. I can get you a cost.
Don Austin: It might be worthy just to find out what that cost would be.
Read by Glenn Dalton
14 total incidents and 4 citations writtenó1 animal, 5 vehicle, 1 property, 3 persons, 3 alarms and 1 other.
David Decker motions to approve, Gerald Theodor seconds.
Action: Motion carries.
Building Committee Report
Read by Joe Nicoloff
5 items cared for at the February 19 & March 5, 2013-permits for 2 fences, 1 house and 2 refunds for completed projects were approved.
Covenant Amendment Discussion
Don Austin: As you are aware, we have reopened the covenant amendment approval because of a glitch in our last procedure. It was sent out in the Times on a front to back page, which it was supposed to be but it didnít turn out that way so we need to get that altered. But it was submitted in the Times and on our website. To date we have 18 approvals so far, we have a total of 1763 and we need 1176 for completion and approval to pass the new covenants. States approval forms are available at the meeting.
Recommended Heights on Seawalls
Don Austin: The Lakes and Dams Committee brought this up some time ago to us and due to our covenant and everything else we have been trying to get done it slid and we didnít get it pushed any further. Two things weíve brought up because of the wakes that we have out here. One is a boat issue which we will discuss later and the other one is what to do in the future down the road with the seawalls and how to manage that and the building of them. Itís not going to be an easy way to go and Roger has taken the time and his committee to sit down and write a very detailed report here.
Roger Groth 1027: The board had asked the Lake Committee to look into the heighth of seawalls. As near as we could determine there had never been a seawall height standard established out here. The Association has installed survey benchmarks. Itís pretty clear to us that when seawalls are topped the erosion gets accelerated or increased. We went through 2009 with really significant high water events. It was pretty evident through that high water point that there are a lot of seawalls that are just barely above full pool. For those of us that survey the lake annually we can see where those seawalls get topped and they erode behind them. Itís very common. Also we were asked to consider the effect of high wake action on seawalls. Weíve come along and recommended a height. I think you all have that in front of you, and thatís our best estimate of what we think a reasonable height should be. As we look as this there is probably a difference in seawall erosion protection on the main lake, in the wake areas, versus the non-wake areas. There is probably room for two different standards there. Thatís what we presented quite some time ago.
Don Austin: What I would like to see Roger if you could do this and Gerry, part of the Building Committee, if you two could get together with this. Up until this point we have not really had a stable rule that we could go out and tell people how high that seawall needs to be. States different kinds of seawalls and materials they are made of. If Lakes and Dams can get together with the Building Committee, look over what Rogerís team has suggested, which I think is a very good listing of things to look at, and see if they can come up with a livable, workable suggestion on where we should go. If it leads into a decent proposal I would also like to see the Rules Committee come up with some stronger wording for down the road, future heights, a little bit more than suggested heights but recommended heights. Thatís just my opinion.
Jason Hicks: I like whatís written here. My first inclination is to recommend these be suggestions to homeowners as opposed to forcible requirements.
Roger Groth 1027: This is not easy work to do. Thereís not much out there on this subject that fits an inland lake. Itís going to take effort on our part to come up with a workable proposal. Weíve been waiting on some go ahead from the board. The issue of how you implement it, that Jason brought up, is a very valid point. None of us believe that we can mandate to existing homeowners that they add to their existing seawalls. We just think thatís cost prohibitive and harsh. How we get people to do it is another story. We need to figure that out. Iím sure there are homeowners, who over the years have had their seawall deteriorated, Iím sure they were looking for some information on what to do. They probably relied on contractors more than anyone else to tell them what to do. If you are going to deal with a vertical seawall, say a concrete seawall, and you go to replace what you had or you want to add 6 inches to that, thatís a hell of a cost. What we will probably be looking at is things like slanted walls, probably lean towards rip rap construction and if we do that those are usually the cheaper method, the cheaper seawall that we think maybe more effective for wake rebound action but we all canít get rip rap on our properties. The board is going to have to be open to the idea of putting a barge on the lake for rip rap because there are an awful lot of landscaping scenarios where we canít get rip rap in this quantity down to the lake. There are ramifications to think about with this.
David Decker: There are really two major components to this thing. There is height and the other is construction. Looking at those two separately might be a good approach. Explains the height would be easier to discuss. On the construction, are we leaning towards coming up with a requirement or a recommendation and/or do not use?
Roger Groth 1027: I donít know Dave. We donít have that figured out yet. Explains there would be several variations depending on the situation and the seawall. There would have to be a variance process also.
Glenn Dalton: Explains how high wake and low wake levels would have to be taken into consideration also.
Roger Groth 1027: The board came to us and asked if we could talk about wake boats effect. We obviously acknowledge on this that wakes cause erosion. We really lack data regarding the heights of wakes to restrict one boating activity over another. We do think that itís very important, really important, for the association to enforce the 75 foot standoff distance on our buoys that are out there. There are too many incidents of boats incroaching on the shoreline at high speed. We were asked why is it 75 feet and why should it be 125 feet. What we found in measuring a bunch of our coves and things is that about 150 foot is the point at which you donít want to wake in a cove, thereís no turn around distance and things like that. It seemed reasonable that half of that 150 is 75. We didnít recommend anything more then that. We do recommend strict enforcement of that 75 foot. The other thing we were recommending is a restriction on when wake boats are allowed to operate. When weíre at the maximum lake level those wakes have a whole other effect than when we are 3 inches below normal. We recommend a yellow light process where we limit wake boat operations to a more narrow lake level range. We were also recommending that the current wake boats be grandfathered in but no future ones be allowed. States comparisons between wake boats and other boats and feels different information packets should be handed out to owners of different kinds of boats when receiving their boat decals.
