Date: June 11, 2014



Board Members

Present: Joe Nicoloff, Michael Parker, Dave Decker, Roger Rawson, Gary Kluckman, Darren Onwiler, and Rich Hertel.

Quorum Present: Yes


Others Present

            Holishor Members Present: 17

Glenn Dalton, Kat Schuetz, and Rob Frey from the Holishor Office. Mark Eberhart with B&W Heating and Cooling.



Meeting called to order at 7:30 PM

Pledge of Allegiance Recited


Minutes of May 28, 2014

Michael Parker motions to approve, Dave Decker seconds.

Action: Motion carried.


Bills & Salaries

Gary Kluckman motions to approve, Dave Decker seconds.

Action: Motion carried.


Profit Loss Budget

Information Only.


Transfers of Property

Five Property Transfers. Information Only.


ManagerÕs Report

Read by Glenn Dalton


Security Report

Read by Glenn Dalton

63 incidents reported and 42 citations written. Animal incidents 5, Vehicle incidents 2, Property incidents 23, Incidents involving persons 5, Alarm responses 6, Incidents on the Lake 15, and Other incidents 7.


Treasury Report

Roger Rawson: The only major expenses that weÕve had here recently are the fireworks deposit of $8,000.

Discussion Roger Rawson asks how long the contract is for the fireworks. Glenn Dalton states that we are in our last year. It was a three year contract. We renew the contract after we do this yearÕs show. Joe Nicoloff states that they give us three options. We can prepay and get extra fireworks for free, we can do it half and half like weÕve been doing and get so many extra fireworks, or we can just pay after the show.  Dave Decker states that usually the office submits this to the Board before we make the down payment. In the years past, the Board makes the decision as to how we are going to pay. Dave states that usually the contract is given to us before the renewal date so we can make the decisions. Glenn Dalton states that they have not submitted it to us yet this year and I am going  to recheck that and see if it is going to expire this year.

Roger Rawson states that we had another major expense of $16,573.44 for our audit. Our income is at $863,702.53 which is about 88% of budget and our expenses are at $439,710.70 and thatÕs 48% of our budget. WeÕre six months into the year, so weÕre doing pretty good on that.

Dave Decker motions to approve.  Darren Onwiler seconds.

Action: Motion carried.


Committee Reports

Building Committee

Read by Michael Parker: The Building Committee cared for nine items at the May 20th and June 3rd meetings. Permits for two sheds, a house extension, an addition, a deck, a garage, a pool, a cover over a patio, and one house were approved.


Boating Committee

Read by Michael Parker: The Boating Committee met on June 3rd with all committee members present. Glenn Dalton, Lake Manager, asked for a recommendation for a safe distance that any watercraft must allow for when following behind any water skier or person being towed on such objects as tubes, kneeboards, etc. The committee recommendation is 100 feet or greater. The committee is recommending Monte Thus for Boating Committee Chairman.

Dave Decker motions to approve Monte Thus as the Boating Committee Chairman. Darren Onwiler seconds.

Action: Motion approved.


Restaurant Committee

Kenneathia Williams gives the Restaurant Committee report. Candidate packet submissions were due Friday, June 6th and we have received one packet and awaiting the return of seven packets. The Restaurant Committee will meet on Monday, June 12th and Friday, June 13th for the qualified candidates, finalize interview questions, and begin scheduling interviews.

Since this was submitted, we have had revisions. We would like to provide an update to the information that was submitted on Friday, June 6th. We received four packets from all potential candidates. The Restaurant Committee met on Monday, June 9th and a blind candidate selection process was conducted. Each committee member had the opportunity to review each anonymous candidate and rank them from an overview report. The ranking process was efficient and very effective. The committee unanimously blindly selected the best candidate of the four and it was evident that this candidate was stronger than all other candidates that submitted. An interview has been scheduled for Monday, June 16th with this candidate and the Restaurant Committee. An update report of the interview will be provided to the Board before the next Board of Directors meeting. Joe Nicoloff asks what was the recommendation that the Restaurant Committee had on  the other three candidates that submitted. Kenneathia answers that the Restaurant Committee is interviewing the top candidate. ThatÕs where we stand at this moment. Dave Decker asks if the Restaurant Committee wanted to interview the other candidates.  Kenneathia answers that the Restaurant Committee feels like the top candidate stood out over and above the other candidates so strongly that we would like to pursue him first. We feel as a Restaurant Committee that the top candidate would fill the needs of the community and we are going to start with that candidate. Conversation ensues.


