Minutes – Board Meeting – March 5, 2013

Sunland Division 17 Owners Association

Board of Trustees Meeting, March 5, 2013

Location: The Gathering Place, 135 Fairway Drive (Ground Floor), Sequim, WA

(Approved April 2, 2013)

Call to order:

The regular meeting of the Sunland Division 17 Owners Association board of trustees was called to order by President Jim Karr at 9:02 AM.

Roll call and Quorum:

The chair confirmed a quorum of board members; none were absent.

Visitor sign-up sheets:

The chair explained a tablet was circulating for guests to sign in, with a second tablet circulating for those who also wanted to speak during the comment period at the end of the meeting. Approximately 19 guests signed in.

Review and approval of minutes:

The minutes from the February 5 meeting were approved as circulated in advance to board members.

Comments and ground rules:

The chair referred the board to two handouts that were in their meeting packets, “Procedures for Small Boards,” and “Unanimous Consent.” Both items were word-for-word text taken from Robert’s Rules of Order. He asked that the Governing Documents Committee look at the material for possible inclusion in the Division’s revised bylaws. Gene Ross confirmed the committee had incorporated a specific reference to Robert’s Rules of Order in their recommended revisions. The two handouts had to do with certain exceptions to general assembly procedures that Robert’s Rules of Order allows for small boards, defined as those with twelve or less members, so they would be applicable to the Division 17 board.

Old Business:

1. Meeting schedule: The chair reminded board members of the upcoming regular meetings scheduled for the first Tuesday of each month, specifically April 2, May 7, June 4 and July 2.
2. Annual meeting: The chair reminded the board members of the association’s annual meeting, set for August 6, at 1:00 PM.
3. Greenspace management, including proposal received by the board to harvest hay: The chair recapped a four-page summary he had compiled of facts relevant to management of the recently-expanded 33 acres of greenspace that is now the responsibility of Division 17. The handout included bulleted elements of a proposal received earlier by the board from an area farmer; and also other related information such as the county’s requirement for Division 17 to eradicate a newly-identified poison hemlock infestation in the same greenspace; previous mowing costs and options; relevant excerpts both the Division 17 CC&Rs and SLOA CC&Rs, and a range of issues raised to him by homeowners; plus a list of outstanding questions. He said he had also compiled an 11-page list of comments he had received from owners on this topic since the previous board meeting. Gene Ross distributed a three-page compilation of CC&R language re: Common Areas, pointing out several portions in particular. Two maps showing the hemlock infestation were distributed to the board, one from the county and another map showing more extensive infestation identified personally by Jim Karr, by walking the area. Jim Karr referred to a four-page color printout on Poison Hemlock from Clallam County Noxious Weed Control, which had been distributed earlier as part of the board members’ packets, and circulated a photograph of poison hemlock growing in the Division 17 greenspace.

Additional board discussion on this topic included:

–question whether Division 17 would need a waiver from SLOA CC&Rs re: use of open space before haying could occur;

–whether the noxious weeds also went up the hillside, since that could be another source of re-infestation;

–explanation why poison hemlock removal by hand was not recommended or practical, due to both the degree of infestation and because the weed is very toxic (requires appropriate use of gloves, eye protection, and carefully controlled disposition);

–the urgency of spraying this month (March), before extensive plant growth and flowering, as well as again this fall to kill the next generation of seedlings;

–that targeted and well-timed spraying will need to be implemented twice a year, for 3-5 years, in order to eliminate the “seed bank” already in the soil;

–a history of how the problem was initially identified, the county’s involvement, and observation that despite an initial spraying last year, the problem is even worse this year;

–observation that last year’s initial spraying, since it was conducted mid-summer rather than spring and late summer, most likely had no effect;

–question as to what assurance association has that whoever implements the spraying has appropriate background to mix and apply herbicides properly, etc.;

–additional concern about a second weed, Canada thistle which, while not toxic, is also a serious problem;

–question whether the farmer was sufficiently aware of the poison hemlock problem; that the weed eradication component of his initial proposal, at least, would not meet county requirements for poison hemlock eradication; and the question of association liability if poison hemlock was left in the harvested hay;