Rich Hertel 679: Going back to seawall height, I didnít hear a number, is there a number being thought of right now? A lot of people built their boat docks and seawalls the same height. Mentions when he moved out here and how he built his and how others had done theirs the same. Something to think about there. Back in the late 90ís the board was really pushing for lake beautification and part of that was to fix seawalls. They loved the concrete blocks and now we seem to be leaning the other way because of certain activities that go on out on the lake. I know I spent a ton of money on mine. If you look at the old rip rap seawalls, people just donít take care of them. On the wake boat thing, most lake associations have banned the use of any wake making options. We seem to be one of very few lakes that permit this on the lake. Thereís going to come a time when there is an accident. States several people have complained of almost being knocked out of their boats.
Roger Groth 1027: The seawall at the clubhouse right now is 5066 and we are recommending 5079.
States if the seawall at the clubhouse was rebuilt it would cost several dollars.†
Boating Rule Changes
INSERT CURRENT AND PROPOSED
Rich Hertel 679: The reason that the water ballast was put in there originally is that some people out here feel that if you load your boat up with, letís say, 1800 pounds of water that it is not subtracted from the carrying capacity of a boat. If your boat has a capacity of 2200 pounds and you put 1800 pounds of water in your boat so your kid can wakeboard you have 400 pounds left before you exceed that. That means your driver and maybe one kid can ride in the boat and thatís it. Thatís the reason some of that stuff was put in there specifically so people will at least be aware of it. I know there was a discussion about this a year ago. Based on the construction of these boats, whether you have a ballast in it or not, the weight capacity is the same. When itís filled with water, when youíre sitting at the gunwale 6 inches above the water loaded down, youíre close to having a problem.
Jason Hicks: Thatís a valid point but whenever we had these discussions a while back there were some counterpoints actually and it seemed there were some discrepancies based on the manufacturer of the boat. Some of them accounted for the allowable ballast on that boat and some of them didnít.
Rich Hertel 679: I was here the night that was discussed. I did call the manufacturers and they say whatever is on that plate, that is it. If you add water to it, you are reducing your people capacity or whatever capacity youíve got. Explains how you need to subtract the amount of water from your people capacity and you can check specs online.
Jason Hicks: It depends on the manufacturer.
Don Austin: Some time ago we were challenged by one of our members that we needed to show due diligence in our property sales. I called a quorum of people and not everybody got called because I couldnít get a hold of you. I told Glenn to put together a meeting with the realtors out here that advertise in our Holiday Times to come out and give us some suggestions and tell us where we need to go and how to divide up the lots that we want to sell. Glenn did that. We met Tuesday and had a very successful meeting in where we divided up the lots. I wanted to put that on record, make sure everyone on the board is happy with it because I havenít told them to go forward yet and do it.
David Decker:† Just to clarify, we had a meeting with the realtors and itís a recommendation that we move forward with listing our lots, listing some of our lots, with the realtors that advertise in the Holiday Times.
Don Austin: That is correct. Thatís how we selected the people to get the listings.
David Decker motions to approve to list association lots with real estate agents to put on the MLS listing, Gerald Theodor seconds.
Jason Hicks: Asks about any details because he was unable to attend that meeting.
Gerald Theodor: One important aspect is, in fairness, we gave them each an equal number and they drew them, we did a draw. They drew the lot numbers. We kept it as fair as we could.
Don Austin: Put them all in a hat and they drew the numbers.
Jason Hicks: Did they have any questions or concerns to the board?
Don Austin: They gave us some decent ideas and we told them we wanted them to go out and prepare a proposal for us as to what needed to be done as far as what they suggested, how we should go about doing it. I didnít want to get into the details of commissions or anything else. Thatís all their business, I donít care. We have ours written and weíve also received one proposal back from one person so we will look them over and go forward but I just need an assurance from everybody that what weíve done, weíre going in the right direction and Iíll sign the document when they permit it after weíve had a chance to review it.
Gerald Theodor: The only thing that might be for discussion is length of time.
Don Austin: We discussed that and they felt, all 3 of them, that no less than a year. That was their suggestion.
Action: Motion carries.
Corey McConnell Award
Don Austin: One of the things we do every year is to try to find a worthy person in the association to award exceptional service to the association. Their name will be put on a plaque.
Jason Hicks: Recommends contacting the committees and clubs to see if they have any input.
Pam Maibaum 2088: I just wanted to clarify with the covenant vote; it was for the affirmative only. Is that correct? What is it? So, Iíve been using the wrong word for months?
Joe Nicoloff: Itís not a vote. Itís a covenant amendment affirmation. You are just agreeing to this covenant amendment.
Don Austin: So had we. Legal corrected us, thatís why weíve gone back out with this. We were using what we thought to be the right verbiage.
Jason Hicks: States if they donít agree with it, they simply donít sign.
Pam Maibaum 2088: At some point itís very possible weíre not going to have enough votes for this to pass and weíre going to have to go hunting people. Weíre not going to know if they didnít vote because they want to vote no, not amend whatever. How will you know?
Joe Nicoloff: We will know in the office. We keep tallies of whoís voted.
Pam Maibaum 2088: Say you have 900 votes, now we need to call 300 people, maybe those 299 wanted to vote no but they canít tell us. So the follow up will be via mail or be via phone call?
Jason Hicks: We already have a list of people that voted yes the first go around.†
Glenn Dalton: States the board wanted to try to do this through it being in the Holiday Times and the website as a way to save mass mailing which would cost around 3000 dollars. States that those that have not voted will get one in the mail and a letter explaining it.
Don Austin: States that some people have already volunteered to go door to door if needed.
Jason Hicks moves to adjourn to executive session, Jason Hicks seconds.
Meeting Adjourns at 8:49 p.m.
Meeting minutes submitted by Joe Nicoloff.††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††