Village Incorporation Committee

Read by Michael Parker: The committeeÕs objective is to investigate the possibilities of incorporating Holiday Shores as a Village. This investigation will include the answering the following  concerns: Is it feasible to incorporate under Illinois Municipal Code 65 ILCS 5/2-3-5a? If so, what are the necessary steps to incorporate? What are the advantages and disadvantages of incorporation? Property taxes versus dues and assessments? Privacy of the lake (i.e. residents and guests only)? Sales taxes, motor fuel taxes, etc.? What are the costs? These are some of the obvious issues that we will be investigating and more will be added as we get deeper into this incorporation process. The following residents are a

Joe Nicoloff: IÕve reached out to people in the community. Some have expressed an interest from the annual meeting and our Facebook page who are interested in joining. IÕve talked to Ken Dulle who was on this in 1984. He has agreed to chair the committee. The other members of the committee right now will be Kent Scheibel (retired Madison County Board member), Bob Lowrance (Real Estate Appraiser), Tim Thompson (Realtor), John George (Realtor), Monte Thus, and Gene Magac. Our council will be Andy Corruthers. Dave Decker asks if Andy would be at all of the committee meetings. Joe Nicoloff answers no. Andy has been involved with a lot of the smaller communities. We were going to have him come into the first meeting to explain his knowledge about this to the committee members. Dave Decker asks if the committee members are going to be able to reach out to him directly. Joe Nicoloff answers no. They have to go to Glenn first. Dave Decker states that it needs to come to the Board in order for them to contact our lawyer. Joe states that they will not be contacting Andy directly.

Darren Onwiler makes motion to approve the Village Incorporation Committee. Rich Hertel seconds.

Action: Motion approved.


Lakes and Dams Committee

Roger Groth (1027): We are recommending three additional no wake buoys in the entrances to Jib and Tunnel Cove. The map you have in front of you shows the existing 75ft shoreline buoys. We are requesting three more. The entrance to these two coves is used as a turning point for quite a few boat operators. They are approaching on the shorelines in this area. As a Board, we have recommended that bringing that no wake buoy in Jib Cove further toward the entrance. The Board decided to leave that buoy back further into the cove. Joe Nicoloff states that what the Board did was agreed to move it further toward the entrance but the next meeting, members in that cove came up and said that everybody in that cove wanted it moved back. The Board then voted to move it back. Little did we know, not everybody in that cove wanted the buoy moved back. Roger Groth states that his point in the placement of these three buoys. Also, the Lakes and Dams Committee are going to be checking the distance of the current buoys. Roger Rawson asks how much weight is on those buoys. Roger Groth answers 80lbs. They seem to be holding position really well. Rich Hertel states that it is his understanding that thereÕs no buoy at all in that intersection. Roger Groth answers that there are none. There are two at the entrance that serve more of a purpose for entering as youÕre coming down the lake. We donÕt have anything thatÕs helping with turns inside of those two coves. Rich Hertel states that he doesnÕt even see how the skiers can make a turn in that cove with the narrowness of it. Roger Groth states that the narrowest dimension is as you go down Tunnel Cove and it gets broader as you go into Jib Cove. We consider our measurements to be accurate. WeÕve debated the idea that those should be in and out coves. When you create 75ft from each side, thereÕs really not a whole lot of room to turn in those. Rich Hertel states that if we go by our rules in those coves, thereÕs no way legally that a boat can make those turns. Roger Groth states that by putting those buoys there in visible locations to have a line of sight coming in and a line of sight coming out, it will actually help boat operators decide whether or not they can turn while towing somebody in there. The buoy is to give the operator a visual point reference. Joe Nicoloff clarifies that on the map, there are three buoys that are recommended to be added in the entrance of Jib Cove and Tunnel Cove. Dave Decker asks if we need all three buoys. Darren Onwiler states that thatÕs the way it was presented in the fall whenever it was originally voted on. Roger Groth states that he considers all these buoy placements as judgmental. ThereÕs no right or wrong. This is our recommendation. Two is better than none. One probably wonÕt serve a whole lot of purpose. Darren Onwiler states that he still fails to see why the Board is voting on this again because weÕve voted on it before. Joe Nicoloff answers that when we voted on it before, we didnÕt know it was coming from the Lakes and Dams Committee. We thought it was coming from one person. Dave Decker states that the reason he asks about the multiple buoys is because I think thereÕs a couple lot owners in that area that would like to see them but there was one that didnÕt. ThatÕs why I was asking if there was an all or nothing. Joe Nicoloff states that the problem is that in our rules you canÕt be closer than 75ft and create a wake. They are giving the boaters a reference point that they shouldnÕt be anywhere closer than this to the shore. I would think that even if you were a property owner, you would like to have that there. Dave Decker states that one of them stood up and said they didnÕt want it. Gerry Theodor (1346) states that the last time this was brought up, this same discussion ensued. ItÕs not only the boats and the skiers over there thatÕs causing the problems. There are more problems caused by the PWCs in the circles that they make. They are the ones who are violating the 75ft rule more than skiers. Don Austin (281) states that one of those buoys is out in front of my lot. On three separate occasions; twice this year, there was a pontoon parked there. They were skiing in and skiing around it and back out. I witnessed a person turn, and the skier came close enough that they could have touched the tree thatÕs on my lot. ItÕs a safety issue. All they have to do is lose that rope and theyÕre into the rocks or into the boards. ItÕs a line of sight. We need a line of sight buoy out there to help them. Rich Hertel states that if you donÕt have all three buoys, the boaters are thinking that if there is one buoy on one side, they can just go to the other side. I think you really need the traffic pattern identified because those are so narrow.

