Beaver Lake Association
Board of Director’s Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2007
Time: 7:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Jay Incontro.
Roll Call -Taken by Marilee Mullin
Jay Incontro, President Present
Al Toombs, Vice President Present
Patti Hunt, Secretary Present
Scott Houston, Treasurer Present
Robin Garner Present
Robert Gloodt Present
Chuck Brink Present
Board of Director’s minutes
Motion made by Houston to accept the December 2006 minutes, seconded by Gloodt.
Motion carried unanimously.
Building Inspector’s Report
Building Inspector, Ron Reineke (lot 1912) was called to present the Building Inspector’s Report.
Permit Report
Reported 1 permit for the month of December and 16 houses for the year. Budget was for 15 in 2006; new budget will be for 13 this year (2007).
Motion by Scott to approve the report, 2nd by Hunt. 7-0 unanimous
DCF 105- Dog Kennels
This would allow for not putting dwelling right next to the house.
Motion by Gloodt to approve the DCF, 2nd by Houston. 7-0 unanimous
DCF 106 – Square footage requirements for Equestrian lots
This is covered in building codes.
Motion by Brink to approve the DCF, 2nd by Garner. 7-0 unanimous
Fred and Kim Becker (lot 1732) Request Form
Motion by Brink to approve motion to provide a Quit Claim Deed, 2nd by Hunt with an amendment stating that all fees associated with filing paper work would
be Fred Becker’s responsibility. 7-0 motion passes unanimously.
Appeals committee did not have a quorum, will hold over until next month.
Committee and Task Force Minutes
Election Committee – No Report
Ad Hoc – No Report
Property and Safety - Report by Tom Egelston (lot 1863). Tom summarized the minutes.
Discussion: Jay stated the DCF on lighting will be held over until February because the Board is awaiting additional information.
Scott explained why the less intense yellow lighting is being requested and noted that the current DCF in the handbook states “no sodium lights” was incorrect. Scott stated the new yellow light at the water plant is a example of the light that is required. That type of light provides security but is not be as intrusive.
Robin questioned if some of the lights are owned by OPPD
Jay responded that Troy will talk with OPPD to provide a list of which lights are owned by Beaver Lake and which are OPPD’s.
The proposal by the Property & Safety Committee to tear down the Guard Shack vote failed; it will remain as is for several reasons including the budget.
Bob Gloodt suggested the Nature Club take a look at the shack and entrance.
Ron Reineke, Lot 1912, discussed the light problem. He stated the issue is when the lights spill on to the neighbors and what is needed is for lights that shine directly downward. He also reiterated that some lights are OPPD’s and some are the property of Beaver Lake.
Motion by Brink to approve the Property and Safety Minutes, seconded by Gloodt. Motion carried unanimously 7-0.
Lake and Habitat – The minutes were summarized by Dan O’Brien, lot 2051. Motion by Garner to approve the minutes, 2nd by Hunt.
Motion carried unanimously 7-0.
Jay also thanked Dan for the input on merging committees.
Utility – The minutes were reviewed by Ramon Fusaro, lot 639.
Discussion: Gloodt questioned if the Flu epidemic research should be a part of the utility committee or better served under Property and Safety.
Dr. Fusaro said the water and sewer plant are critical and if a crisis should occur up to 1/3 of the population may be affected.
Jay clarified the Property and Safety committee will assume overall responsibility of determining risk, risk management, and procedures.
Tom Egelston, lot 1863, said the Property and Safety committee will assume overall management and would like to present data at the next Board Meeting.
Jay requested the presentation be included in the February agenda.
Motion by Houston to approve the Utility minutes, 2nd by Hunt. Motion carried unanimously.
Finance – Presented by Scott Houston. Scott recognized the managers for doing a good job in regards to the expense budget. $1.9 million was the working budget last year and we came in a little over budget by $16,347.
Two reasons were given: 1) The bill from Cass County Implement submitted on the last day of the month for $13,000 for leasing equipment (mower) the last four years.
2) Water Restoration Project 1st preliminary engineering study not in the original budget for $10,380. Without the back billing we would have been under budget. Discussion: Ron Reineke, lot 1912. Ron questioned the bill for the mower as he thought we owned the equipment.
Scott explained that it was the large mower (John Deere) used by the summer help each year. He also stated that we get a new mower every year through this lease agreement.
Jay discussed the need to decide if it is better to lease or to own the equipment and explained Troy’s thought that for the amount of work and from a maintenance standpoint that it was a better idea to lease.
Terry Dietz, lot 1640 requested the list of the top three projects as stated in the Utility minutes for the 07 budget.
The top 3 projects approved by the finance committee are:
Rip Rap ($52,000), Control panel for lift station that needs replacement ($8,200), and new water hydrant installations. Approximately 1-2 new water hydrants are put in each year. (These are not replacement hydrants, they are new installations)
Dave Clawson, lot 1869 had question on the spreadsheet if we are paying interest on payments.
Scott replied that we are making additional principal payments. An adjustment was made in December and we continue making additional payments but are making an $11,250 payment every month.
Rick Croasdale, lot 107 asked if we were liable for the Cass County Implement bill since it was 4years old and if there was a legal opinion sought.
Jay said the attorney was consulted and we were obligated to pay, but also from a moral perspective we owe the debt. There will be discussion as to how and when the bill will be paid.
Motion by Gloodt to approve the minutes, 2nd by Hunt. Motion carried unanimously 7-0.
Website Technology Task Force – no report
Water Restoration Task Force – no report
Security – See Summary
Old Business
Water Restoration Update several motions to be voted on:
1) To accept the preliminary engineering report and the supplement report and follow up answers.
Discussion: Al Toombs questioned the supplemental report on the website.