–observation that the poison hemlock seed may well have been inadvertently brought in on mowing equipment;

–observation that turning the topsoil over and leaving secondary soil on top, during the construction phase within the division, may have provided a greater opportunity for the weeds to take hold;

–observation that haying may have been allowed within the division in its very early stages;

–opinion that the haying proposal was not that different from the greenspace maintenance that Division 17 is doing now, but with the added bonus that the farmer would collect the cut grass;

–estimate that the farmer would most likely harvest twice (perhaps in May and again in July, but depends on moisture available to stimulate grass growth), or at most probably three times per year) vs. 3-4 times per year for fields with irrigation;

–desire for more specifics on how many days each proposed activity would entail, i.e., how many days would the various kinds of equipment be used, especially if a busy farmer would only have partial days in which to accomplish any haying-related activities in the Div 17 greenspace;

–encouragement that the question of greenspace management should not be viewed as two polar opposites, i.e., the situation does not have to be either no mowing and the weeds proliferate, vs use of herbicide and complete mowing as the only way to control weeds. The chair stated that the association needs a short-term strategy to eradicate the weeds and long-term strategy of how to manage the greenbelt;

–question of how much “berms” would be affected—proposal says height unchanged, but still not clear if haying activity would take place on top of berms as well;

–whether leaving the mowed grass encourages mice or rats; distinction between “meadow voles (Microtus),” that live in grassy areas fields and do not invade homes, which should not be confused with rats and house mice that will potentially invade homes;

–whether the board had enough information, including enough owner input, to make a decision on the haying proposal;

–need assurance that whoever mows, or harvests hay, will have cleaned their equipment to not spread more poison hemlock or other weeds and assume legal responsibility for controlling noxious plants.

Motion by Lee Cox that a decision on the needed spraying for poison hemlock this month be separated from a decision on the haying proposal; and further, that the Division’s landscape coordinator Eldon Dennis identify and hire, in consultation with the county noxious weed specialists and Lee Cox, someone with the relevant expertise and knowledge to implement the required spraying this month. The motion was seconded and approved.

Motion by Lee Cox that the board make a decision re: the haying proposal at the current meeting. There was no second, and the motion failed.

A concern was expressed about further delaying a response to the farmer’s mowing proposal, and others expressed concern about finding a way to inform owners, before a decision was made.

Motion by Cindy Rhodes that the upcoming Division 17 newsletter include a modified version of the four-page fact sheet compiled by Jim Karr on the greenspace maintenance issues, and that the newsletter also include a mechanism for owners to provide “straw poll” type input, to help inform the board’s pending decision. The motion was seconded and approved.

Jim asked that board members and owners provide him any recommended changes to his initial summary.

4. Fact Sheet: Welcome to Sunland North: The chair indicated homeowner volunteer Susan Hamman is working on this idea.
5. Roof Maintenance Strategies: The issue of algal growth on Division 17 roofs had been introduced at earlier meetings. The chair suggested roof maintenance be considered in two parts: #1. Treatment of current algae growth that is a result of inadequate prevention in the past; and #2. Development of a long-term strategy to prevent future algae growth.

Related discussion included whether it is possible to hire one qualified specialist to manage all of the roof maintenance issues; limited range of professionals in this geographic area qualified to do this kind of specialized work; limited options in terms of roof access; risk of roof tile breakage if walked on; problem of broken tiles that seem to have been installed that way, versus being new problems—i.e., if already broken, power-washing may be bringing them up rather than causing new breakage; cost; and inability to contact tile manufacturer or original installer (roofer), as both are no longer in business. Pictures of (not Division 17) roofs with inadequate treatment (spotty results and shoddy appearance of the roof after treatment) were circulated.

Action: Complete scheduled power-washing of the five or six units remaining, from those identified earlier for priority maintenance; and Jerry Schmidt and Dick Helmenstine will develop a recommended long-term roof maintenance strategy.