Rich Hertel makes motion to approve the placement of the three recommended buoys. Dave Decker seconds.

Dave Decker and Rich Hertel vote yes.

Michael Parker, Darren Onwiler, Roger Rawson, and Gary Kluckman vote no.

Action: Motion denied.

Dave Decker asks if any of the Board members would like to talk about less than three buoys. Darren Onwiler asks if Don Austin had a buoy out there in front of his lot. Glenn Dalton answers yes. When we went out and reviewed all of the buoys other than those that were put in by the Association, Don did have buoys out in front of his lot. They werenÕt at 75ft. They were about 50ft. Don took those out himself. Roger Groth (1027) states that the rules are that anything that goes into the lake has to be approved by the Board. Whenever our committee is out there and we have observed something thatÕs been added to the lake and wasnÕt added officially, we asked that it be removed. In fairness to Don, he had two little markers out there in front of his place for a long time. When we got to looking at buoys, we couldnÕt really consider those buoys because theyÕve never been approved. Don was kind enough to remove them. I said we could get some buoys in here to protect this cove like it should be protected. There was another guy who had a device anchored out there on the entrance to Tunnel Cove that he tried to tie up to give him some swim protection from boaters in that cove. We asked him to remove it as well. Every time we see something like that, we act on it. For some reason, we seem to be squeezing this coveÕs markers. Dave Decker asks Roger Groth if there used to be personal buoys on two sides of that cove. Roger Groth answers that they were unauthorized orange and white markers. Glenn Dalton states that DonÕs markers have been there since IÕve been here. The others were placed later. All were asked to be removed. Kenneathia Williams (1991) states that lots 1990 and 1991 are her lots. Over a holiday weekend, there was a lot of boat activity. We sit on our point and we watch pontoons and jet skis and fishing boats all go inside of that 75ft marker. When they come from the ski beach area up the lake and make that corner turn, they do not see that buoy so they come within. We had 10-12 children swimming that day. So we took noodles and ski rope and made an area that was about 10ft off of the corner of the point so they could at least that there was someone swimming. People are not used to little children swimming in that area. We were asked to remove it. It was an all weekend thing. We did abide by the rules. It was a temporary fix so our children were safe in the water that weekend. Roger Rawson asks Kenneathia if she would be in favor of this buoy on her side. Kenneathia states that she personally thinks that putting a buoy behind and existing buoy thatÕs there isnÕt going to help. If youÕre looking at it for a sight line, it would need to be put somewhere off of the main channel. The issue is coming out of fisherman and party cove and coming around the corner. Rich Hertel asks Kenneathia if she would be okay with a buoy being placed by her lot. Kenneathia answers that the Board would have to ask Shaun Hagan that. Roger Rawson states that the no wake buoy for tunnel cove is probably out in front of 1992. Pam Maibaum (2088) states that the no wake buoy is to the left of her just off of the common property.  Don Austin (281) asks Dave Decker if he had some place in mind to place less than the three buoys recommended. Dave Decker answers that he was talking about the placing one in front of 281 and one between 346 and 347 because Jib Cove seems to be more of an issue as opposed to Tunnel Cove. I was trying to work down the process. If three is too many, it two too many. Darren Onwiler states that we have had buoys off of 281 for at least ten years. Darren asks Don Austin if those seemed to help. Don answers that they seemed to help from his standpoint because IÕve been swimming out there and they cut that corner going around my dock. Darren Onwiler states that his logic is that in the past, even though they werenÕt approved, weÕve had buoys off of 281. In the past, that has worked. We do have two buoys out on the point. You could maneuver yourself to where you couldnÕt see those but I would think about replacing the buoys out in front of 281 even though the original ones werenÕt approved. Roger Rawson states that he would have interest putting one off of 281 and at the line of 347 and 346. Pam Maibaum (2088) states that she isnÕt opposed to putting a buoy at 281. I have never seen someone coming out of Jib Cove and into Tunnel Cove. Once you have so many of these things in the water they get to be a hazard at some point. To me, a majority of people that are coming in off the lake and trying to turn around are doing it right there off of DonÕs lot. (281). I see no problem with DonÕs buoy but I donÕt see the necessity off of 347 or the one off of 1990.

Darren Onwiler makes motion to place a single buoy off of 281. Michael Parker seconds.

Rich Hertel abstains.

Action: Motion carried.

