DEER CREEK LANDOWNERS, INC.
Minutes
of General Meeting May 21, 2011
Scopazzi’s
Restaurant, Boulder Creek, CA 95006
Meeting called to order at: 1:25 p.m. by President Joseph Sundrum. All officers present at the meeting (Joseph,
Tys, Tom, Manuela, Joy, Dave, Gary). Introductions all around. Represented landowners (either in person or
by proxy: Armanini/Ballestrase, Chandik, Digiorgio, Field/Wolf, Fitch,
Freeman/Kay, Gutierrez, Isaksen, L Johnson, Kelly, Marshall,
McClelland/Feldman, McGuire, Miller, Moustirats, Parnello, Tucker,
Vachher-Gnanathurai, Navarette/Mundy, Pierce, Radzinsky Raquelle/Bird, Sniffen,
Speck, Sundrum, O’Neal. Motion to approve minutes from November general
membership meeting by Dave, 2nd by Arden, approved.
While Manuela was speaking about the Red-Tag that she and
Tom rec’d, John M asked why this was being discussed during the Secretary’s
report and if it was part of the Secretary’s report; Manuela replied that it
was part of the Secretary’s report.
Motion to approve Sec’ty report by John H (proxy for L Johnson), 2nd
by Dave, approved. Also posted on DCLI
website.
Secretary’s report – DCLI – 5 21 11 –
In 2008 Jose Radzinsky, our President at the time, wisely urged DCLI to make sure that liens were placed on all parcels in arrears, not as punitive action, but simply to protect DCLI if a sale or refinance took place – a sale going thru escrow will not close if there is a lien. Over the years we have collected thousands of dollars to use on the road system when the money from outstanding liens was collected. The reason I bring this up is that we have heard remarks of anger at Board members for placing liens. And I want the membership to know that it is not personal. I would like everybody to know that I have much more interesting things to do with my time than prepare a lien, arrange for a notary to get 4 board member signatures notarized, get a check to pay the notary, get a check to pay recording costs, and either mail in or go down to the Recorder’s Office in Santa Cruz to record the lien. I’d love it never to have to place another lien.
An update about the Small Claims suit. Some of you know already and some not, that
Jose is suing DCLI. I went once already on May 5th to Small Claims Court in Watsonville to
request that the original suit be dismissed, because I was mistakenly listed as
the Defendant. That suit was dismissed,
Jose refiled, and the new hearing is set for July 7th. A copy of the suit has been posted on the
Deer Creek Landowners website.
Some of you know already that in February someone called the
County to get Tom and my home red-tagged for not being permitted. The update on that: the inspectors came to
our house, checked all our wet-stamped documents, told us that we had built to
code, and that the only violation we had is that we didn’t have a building
permit. They were very aware that nobody
up here can get a permit because Cal-Fire won’t sign off on the road system. There is presently a program in the works at
the County called the Construction Legalization Program. When it is sent down from Planning to the
Board of Supervisors, and nobody seems to know when that will be, they will
either accept or reject it. In the
meantime, nobody seems to know what it will consist of, and so until the
Supervisors vote on it, no red-tags are being recorded against any parcels. The inspectors that came to our house are
well aware that whoever called the county to have us red-tagged did it out of
anger at Tom or me. And though the name
of that person is kept confidential, if it turns out that the person has a
history of calling the Planning Department on his neighbors, the County will be
aware of it. There are discussions by
the County to amend the red-tag policy so that there has to be an actual impact
on the environment or an actual impact on the person who calls to get someone
red-tagged; that someone can’t just call the County because they’re seeking
revenge on a neighbor.
Just for information: there are non-members who use Deer
Creek Road and refuse to pay their fair share, and we cannot lien them because
their parcels are not encumbered by our JMA; however, we have in the past been
successful in getting Judgments against the landowners.
Please make sure you’ve signed in and that I have your
correct address. If I can send
correspondence to you via email – the minutes and meeting announcements, etc. –
it will save us postage and trees and make it a little easier for the
Secretary.
Respectfully submitted,
Emmanuela Raquelle
Secretary, DCLI
This is the 1st year that hard copies were not
passed out, but instead Tys projected the report onto the wall. Tys told us that for the two years he’s been
only the figurehead [Ed note: not true] and the digital person, and that
Ron has done the hard work. The Treasurer’s report is triple checked by Arden,
Ron, and Tys. If we have any questions,
we’re to ask Ron; if there are account questions, let Tys know. Hearty round of applause for Tys – this is
his last meeting as Treasurer of DCLI.
Tys explained what the algorithm is based on and why we’re
billed what we’re billed. 3 main
factors:
·
what
the members voting decide each fiscal year what projects they want done;
·
resident
and non-resident categories - residents care more about the state of the road,
i.e., if we are residents and the road falls apart, we can’t get home or get
out; a non-resident can simply turn around and drive home;
·
the
distance of road that we drive from Bear Creek Road to our properties (that are
on the maintained part of the road system).
A number of years ago Mac measured all properties from BCR.