6. Reserve Study Needs: The chair stated that Cindy Rhodes has agreed to take the lead on this issue for the board, and that Kris Osborn [a former Division 17 board member] offered in a recent conversation to assist with the effort. He said we need to do a Reserve Study (to stay in compliance with state law), and may need to be doing a larger one down the road.
7. Changes in SLOA Rules and Regulations: The chair pointed out recent changes in the SLOA Rules & Regulations, specifically prohibiting tree topping and windowing. He also called attention to the much stricter rules on restraint of dogs, with substantially increased fines. The revised SLOA Rules & Regulations were included in the recent SLOA Sunland Directory mailing.

Committee Reports:

1. Treasurer’s Report: Lee Cox reported that one of the Division’s three CDs had matured this month; interest rates remain low, so he rolled it over for [just] an additional year. He also reported that the Association’s contracted bookkeeper was paid $206 for her services in February, plus $150 for preparation of the Division 17 income tax, and that the Division had paid $72 federal income tax (on earnings from its CDs). A separate financial report (Handout #8, “Profit & Loss” statement for January 2013) was included in the board meeting packets, though not discussed.
2. Landscape: Volunteer Coordinator Eldon Dennis reported that SLOA approval had been received for removal of the earlier identified problem tree between 260 and 270 Blakely. He had solicited bids from three tree removal firms: Town & Country, Blue Mountain and Happy Valley. Town & Country was selected, with a bid of $240. The board approved the expenditure for removal of the tree.
3. Exterior Change Requests: Jerry Schmidt reported he had approved two small exterior change requests. One was to add a backyard security light at 430 Blakely, and the other was for the addition of a handrail. In both cases, the homeowner was to pay the relevant costs.
4. Exterior Maintenance & Inspection: Volunteer Coordinator Richard Helmenstine reported that the regular exterior visual inspection that he conducts twice a year will begin soon. Jerry Schmidt had followed through with two homeowners who requested association maintenance; neither request was determined to meet the criteria for association responsibility. Eldon Dennis reported he was in receipt of a February 19 notice from County Weed Control with an “Early Warning” to address the poison hemlock problem identified last year; the “Early Warning” advises that work must be completed before, or within 48 hours, of the next notification.
5. Governing Documents: Gene Ross reported his committee had identified the problems, omissions and irrelevant portions of the Division 17 association’s governing documents; drafted revisions and additions, and determined portions that were vulnerabilities; compared the Division 17 bylaws and CC&Rs and the SLOA CC&Rs, identifying areas of overlap; and verified compliance with state law. The committee will be meeting Thursday for a major “cut and paste” session.
6. Newsletter: Cindy Rhodes reported that she expects to distribute the next Division 17 newsletter within the next ten days. It will go electronically to each homeowner for whom the association has an email address, and be mailed to all others. She solicited any additional input for the newsletter from the board members and homeowners. She will include a “straw poll” re: the “haying” proposal, to help the board get a better sense of community concerns, with responses requested by March 25.

New Business:

1. and 2. Budget Planning: The chair distributed as part of the board packet a budget planning schedule that outlines steps needed over the next five months in order to present a proposed 2014 budget for board approval at the annual meeting in August. He also distributed a list of suggested categories, or tracking codes, to facilitate better planning in the future. He will be preparing a better summary of actual expenditures, by category, for 2012 and projected expenses for 2013, for reference in planning the 2014 budget.
2. Nominating Committee: The chair reminded the group that it will need a full slate of officers for the next board election in August, to serve the term August 2013 to August 2014. Current board members can run or decline to run again. Current board terms are for just the current year; so, a plan to address the desire for rotating board terms also needs to be developed. A volunteer committee that included Gene Ross worked on this last year; Gene will bring forward specific recommendations. Election monitors to count the votes will also be needed.

Action: Richard Helmenstine and Fritz Field, appointed last year, will be asked if they are willing to serve again.

4. Proposed forms: landscape, grievance, general–which and how many? In order to allow time for visitor comment, this agenda item was not addressed.
5. Web site updates: The chair reminded members that updates and corrections to Division 17’s new Web site can be implemented monthly, under our Web maintenance contract, and asked people to send any suggestions to him.

[NOTE TO FILE: May be useful to schedule submission of such edits a few days after each board meeting, when the previous meeting’s approved minutes are finalized and forwarded to the contractor for posting.]