Rich Hertel states that most people ski in and ski out of that cove and I personally think that by putting the buoy at 346, itÕs going to pretty much make people think twice before they do the u turn and come back out full power. I think that for the safety of the lake and the people in that cove and skiers, we should make this a ski in and ski out cove without making it really a rule. I think the buoy would greatly enhance people to think twice before theyÕre going to do that if they knew where the markers were. Don Austin (281) thanks the Board for voting to place the buoy at 281. However, if you donÕt put one on the other side, theyÕre going to encroach more on that side. Roger Rawson asks if they have been encroaching more on that side much. Don answers yes, thatÕs the way the lake is. I havenÕt seen them encroaching more on that side but when they come in they get really close to my side. Dave Decker states that we can go ahead and address a second buoy tonight. Roger Rawson states that we can always add another buoy and to wait and see what the traffic is going to be like after placing the buoy at 281. I understand the purpose of buoys but it is starting to look cluttered out on the water. Darren Onwiler states that was my logic as well. ThatÕs why I made the original motion to put a buoy off of 281.

Rich Hertel makes motion to place a buoy between lots 346 and 347.

Action: Motion dies for lack of second.

Boating Committee

Discussion: Dave Decker asks if we are going to discuss the makeup of the Boating Committee. Last year there was discussion about trying to make sure there werenÕt Board members on that committee and now there are two. Is this still an issue or is it not? Joe Nicoloff says that what we have talked about from when we re-did the Boating Committee, there were not going to be Board members on that committee. Basically what IÕm trying to do on all these committees is to get members involved in these committees. That way they bring it to the Board instead of a Board member being out there trying to direct. I was the members to be on these committees. Joe asks if Roger Rawson and Rich Hertel were resigning from that committee. Rich Hertel states that he would like to stay on it. Roger Rawson states that he would like to stay on but at the Boating Committee meeting, that was discussed and I was going to leave that up to the chairman to decide who his committee was going to be. Joe Nicoloff states that the way it was set up last year is we were putting one person from each kind of discipline on that committee so the whole association was represented there. Glenn Dalton recommends that since Monte Thus just became the chair of the Boating Committee that we let him consider what he wants to do with his committee and then come back to the Board.


Holiday Times Committee

Joe Nicoloff: Another thing that was brought up at the Annual Meeting was making the Holiday Times digital. We can get paid advertising for links. What I would like to do it set up a committee to investigate the pros and cons similar to what the Village Incorporation Committee is doing. We are asking for volunteers for that committee. Dave Decker thinks itÕs a good idea to put a committee together to find out what options there are.

Dave Decker makes a motion to establish a Holiday Times Committee. Roger Rawson seconds.

Action: Motion carried.


Committee Updates

Hearing Committee

Chair: Joe Nicoloff

Michael Parker

Roger Rawson

Alan Huelsmann

Gerry Theodor

Brian Sciranko


Covenants, Bylaws, & Rule

Chair: Rich Hertel


Finance Committee

Chair: Roger Rawson

Dave Decker

Roger Groth

Tony Harris

David Maibaum

Discussion: Roger Rawson asks if he is allowed an assistant. If so, I have asked Tony Harris to assist me. He is an accountant. Roger asks if that needs Board approval. Joe Nicoloff answers yes. Dave Decker states that he is not familiar with the rules regarding Assistant Treasurers. Dave asks what the Assistant Treasurer would be authorized or required to do. Ray Garber (1822) states that he was an Assistant Treasurer and this was approved in the bylaws. It does need to be approved by the Board of Directors. Dave Decker asks what the roles and responsibilities are. Ray Garber answers that their role is to assist the Treasurer. Dave Decker requests that we push this subject to the next meeting so the Board has the opportunity to review the rules. Roger Rawson states that it would be okay with him.


Real Estate Committee

Chair: Alan Campbell

Linda Thus

Ray Garber

Dave Decker

Joe Nicoloff: This has been a committee that has been non-existent. The former chairman stopped a couple years ago. Alan Campbell has volunteered to chair this committee. Linda Thus has agreed to stay on, Ray Garber is still on there, and Dave Decker is on there. Dave Decker asks if Alan Campbell is a real estate agent. Joe Nicoloff answers yes. He works for Bev George. Roger Rawson states I was talking to Bob Lowrance the other day and was talking about reviving the Real Estate Committee and he had interest in that as well. Joe Nicoloff says that we need to Alan Campbell know that.

Michael Parker motions to approve Alan Campbell as the chair of the Real Estate Committee. Darren Onwiler seconds.

Dave Decker votes no.

Action: Motion carried.