Discussion about discrepancy between what is billed and what
is collected and what is spent. 30% of
people don’t pay their dues (or in the case of 845s, their contribution); 5
people haven’t paid in more than 5 years; 12 people haven’t paid for 2 years;
23 people who are in arrears since last billing. Question and comment: what about a ‘gardener’ who is a non-resident
but uses the road more frequently that does a resident; gardeners need to take
responsibility for giving more money.
Tys said that the system isn’t perfect, but save putting up a gate and
having a key card to track people, this seems to be the best we can do. Joseph asked that we hold off on questions
about billing because there will be presentations on that subject later in the
meeting. A thank you to Tys for all his work and a standing ovation – this is
Tys’ last year as Treasurer. Motion by
Hilary to approve Treasurer’s report, 2nd by Rich, approved. Hard copy enclosed and posted on website.
This is the first part of the report and the budget
decisions will be made after the billing presentations by Joy and Jose. Tom projected photo of projects that have
been completed since the last meeting.
Sheriff’s Presentation:
Purpose: To inform those engaged in the growing of legal horticultural medicinal products of the legal limits for such an enterprise. The Sheriff has told us that they would rather spend their time chasing the real bad guys rather than rappelling into our back yards to determine if we are legal or not. So they are here to inform us about what’s legal and what’s not. If you’re too shy or embarrassed to ask questions or wish to remain incognito, fill out these cards with your questions and we’ll be happy to have an innocent bystander read them for you.
Slide Presentation:
CALFIRE Status:
They still
want to complete the projects they promised however (as we have all heard) the
State of CA is broke. Chief Rich
Sampson’s manpower staffing has been cut (including 4 heavy equipment
operators), their equipment is being sold off (good deals if your looking for
bulldozers, etc.), no overtime or materials funding is avail.
They are
trying to slip in some work under a grant to continue the Kings Cr. Truck trail
fire break and re-grade Skyview from the North end at the park boundary to the
South end at the top of Two Bar Rd. And
they still want to do Lost Valley, They are scared to death there may have a
fire in our area and they want be able to get up that road with fire equipment.
3rd Bridge Slide:
In the
process of getting some quotes to do this project some questions came up from
contractors so I have brought in some experts to evaluate the slide and help
determine the best course of action.
Rich
Caselle from the U.S. Dept. of Agr. (hydrologist and erosion control
specialist) came out and basically said yep its an active slide that could go
tomorrow or 10 yrs from tomorrow but it will go some day depending on a whole
host of events. He recommended we talk
to a Geologist. I contacted Eric Zimm
who came out and basically parroted what R. Casselle said but recommended we
contact a GeoTec Eng. I contacted Brian
Bauldry who came out on an initial evaluation visit
Five Year Plan:
In Nov.
2005 we received this Deer Creek Watershed Road Erosion Assessment as a result
of a $ 125K grant from SCCRCD and The CA Coastal Conservancy. This report was “designed to identified and
quantify all recognizable current and future sources of erosion and sediment
delivery along approximately 15 miles of our private rural roads.” This report provided us with “a prioritized
plan-of-action for cost effective erosion prevention and control” and drainage
improvements of our entire road system. Those improvements done in accordance
with practices defined in this Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads .
Beginning
in 2006, the Board of Directors initiated a 5 year plan to use this report as
our guideline for road projects to improve our infrastructure that would act as
a our platform for future enhancements to our road system.
This year (2010-11) marks the completion of
that 5 yr. effort.
We have completed all of the high priority projects and we now have an infrastructure in place (by infrastructure we mean 800’ new culverts, rolling dips, in/out slope, new bridge, New asphalt in front and thanks to logging project, drainage improvements on Ltl Buck) to build upon and it is now time to develop our next 5 yr. plan. So as we select our project options for the coming year and subsequent years, keep in mind we should be selecting and incorporating these projects as a part of a 5 yr. plan not just a series of independent 1 yr plans.
Jose’s proposal: this is a proposal for an alternative
way for us to be billed. Jose projected
his report. This is posted on the web
and was enclosed with Notice of Meeting
Jose addressed his suit against DCLI as a
result of his trying to resolve his issues with the Board of Directors and
being unsuccessful. Jose stated that he
didn’t want to pay for any part of the road system that he doesn’t use. This comment elicited much emotion , and
discussion. Some members became angry and left the room. Impassioned speech by
Hillary about us being a community, and that we are capable of developing a
community spirit and love.
Joy’s proposal: Joy proposed 3
changes to make minor changes to the billing algorithm:
·
Create
a separate pool for the front of the road to the yellow gate;
·
Change
the language of the algorithm so that residents are charged 2x non-residents.
This change would have a negligible on the bills created currently, but would
keep bills relatively unchanged if there is a significant shift in membership
towards (or away from) one of the resident/non-resident categories.
·
Explicitly
declare how to charge for a special assessment, for example for a paving
project.
Vote to Change
the Billing Algorithm
Request to poll those present to see which method most
appeals to them: the collective feeling, or the ‘pay only for what we drive’.