Ed Krof, lot 480, did not see Attachment A on the web and questioned why.
Rick Croasdale, lot 107, explained the ownership of the wells (location) should not released to the public for safety reasons.
Tom Fiskus, lot 1231, thought all wells are posted on the state web site.
Terry D, lot 1640, stated the state will not release location of public water sources, but the website does list the location of private wells.
Tom Egelston, lot 1863 wanted clarification on questions and answers.
Motion by Garner to accept report, 1st by Robin, 2nd by Hunt. Motion carried 6/1.
2) To accept the Water Restoration Well Project as the solution for the alternative water source supply for BLA.
Discussion: Bill Bohan, lot 1864, wanted to know if grants were filed for as discussed in previous sessions.
Jay answered that grants were filed and will be awarded at the end of January. Other money sources are also being investigated.
Bill Bohan, lot 1864, wanted to know how BLA was going to pay for the water restoration.
Jay answered that some line of credit loan will be looked at.
Bill Bohan, lot 1864, questioned if there was to be a balloon payment and what happened to the previous balloon payment and how was that handled.
Jay answered that the Board still needs to work through issues and that the past balloon was still there.
Terry D, lot 1640 requested differentiating the two projects – the alternate water source, and the water restoration project. Consider separating them until we can control the arsenic that we will pump into the lake.
Jay explained the three objectives, 1) Safe water, 2) Adjusting the lake level; 3) feed the water plant.
Tom Egelston, lot 1863, questioned if there was a financial consideration if the project will automatically go forward at all costs?
Jay reiterated the only approval is for the alternate source of water being a well; not approving the entire project.
Robin interjected that he has made a 180 degree turnaround on his position since the inception of the project. He now believes that the well project is the only alternative that solves for both the lake level and the non surface water source for the water plant.
Ed Krof, lot 480, read from the Jan 10th World Herald that there may be a temporary statewide stop to wells and we might not even be able to move forward with our current well project.
Motion by Brink to accept the Project, 2nd by Gloodt. Motion carried 6/1.
3) To approve the engineering firm Snyder and Associates to complete the full engineering report, design specifications and bid package for the complete Well Project, option 3, with the total expense not to exceed $38,200.
Discussion: Jay reported we are aware of “rough” numbers and this will give us a total number and a formal bid package.
Motion by Brink to approve the report and bid package, 2nd by Hunt. Motion carried 6-1.
4) To authorize representatives of the Water Restoration Task Force, Tom Fiscus, Troy and Marilee, to write a business case on the Water Restoration Project. The case will include the reason for the project, the benefit to the community, the money required to complete the project, and a consolidation of the information associated with the project for the February Board meeting.
Discussion: Dave Clausen, lot 1869, recommended the need to include full financial breakdown. He reminded the Board the cost of the water plant exceeded the estimate.
Ron Reineke, lot 1912, had a question on Pg 18/18 of the report. He asked what the cost includes and what “construction services” is.
Tom Fiskus, lot 1231, answered that the construction services fee is for onsite supervision of the project and that Troy felt he could cover much of the project.
Al Toombs suggested we may want to look at the state statues and that he thought the statues require an engineer on site, they must be participating in it and they must be on site several times during the execution of the project and it is in the state statues. Tom Fiscus replied that it requires an engineer on site a portion of the time.
Motion called by Gloodt, 2nd by Garner. Motion carried unanimously 7-0.
5) Motion to have the BLA board of director’s research and institute the funding policy for the total expense including the short term, financing of this project within 120 days of signing of the interest only loan.
Discussion: Tom Egelston, lot 1863, questioned if this was a commitment to a loan. Jay explained it is for a line of credit or short term loan. This motion states from the date the loan is initiated, the Board will answer how the total project will be funded within 120 days from the date of signing.
Dave Clawson, lot 1869, wanted to know what the maximum limit on interest only loan is.
Jay explained we need more information to provide an answer to Dave’s question.
Motion to approve the funding policy by Brink, 2nd by Hunt. Motion carried 6-1.
New Business
Tom Egelston (lot 1863) wants a copy of the non-disclosure agreement. He stated he didn’t see it in the handbook. Jay responded because it is still under discussion.
Tom Egelston (lot 1863) recited the state statute that the policy is to keep open information available, and that any restricted information is to be narrowly defined.
Tom Ahrens, lot 1876, wanted to know why he had to sign a non-disclosure statement to obtain financial information.
Mr. Brink explained it is BLA policy to require residents sign a non-disclosure document when given financial information. In this case an error was made; the release was not needed since the requested information was already publicly available.
Bill Bohan, lot 1864, asked how many lots the association had acquired over the last six months.
Marilee replied zero.
Dave Clawson, lot 1869, Secretary for Property and Safety committee wanted to advertise an opening on the Property and Safety committee. This position has been opened for a year.
Jay stated the Appeals committee is also in need of members as they are down by three.
Don Tex, lot 1663, posed two questions in regards to the water restoration project. First, what is the status on the permit we have for the well and secondly, how it will proceed if it goes forward.
Jay described timetable as approximately 6-8 weeks for the engineering study, 30-45 days to respond, and 6-8 month project. If the project goes forward completion may be in November.
There was some discussion also on the lack of building permits secondary to the lake’s water level. Jay did state comments regarding the lake level have been made to building inspector, Ron Reineke, by members considering building a home at BLA.
Bill Bohan, lot 1864, requested the lake level presently. Jay responded the correct number will be posted on the web by Troy.
Tom Egelston, lot 1863, stated he called Mike at the water plant and it is currently 26.1 inches.
Diane Egelston, lot 1863, requested the sign board reflect current lake levels.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Houston, seconded by Brink. Motion carried unanimously.