Old Business

HVAC Presentation by B&W Heating & Cooling

Glenn Dalton explains that we are looking at replacing our HVAC unit. We have had a lot of problems with it in the past. We have 17 years on this current system. Not being electricians, we have a lot of questions. WeÕve had Chris Martinussen who has discussed some of our questions. One of the elements that Mark is going to discuss is his recommendation on how we should go forward. We do have two bidders who have come forward. There are some differences between the bids because of the spec that we wrote. The spec that we wrote had a lot of different entities in it. Mark has an opinion that some of those entities do not need to be addressed. With the current spec that we have, weÕre so far apart on the bids that we have. We want to come forward to the Board of Directors with some information that we have received. That will allow us to get our contractors together with the BoardÕs permission and we will work out a recommended direction that we need to go forward with. Joe Nicoloff asks Glenn to explain about the power that we have coming in. Glenn Dalton explains that when the clubhouse was first built, there was three-phase that was installed. When we started looking at our elements that required three-phase to operate, (which is our HVAC system and our elevator), that was change from three-phase to and add-a-phase system. From that, there are some issues that are currently out there. We have has Southwest Electric and their engineers involved with it as well. The way our current system operates, we donÕt currently use the three-phase that was brought into the clubhouse. There are only two phases that are currently being used and that is going to the add-a-phase which is currently providing our three-phase for the elevator and our HVAC system. Joe Nicoloff explains that our three-phase is not in the clubhouse, it is only over to the pad. Glenn explains that the way the three-phase runs, weÕve got a chute that is coming from a supply center over here, weÕve got another chute thatÕs coming from a supply center over here, and another chute thatÕs coming from a supply center over here. The one question that we have on that with that type of operation is reliability. If we lose power in any one of those three segments, we lose our HVAC and we lost our elevator. That has always been a big concern for us going forward in that direction. The issue that we are working with Southwest is if they will bring us a three-phase system all the way from one transformer or one power substation into the Association- That would be the three-phase that we really need, not what we currently have and of course thereÕs a high cost involved with that. Joe Nicoloff states that that happening is slim to very none.

Mark Eberhart: B&W Heating and Cooling, Wood River, IL. Gives a presentation on his recommendation on the HVAC system: Just for some basic background, what you have in your home is what we call single phase. You have two hot leads that come into your home; 115 Volts to ground on one lead and 115 Volts to ground on the other lead. When you go in between those two leads, you get 220 Volts. In laymanÕs terms, electricity is a wave. One wave goes this way and the other wave goes this way. When you cross the two, thatÕs where you get 220 Volts. What they do on three-phase is thereÕs another leg that goes vertically that gives you three-phase. You can make three-phase out of single phase. It is done with capacitors for starters. If you go out and look at the big silver box out there and take the cover off, there are 26 capacitors in there. For a bigger load, like the one you have here, they have what is called a rotary capacitor. You actually have two three-phase converters out here. ThereÕs a very big one which only runs the compressors and thereÕs a smaller one that runs the fan. It was a great design 18 years ago when they designed it because in the winter time, we only run the fan. Because we have gas heat, we only run the fan to blow the heat into here. It has been fairly reliable. The last two years, weÕve lost a circuit board on one of the converters and this year we had to change the points on the big converter. From the information that Glenn has given us about the power, I would have to agree. If we canÕt get true reliable three-phase in here, we should stick with the converter that we have, thereÕs not a lot of moving parts in it. The other question is Ôwhy do we need three-phase?Õ Anytime we go above 5 tons of air conditioning , which is probably a very big home in this area, in commercial equipment, then we go into three-phase. When you look at a building like Wal-Mart or other businesses like that, all of those units on the roof are three-phase. A lot of our strip malls are three-phase and our grocery stores are three-phase because of the coolers they use. The three-phase lowers our total average needs because we are dividing it by three instead of dividing it by two. ThatÕs why we have to have three-phase. This unit that sits out here currently in this space is a 25 ton window unit. For lack of a better term, thatÕs what it is. In a commercial industry, that is the most inexpensive way to package heating and cooling is to put it in one unit and drop it on the roof. The manufacturer that you currently have is YORK. What is unique about the YORK unit is when we get to these size units, above 15 tons, thereÕs only one manufacturer that makes a horizontal discharge unit. (Mark Eberhart from B&W Heating and Cooling proceeds to draw a diagram for the Board) If you look at the estimate I gave and then look at the estimate that the other contractors gave, thereÕs a huge difference in the cost. That is part of why I am here; to explain why my price is so much less. Since nobody else makes a horizontal discharge unit what they do is put another piece onto the existing unit which allows them to raise the unit and blow the air down to return it so it can come into the building. This adds a tremendous amount of cost adding the adaptor and all the duct work. The nice thing about this YORK system is that this current model is still in production and is not going out of production for at least another 15 years. What makes it inexpensive is we take the old unit, disconnect everything, take it off of the crane, and put a new one down. It is physically all the same dimensions. The labor savings is huge. We donÕt have to buy a $3,000 curve adaptor and we donÕt have to make the duct work. Most of the higher expense is in the labor. The amount of time it takes to make duct adaptions is significant. The electrical will unbolt and go right back in to where it is. The difference is between a unit that was built 17 years ago and a unit built today is significant in technology. Just like in a car, all the relays and everything in there are all gone. ItÕs all solid state controls. Before when we had an issue, we had to troubleshoot and diagnose and try to figure out whatÕs wrong. Now we have fault codes. Same thing that with a furnace that was in your house 20 years ago and the furnace you bought five years ago. Fault codes help the technician know whatÕs going on with the unit and helps diagnosing. Currently the one thing that I donÕt like about the design thatÕs out there is that it has six compressors in it. Each is a four ton compressor which are hooked together and combined into two. That was the way it was design 18 years ago. TodayÕs modern unit has two 12.5 ton Copeland Scroll compressors. My expert opinion is that no one makes a better compressor than Copeland Scroll. They have been around for over 25 years and they make commercial compressors. You will find a Copeland Scroll in the Lennox, the Ream, the Amana, and the Trane compressors. It gives us a better compressor and only two units instead of three. Your unit is a two stage unit. Right now it brings on two sets of compressors for the first stage and then a third set for the second stage. This one will be a 50/50. It brings on one compressor for the first stage and the second compressor for the second stage. Part of the proposal was to upgrade or change the add-a-phase system where the two major components; the circuit board in the one and the contactor in the other have both been replaced- there were not a lot of moving parts in there so I did not put that in my estimate at all. My opinion is that theyÕre built to last. Regarding the add-a-phase, considering the amount of money that it would take to bring in unreliable three-phase power, I think the add-a-phase system you have right now works. Until the last two years, weÕve never had a problem.