6. Insurance: Jerry Schmidt explained that the Association’s insurance has a $5,000 deductible, and owners may want to reconcile their individual policies to make sure it covers that deductible. His experience is that the added cost of personal insurance to cover the deductible is very small.

Action: Jerry Schmidt will write up an explanation for inclusion in the upcoming Division 17 newsletter. The question was also raised whether the Division 17 Owners Association policy includes flood insurance, and if not, whether that could be added.

Visitor Comment Period: There were nineteen visitors attending, and five had signed up to speak. More participated as the session evolved; highlights from these comments are attached separately.

Adjourned at 11:32 AM.

Motion by Cindy Rhodes to adjourn the meeting; it was seconded and approved.

Submitted by: Barbara Brooner, Volunteer Recorder.

______________________________________________________________________

Visitor comments at the March 5 meeting:

Aside from the first visitor comment, all comments had to do with greenspace maintenance, and in particular the haying proposal that had been received by the board from an area farmer:

–Request that homeowners receive some kind of tutorial on how the association’s insurance works;

–Perception that the CC&Rs already prohibit the haying option, so why do straw poll with owners?

–Concern that possible health effects of the farmer’s proposed spraying are unknown; observation that with a big change like the haying proposal, some kind of “impact statement” should be required;

–Question about whether farmer’s proposal would include haying Estes’ empty lots; chair responded that the association has an agreement with Estes for his separate maintenance of the empty lots he owns;

–Question about how long farm equipment might be parked on the association’s property, if haying proposal were to be accepted, and recommendation that if haying proposal were to proceed, agreement should include specific requirement for storage of the equipment;

–Question about berms, their purpose, and how the farmer’s haying proposal would affect them;

–Reminder that democracy is messy, but still important;

–Comment from one owner that the previous meeting was the first they had heard of farmer’s haying proposal;

–Observation that the berms provide value as at least a minimal privacy barrier for homes that do not have trees between them and the roads;

–Concern that, if haying proposal came forward as a way to save greenspace maintenance costs, would need to also calculate in potential legal costs for contract preparation, etc.; which would reduce any cost-savings, or could actually increase costs;

–Concern about mass application of herbicide, which seems to be part of the farmer’s proposal;

–Question about impact of spraying on stream and/or wetlands;

–Statement of the importance and unavoidable need to address poison hemlock problem, regardless of haying proposal;

–Concern that farmer’s motivations/priorities would be different than those of residents;

–Concern about the potential weight of former declarant’s priorities if “haying” proposal is put to a vote of the owners, because of the large number of units and lots still owned by the declarant;

–Statement that the issue is missing the public discussion that’s needed on something like this;

–Statement that the important question is why we (as owners) came here, why we purchase our homes, what were our expectations when we chose to live here?

–Statement that it is important for people to realize that, if the farmer’s haying proposal were to be accepted, the haying operation would come right up to the landscaping fences—there wouldn’t still be the 100 foot “transition buffer” between the yards and the haying;

–Question as to whether the farmer’s haying proposal would mean spraying herbicide over the entire green space, or just selected portions?

–Observation that if it’s true that the weed problem is related at all to how soil from earlier construction was disposed of, Estes Builders should be required for all future construction in Division 17 to take that earth someplace else or otherwise deal with it;

–Statement that Estes Builders needs to guarantee they will take care of these things and pay their fair share; the chairman responded that agreements have been worked out with Estes Builders to help proportionately with open space mowing expenses, and also landscaping expense; but that the issue of the dirt removed during construction was a new point, and also needs to be addressed.

–Suggestion that a “town hall meeting” was needed on the haying proposal;

–Observation that many “snowbirds” are still away, and wouldn’t have heard about the issue;

–Observation that the haying proposal/green space maintenance issue needs much more discussion;

–Note that mowing—of any kind—can’t be done for some period after the upcoming required spraying for poison hemlock , as some period of time is required for the hemlock to absorb the herbicide and be affected;

–Request that somehow, despite the delay and extended discussion among residents, the board can make sure the farmer knows his proposal is still appreciated, as it was submitted at least in part to help address an Association need;

–Concern that the haying proposal not be allowed to polarize the community, as happened with the golf course issue several years ago.