Joseph gave us three choices: keep the billing system the way it is; adopt
Jose’s; adopt Joy’s. Neither Joy’s nor Jose’s proposal had enough votes to pass,
so our present billing algorithm stands.
Suggestions had been solicited from various members, and
from that list the projects that are under discussion today were
developed. Five years ago, DCLI received
a grant to have a road assessment done to determine what projects would be
necessary to prevent erosion and promote drainage. This assessment has been used as a guidepost. Tom discussed the benefits of paving; our 5
year plan that was developed has paid off .
Tom presented the Board-suggested projects, and the
membership voted to do or not to do. The list of approved and non-approved
projects follows immediately below.
Tom reported the results of his meeting with the Geotech people re the slide south of the 3rd Bridge; the conclusion was that it was a slide that could go at any time, and some holes would need to be drilled and soil samples taken to determine whether the slide was deep or shallow.
Discussion about applying for a loan to allow us to pave the
road system. Suggestions were to apply
for an SBA loan, or have a landowner or two front the money at a non-interest
loan. Joy listed the projects that were agreed
upon - $22,190.10, which includes $4,000 in annual maintenance. Tys mentioned
that last year’s budget was $27 +, which
means our bills will be lower, or at least not higher. Motion to accept by Arden, 2nd by
Amit, accepted.
First, the approved policy is to ensure that the
emergency fund of $5,000 is fully funded at the beginning of each fiscal year.
Where |
What |
Cost estimate |
Comments |
All |
General Maintenance, including ditching |
4,000 |
|
DCR:
Slide at 3rd bridge |
Testing
the site |
4,000 |
Testing
only, not fixing it |
Upper
Ramble, the S-curve above Deer Creek Heights |
Grade,
rock, water, and roll. |
4,200 |
This
section is almost as bad in summer as in winter, very soft road surface. |
Upper
Ramble, the last few turns before Skyview |
Base
rock |
1,050 |
This
is a sloppy turn when it’s wet; bumpy when it’s dry. |
Jack’s
Road |
New
culvert |
1,200 |
Very
high priority.
Need a backhoe to do the work. |
DCR,
3rd bridge upstream
side |
Swale/ditch
to dump water into creek at the bottom of the Willis driveway |
430 |
Improve
drainage |
DCR,
3rd bridge,
downstream side- |
Regrade
with drain rock (one load), improve ditching, full xfer |
1,250 |
Improve
drainage |
DCR:
BCR to first bridge |
Ditching |
60 |
|
Option
C: DCR: 3rd bridge to Ramble |
2
culverts plus ditching |
4,000 |
Must
do before any other improvement to this section |
DCR:
Ron’s Road / yellow gate to 3rd bridge |
Repair
drainage and add culvert |
2,000 |
Double-ditching,
get water from ditch #2 into the culvert. The source of the problem is on
Ron’s Rd, not DCLI roads. |
DCR,
new culvert installed by Shanti before the 2nd bridge |
Add
downspout |
- |
Work
party |
Total |
|
$22,190 |
|
Where |
What |
Cost estimate |
Comments |
||
DCR, 3rd bridge, downstream side |
Add a gutter with drain across the road at the edge of the
asphalt |
$2K |
Drain spring on East side of road -basically install a French
drain system |
|
|
DCR, 3rd bridge, downstream side |
Asphalt the approach to the bridge |
$5,000 |
See paving options below |
|
|
DCR: Slide at 3rd bridge |
Slide stabilization. Project details TBD. |
$20K ** |
A $13k project was approved for 2010-11, but work has not been
done. |
|
|
Hartman Creek |
One xfer rock, grade, water and roll |
$1,530 |
May be covered by Heavy Vehicle Fees |
|
|
DCR from Judy to pavement |
Baserock, grading |
$1,500 |
The road is very sloppy right there. |
|
|
DCR: 3rd bridge to Ramble |
Rip, grade, ditch, rock, roll, water |
$5,200 |
*1 |
|
|
All paved sections |
Fill potholes and seal |
$15,500 |
Seal with Reed & Graham ‘Overcoat’ ($.10 per sq ft. |
|
|
DCR, 1st bridge to Yellow gate |
General maintenance, i.e., fill potholes & clear ditches |
$370 for rock |
Work party |
|
|
Paved sections |
Cheapo-sealing option |
1,000 |
Emergency spot fix |
|
|
Where |
What |
Cost estimate |
Comments |
DCR: 1st bridge to Palm |
Pave with 2” asphalt and 3” on all bridge approaches |
$50,450
|
Section 1 |
DCR: Just below Judy’s to the yellow gate |
Pave with 2” asphalt |
$24,400
|
Section 3 |
DCR: 3rd bridge to Ramble Rd. |
Pave with 2” asphalt and 3” on all bridge approaches |
$27,900
|
Section 6 |
Ramble Rd from DCR to Little Buck |
Pave with 2” asphalt |
$18,600
|
Section 7a |
Ramble Rd. from Little Buck to blk gate |
Pave with 2” asphalt |
$23,900
|
Section 7b |