Discussion: Joe Nicoloff asks if the parts on the capacitors out there in the add-a-phase are still available to be changed out. Mark answers absolutely. Those capacitors retail about $40 a piece. There are 24. In the last five years, weÕve lost three. They are plates submerged in oil. Capacitors are relatively inexpensive. They will be available forever. That technology is not changing. Joe asks if they had issues trying to get the set of contactors replaced. Mark answers yes because the manufacturer doesnÕt make those points for that contact anymore so you go to a secondary market. It took me literally three days to find the right guy with the right parts. A replacement contactor at my cost was over $1,500. Putting points in it for less than $1,000 was the right move to make. Joe asks if there are more contact points in there that bad. Mark answers no. ThereÕs only one contactor which has six sets of points that have all been replaced. Joe asks about the light flicker that the building has when the HVAC unit comes on. Mark answer that thereÕs a lot of load when the HVAC unit starts up and youÕll see that come and go. Joe asks about the power consumption with a new unit compared to what we have. Mark answers that the minimum for the commercial changes came in in 2006. This unit is probably an eight SEER. This stands for Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio or Rating. Now the government mandates a minimum of ten. This will probably pick you up about 15% efficiency. Darren Onwiler states that Mark said that we didnÕt have any problems with the add-a-phase up until two years ago. Darren asks if there is some type of preventative maintenance or servicing that we should be doing that we havenÕt been doing. Mark answer that except for checking the capacitors every couple years, we check the voltage every time we service the unit. Roger Rawson asks if the blowers in the new unit are going to be DC drive. Mark answer no. It is not cost effective. Roger asks if the compressors take less energy to start up now. Mark answers yes. A scroll compressor starts unloaded whereas a reciprocating compressor with pistons in it is what we have now. A scroll compressor is a little bit easier starting. Dave Decker asks Mark to explain exactly whatÕs wrong with the unit we currently have. Mark explains that the unit that we currently have is working. We are looking down the road. It is 18 years old. We changed a set of compressors 5-7 years ago and we put a heat exchanger in it. That compressor change was $7,000. You donÕt want to spend any major dollars on an 18 year old unit. Other than that, your unit is functioning properly. Joe Nicoloff asks what the time frame would be if we were to call and say something is wrong to the time he can get the parts to fix it. Mark explains that it would depend on how fast the manufacturer sent the parts. The nice thing about this unit is that you wouldnÕt lose it all. If there were a catastrophe, you would be out two weeks. Rich Hertel asks what the life expectancy was on the original unit. Mark answers 15-20 years. Rich asks what the life expectancy would be on a new unit. Mark answer 20+ years. Joe Nicoloff asks if we should be sticking with the add-a-phase. Mark answers that it is a good solid system. If itÕs not a reliable three-phase, I would stick with the add-a-phase. Roger Rawson asks that on a standard three-phase, if there is a power problem, you can still lose one phase. Mark answers correct. It does not have three-phase protection. Roger asks if it will shut itself down to protect itself. Mark answers yes. If you lose one of your two legs, nothing is going to run. Joe Nicoloff asks that since we have gas heat, are there CO monitors on that. Mark answers no. Conversation ensues. Dave Decker asks if the Board can get an executive summary written up on this. Glenn Dalton answers yes.


Covenant Amendment Approval Status

Joe Nicoloff: WeÕve picked up a few votes. We need 291 affirmations to pass the amendment. Darren Onwiler asked if there was an updated list that was supposed to be provided to us. Joe answer that the list is still being updated and everyone will have this sent out to them.


