MINUTES OF THE MONTHLY BOARD MEETING

SECTOR 2A AT SNOHOMISH CASCADE ASSOCIATION

7:00 PM WEDNESDAY  JANUARY 12, 2005

 

CALL TO ORDER / APPROVAL OF MINUTES

  1. Tim Rizzo called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm.  Present were Tim Rizzo, Sue Ann Goldman, Steve Yandl, Bill Steenis, John Patterson, Betty Malowney, Bill Malowney, and Duane Oord.
  2. Steve Yandl informed the group that the minutes of the December meeting had not been modified from the copies distributed and the version posted on the web page for the past month.  Steve asked for any corrections or any objections to waiving a formal reading of those minutes.  No changes or objections were voiced.  Sue Ann Goldman made the motion to accept the December minutes, Tim Rizzo seconded and the motion was carried 6 – 0.

ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE REPORT

  1. John Patterson stated that there were no new issues to report on from the committee.
  2. Steve Yandl indicated that he had contacted the homeowner at lot 2-1-006 regarding her shed roof where it was recently noticed to have composite shingles.  The homeowner had not been aware of the requirement that the roof be done in cedar shake and is now making arrangements to correct the situation.
  3. Homeowner Duane Oord (lot 1-0-086) had asked to attend this meeting so that he might appeal the action of the Architectural Control Committee to begin fining him on January 1 over landscape maintenance non compliance issues.
    1. Mr. Oord distributed his argument in the form of a written letter addressed to John Patterson along with copies of written and email exchanges on the issue from the summer of 2002 when Mike Summitt was still the ACC chairperson.  John Patterson had copies of the more recent letters written by John to Mr. Oord and dated August 2 and December 9, 2004 which were sent by certified mail.
    2. Mr Oord’s letter contains a number of elements, including:

                                                              i.      A request for an apology and retraction from John Patterson, the Architectural Control Committee and the Board regarding elements of the non-compliance letters that he considered libelous and threatening.

                                                            ii.      An inquiry to determine if the committee’s objective was to get a status report on his corrective actions or to punish him by imposing fines.

                                                          iii.      Explanations of some elements of his action plan letter that was a response to the August 2 non compliance letter.

                                                          iv.      A statement that all action plan items promised were in fact completed.

    1. Mr. Oord argued that personal issues impacting a homeowner need to be considered before the Board or Architectural Control Committee sends letters to homeowners.
    2. Mr. Oord expressed frustration over the fact that John Patterson was unwilling to have a discussion over the telephone on the Friday evening after he received his second notification by certified mail.
    3. Officers and Directors offered comments in response to points made verbally and in Mr. Oord’s letter, including:

                                                              i.      The Architectural Control Committee and/or the Board of Directors would only be aware of personal issues that might be extenuating or mitigating factors in non compliance issues if the homeowner takes the initiative to communicate that information to the Board.

                                                            ii.      Yards are continuously changing.  A communication at one point in time stating that some aspect of yard maintenance is acceptable is valid for the time when sent but not necessarily several years later.

                                                          iii.      The Board of Directors is not an inspection team.  Specifics proposed in a plan of corrective action may not get recognized unless the homeowner communicates status, decision outcomes, and plan changes to the Board or the Architectural Control Committee.

                                                          iv.      There remain questions regarding the adequacy of improvements made to correct listed deficiencies on the non compliance notification.  At the time of the meeting is was dark and there is still snow on the ground so making a visual determination prior to the close of the meeting would not be practical.

                                                            v.      It was pointed out that Mr. Oord’s failure (or refusal) to accept the certified letter notification first sent out was a communication failure that complicated the entire process.

    1. Steve Yandl made a motion that: 1.  Fines that were to begin on January 1, not be imposed, 2. Board members observe the condition of Mr. Oord’s lot prior to the February Board meeting, 3. A discussion and vote regarding the adequacy of corrective actions done so far by Mr. Oord will take place at the February board meeting and if more needs to be done the specifics would be shared with Mr. Oord after the meeting,  4. If fines are still in order they would not be imposed any earlier than the March Board meeting.  Sue Ann Goldman seconded the motion and it carried 6 – 0.

MAINTENANCE COMMITTEE REPORT

1.      Bill Malowney reported that the children’s activities in the ball field during the recent snow storm created a number of bald spots that Skinner will be checking out and doing repairs.  Comments indicate that no Board members would want to curb this sort of thing to decrease maintenance expenses; the kids had a great deal of fun and the anticipated cost of repairs is fairly low.

TREASURER’S REPORTS

1.      Sue Ann Goldman presented her standard five reports plus a 2004 P&L report requested by Tim Rizzo.  Those reports should be considered part of these minutes.

2.      Sue Ann reported that as of meeting time, 90 homeowners have paid their 2005 assessments.  Sue Ann is limiting deposits to no more than 100 per month to avoid a ten cent per check bank fee for deposits in excess of 100/mo.

3.      Steve Yandl reported that with those 90 dues payments, only two ballots recorded “NO” votes for budget ratification.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1.      We discussed feedback on the newsletter article advertising for a new Treasurer to replace Sue Ann Goldman.  Amy Key contacted us by Email and remains interested after hearing some of the details of the position.  Amy is an accountant and has experience with Quickbooks.  She still wants to get together with Sue Ann and get more details on the time commitment.

2.      We received Emails from two homeowners expressing interest in taking over as chairperson of the Architectural Control Committee to replace John Patterson.

a.      Ron Lee has expressed an interest.  He has served on the Board as Secretary in the past and doesn’t feel he needs to be on the Board to serve on the ACC.

b.      Les Ostermeir also expressed an interest.  Les would only want the chairman position if he was also a voting member of the Board.  If that scenario isn’t workable, Les has expressed interest in finding other jobs or activities where he might be able to contribute to the Association.

c.      We have placed CC&R enforcement as an activity of the Architectural Control Committee but that isn’t required by the CC&Rs.  It was mentioned that we could create separate ACC and CC&R committees if that suits the interested candidates but we can also keep the functions merged.

d.      Both Ron Lee and Les Ostermeir have been invited to the February Board meeting and plan to attend.  We will have a discussion on setting up a new ACC with both homeowners at that meeting.

MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:35PM