New Business


Read by Michael Parker. At this time I am proud to announce that the Holiday Shores Fire Protection District has received good news from Insurance Services Organization (ISO). As a result of our recent review our ÒClassÓ has dropped from our previous 7 to its new rating- as of June 1st- of a 5. This is amazing news and should benefit our taxpayers through lower insurance premiums. Attached please find my comments that were presented to the public and members on June 2nd along with a few supporting documents. Thanks you for your ongoing support of the Holiday Shores Fire Protection District. Steve Cooper. Joe Nicoloff states that this is only for the areas that are protected by the Holiday Shores Fire Department. This does not affect the Prairietown volunteers. Glenn Dalton states that for those of you who are covered by the Holiday Shores Fire Protection District, contact your insurance company and make sure that they are aware that the ISO rating for your department has been reduced to a 5. It should be a savings on your insurance. Joe Nicoloff requests that the office make sure that this is added to the Facebook page.


Youth Committee Funds

Joe Nicoloff: The Youth Committee funds have been a discussion from the Social Committee, which the Youth Committee was under. The Youth Committee disbanded last year and there were some funds left which were being disbursed. There was a question on how to disburse those funds. Dave Decker volunteered to arbitrate between the Youth Committee and the Social Committee on what to do with the funds. Dave Decker explains that he went to research and went back to talk to a bunch of people. The Youth Committee actually disbanded in 2012. I talked to the President of the Social Committee at the time the Youth Committee was created. I talked to the President after that. I met with the Social Committee last Wednesday. I also met with Youth Committee representatives. Basically at this point, I have gone back to the Youth Committee to ask them to put together their proposal for the distribution of the funds and where they want it to go. The contention between the two groups is primarily that the Social Committee states that they wouldnÕt approve any distribution of any of those funds outside of Holiday Shores. The Youth Committee wants to distribute those to the larger community, not just Holiday Shores. The Social Committee took a vote on Wednesday and it had to stay in Holiday Shores. At that time I informed them that the Youth Committee wouldnÕt agree to that so it had to come back to the Board for their decision. I will put together a packet and present it at the next Board meeting and we can make the decision at that point. Joe Nicoloff asks if Dave got a confirmation on the dollar amount. Dave answers yes. The Social Committee and the Youth Committee agreed that it was roughly $1,800. ThereÕs no dispute over that number.




Watercraft Decals

Roger Rawson: Under our rules- Under Marine Identification, It states that only the current Holiday Shores watercraft decal will be displayed on the watercraft. All expired decals will be removed before current decal is affixed. That was brought up in a Boating Committee meeting last year. I understand that security does not issue any warnings on this. This is a rule that weÕre not enforcing. Should this rule be enforced or should we abandon this rule because I have noticed a lot of boats have multiple stickers. If it is something that we donÕt want to enforce, we should remove the rule. IÕm not in favor of picking which rules we do and donÕt enforce. Joe Nicoloff states I donÕt even know where to approach that because IÕve seen boats ever since IÕve been out here that have stickers lined up. I donÕt know if the prior Boards have done anything with this. It doesnÕt make sense that we have a rule and donÕt enforce it. Roger Rawson asks the Board if they think it should be enforced or if it should be eliminated. Darren Onwiler asks Glenn Dalton if he thinks it causes any issues with reading what the current sticker is. Glenn Dalton answers that they use it as a status symbol to show how many years theyÕve had a registered watercraft on the lake. We have tried to enforce this in the past right after I got here and basically it was indicated to us that we need to really just let things go with that regard. So we didnÕt continue to do it. If the Board wants us to enforce that rule we can. Is it going to make people happy within this community, no itÕs not. Darren asks Glenn that if the additional stickers are left on there would your staff still be able to effectively determine if the boat has a current sticker. Glenn answers yes and weÕve been doing it for a number of years like that. It makes it a little more difficult but yes, we have been doing it. Joe Nicoloff asks what percentage of boats have multiple stickers. Rob Frey (General Manager) answers that more than half of the boats out on the lake have multiple stickers. It does take more time to establish if they have a current sticker. It does slow the boater down. You have to stop them and engage in conversation. It does take more time. Is it an inconvenience, a little bit, but it also shows that weÕre doing our job. Joe Nicoloff agrees with Roger Rawson that we need to clean this up. We are either going to enforce it or weÕre going to remove it. Since we have a new Covenant Rules and Bylaws Committee chairman, Joe asks Rich Hertel to remove the rule and write a new one and we can discuss at the next meeting. Rich Hertel states that if the thought is to abandon the rule since most people probably donÕt know about it, we should make a motion to abandon the rule now and be done with it. Dave Decker states that there is a lot more to that rule than just the one line. Rich Hertel states that he will rewrite it eliminating that to make a motion.


No Wake Red Lights

Roger Rawson: We have previously talked about the no wake red lights being on an astronomical timer. I asked Glenn Dalton if they could be programed any way we wanted. The clubhouse light is not going off at all and I donÕt see a purpose in it. ItÕs dark. People know itÕs dark. ItÕs just another light in your eyes when youÕre out enjoying a nice moonlit night on a pontoon. IÕve been out several nights being the only boat out there and the red lights are on 10 and 11 at night. Glenn Dalton states that what we are trying to do it program them to go off at 10pm. We are having problems with the one at the clubhouse right now because itÕs coming on in the middle of the day. We didnÕt know that there was a problem with it at night. Roger Rawson asks whatÕs wrong with 30-45 minutes after sunset. Can we program these to go off 30 minutes after sunset? Glenn Dalton answers that if you want to change that, weÕll be happy to. Roger asks Glenn what the purpose in 10:00 was. Glenn answers that because later in the summer, itÕs going to be daylight until 9 or a little after. Roger Rawson states that an astronomical timer can be programed 30 minutes after any period of time. Dave Decker states that he would put it at least an hour after dark. Darren Onwiler agrees with Dave that it needs to be a minimum of an hour after.

Roger Rawson makes a motion to have the no wake lights turned off one hour after sunset. Dave Decker seconds.

Action: Motion carried.

Michael Parker votes no.


Gary Kluckman asks Joe Nicoloff when they have the no wake lights set to turn back on. Joe states that they come on at sunrise. Gary states that the lights need to come on one hour before sunrise because of the individuals who want to fish early in the morning. Conversation ensues.

Dave Decker makes a motion that the no wake lights come back on an hour before sunrise. Gary Kluckman seconds.

Action: Motion carried.

Michael Parker and Rich Hertel vote no.





Open Floor


Pam Maibaum (2088)- In Regard to Board members being on committees; I appreciate what Joe is saying when trying to make sure there arenÕt any Board members on the Boating Committee. There seems to be a different set of criteria for each of the committees. This is concerning to a lot of us because all of you already have a voice. While I appreciate that Rich and Roger both want to be on the Boating Committee, you choose how you serve, and you have the highest office here. It would seem to me that the best course of action is for those Board members on the committee not have a vote at those meetings. It doesnÕt make sense to have them affecting a policy only to come to the Board to vote on that very policy. To my knowledge, it is not a power of this Board to choose committee members. It is only the power of this Board to choose a chair. It is up to that chair to then put that committee together. I hope that Monte and all of the other committee chairs will be allowed to do that. Joe Nicoloff states that with the Finance Committee it has historically been the Treasurer of the Board that is the chair. I would like to get all members on these committees. We reached out to people for the Finance Committee and they accepted. WeÕre trying to get members on these committees. Pam states that it concerns me that the Rules Committee chair has been given to a Board member. That concerns me because I have asked many times where these rules come from. No offense to the current chairman but there are people who come onto this Board for certain reasons and itÕs going to become evident very quickly what direction weÕre going to be going in with rule making. It should not be a committee of one. Please put out a plea to the community for that committee as well as replacing the chair as soon as possible.


Gerry Theodor (1346)- I think you should explain the chairman on the Rules Committee. That person just writes proposed rules. They donÕt generate the rules themselves. ThereÕs a misconception there with that.


Joe Roth (1030)- I donÕt understand why Board members would want to be on a committee. Dave Decker states itÕs because they care. Joe states that being on the Boating Committee, I donÕt think there should be Board members on there. They already have the ultimate decision anyway. We only propose to the Board. If you already have Board members on the committees, theyÕre proposing to themselves. Also, I feel like the Holiday Shores stickers should be like the Illinois license plate stickers. YouÕre only supposed to have one sticker on at a time. You canÕt legally have 40 of them all around your car. When I found out that we already have the rule, I was questioning where the lake managers have been. If you donÕt want to have the rule, it shouldnÕt be in there.


Wayne Huck (982)- At the Annual Meeting it was brought up that the tennis courts were going to be resurfaced. I thought this would be the perfect time to bring in pickle ball in addition to the tennis courts. In order to play pickle ball on the same court, you would have to add a yellow line. Both sports could be played on the same court. Wayne is asked by the Board to give us a layout of the pickle ball court. Conversation ensues.


Ray Garber (1822)- In regards to having a Board member on the committees; I think in a lot of cases it may not be necessary to have a Board member, but thereÕs an advantage to having a Board member on a committee. The Finance Committee would be a different situation. You have to have a wider body of information for the decisions you have to make.


Gerry Theodor (1346)- Pam is right on with how the appearance isnÕt good by having a Board member on a committee. I donÕt see a problem with Board members being on committees but I think the members at large should be a big part of it. Also, I understand how difficult it is to get people to participate. I think you should call the Rules Committee something different than a committee. What that person does is write a proposed rule that came from the Board so that itÕs legal and covers all the bases.


Michael Parker makes a motion to move to executive session. Darren Onwiler seconds. Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m.


Meeting minutes submitted by Rich Hertel.