Annual Meeting Minutes - 2007
Rancho Heights Road Committee
Annual Meeting Minutes
Date: October 27, 2007
Location:Mary Phillips Senior Center / Temecula
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Committee Members Present: Chairman; Jonathan Geller, Treasurer; Kirk Ebmeier, Secretary; Doug Eaton, Members-at-Large: James Szepkouski and Craig Hill
Property Owners Present: J. & C. Ayala, C. & M. Bolster, S. & D. Bochinksi, P. & M. Burke,
E. Castilleja, J. and M. Cates, E. & S. Chavez, M. & T. Chavez, M. Deutsch, C. Diamond, E. Dunnick, J. Eaton, K. Ebmeier, B. Gill & Paul Rieker, J. Geller, B. Lingg, R. & M. Martin, L. McGonigle, A. & R. Murray, P. Burke, S. Plyler, T. Prince, R. &K. Ratkowski, B. Romans, D. Rising,
M. A. Schecter, L. Schmidt (Cannella), C. Szepkouski, T. Taufer, D. Wilbur, R. Woods
=====================================================================
Call to Order / Introductions:
Chairman Geller called the meeting to order and introduced Road Committee members; Eaton, Ebmeier, Szepkouski and Hill, as well as other key property-owners including lawsuit Plaintiff’s; Timothy Prince Everett Dunnick and Barbara Gill. Also introduced were Tom Taufer and past Committee-members: Stephen Bochinski and Beverly Romans.
Chairman Geller stressed that as it is so important for property-owners to know “who is who”, he asked for a show of hands of all in attendance who are members of the “Liberty Tree” group. Not a single property owner raised their hand, including the lawsuit plaintiffs. Chairman Geller then asked Tim Prince if he were the only representative of the “Liberty Tree” (Yellow Signs) in attendance. Mr. Prince emphasized that he was not attending as a representative of the Liberty Tree group, but rather solely as an individual property-owner. In summary, no one in attendance would acknowledge being part of, or having any connection to the “Rancho Heights Liberty Tree”, including Mr. Prince himself.
Announcements / Clarifications / Acknowledgements / Disclaimers:
Chairman Geller announced the following:
Anonymous Email: A significant number of property-owners received a highly inflammatory e-mail on Friday, October 26, at around 8 a.m. from the address: info@ranchoheights.info. The e-mail falsely accused the Committee, urged that members be recalled and berated the condition of our community. Geller asked for the author of this email to identify himself/herself or for anyone with information regarding this anonymous e-mail to come forward with the information. All parties in attendance disavowed any responsibility for, or knowledge of this e-mail. Due to his role as lead Plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Road Committee, Mr. Prince was personally asked if he had knowledge of this libelous email which he emphatically denied in front of all those in attendance.
Anonymous Website: www.ranchoheights.info: The e-mail referred to above directed readers to this website. The website contains extensive content, virtually all of which is derogatory and defamatory to the Rancho Heights community-at-large, the Road Committee and personally to the Defendants named in the lawsuit of this past year.
As for the anonymous e-mail, Geller asked for the party responsible for this website to identify himself/herself or for anyone with information regarding this anonymous website to come forward with the information. All parties in attendance once again disavowed any responsibility for, or knowledge of the site.
Due to Mr. Prince’s “Liberty Tree” e-mail address serving as a link in this website, Mr. Prince was directly asked if he had knowledge of this site which he emphatically denied in front of all those in attendance. The same line of questioning was then directed to Mr. Paul Rieker, who represents lawsuit Plaintiff, Barbara Gill. He too emphatically denied having any knowledge of the website and/or the e-mails associated with it.
Anonymous Hand-Out: This handout consisted of the graphics and appearance of the website described above. It appeared to be a simple printout of the aforementioned website but closer examination revealed that while the form was the same, the content had been completely re-written to support the Road Committee and was critical of those parties opposed to the Road Committee. This handout was as negative in tone as the website upon which it was modeled and Chairman Geller described its content as being “equally ugly in style and content” to the website.
Geller explained that upon entering the meeting room for today’s meeting, a stack of these hand-outs was found on a table in the meeting room. As we all had to wait outside for the doors to the facility to be unlocked and entered the room together, these handouts had to be placed in the room the previous evening or earlier. Chairman Geller contacted the facility manager in an attempt to determine who might have had access to the room earlier but unfortunately, this could not be determined.
On behalf of the entire Committee, Geller disavowed any knowledge of this document, expressed full disapproval of such a publication and asked the party responsible for this hand-out to identify himself/herself or for anyone with information regarding this hand-out to come forward with the information. No one in attendance would acknowledge any responsibility for or knowledge of this hand-out.
Chairman’s Message: Summarized Version
There is truly “but one” issue for our community, that of restoring our “buying power” to it’s earlier levels. Due to the 300% increase in the cost of asphalt since 2002, our annual collected assessments now provide us with the ability to pave the equivalent of 2.5 driveways. While we have 5 miles of asphalt and 2 miles of unpaved roads to maintain, our annual available assessments for expenditure of approximately $40,000 is enough money ONLY to build the equivalent of 2.5 to 3 average driveways in this community. This is our one true “issue”.
Our one resultant “question” is therefore; “HOW do we want to pay more?” The increased cost of asphalt no longer allows the discussion of “if” we are willing to pay more annually, we can only ask and determine under what structure do we choose to increase our annual payments. If we intend to have safe and comfortable roads, it will only occur by paying for them. There is no escaping the fact that we have one third of the effective budget and buying power we had in 2002. And there is no one who would claim that our buying power back of 2002 was “excessive” or “generous”, rather it was very limited then, as well. At this point, our buying power can only be described as “insignificant” or non-existent.”
The past two years have seen two new resolutions for increasing assessments fail to pass the required vote of property-owners. This is creating an unsustainable situation. For the coming year, the Road Committee must devote all of it’s energies towards the creation and passage of new resolution. The opinion has been expressed by some parties that property-owners will not vote to pass a new funding mechanism until they become utterly miserable with our roads. Without proper “pro-active” maintenance, our roads will quickly become 1st) uncomfortable, 2nd) unsafe and 3rd) impassable. As a resident, I can only pray that my fellow property-owners will choose to make the responsible and financially-prudent choice before it is too late and we suffer these types of consequences.
It is for these reasons, we are allocating dollars to a “road emergency/disaster reserve fund” rather than squandering the dollars on minor paving , not significant enough to provide long-term benefit.
One has to ask, “What happens to community perception and market value with continued road deterioration”? It is fair to assume that dollars invested in maintaining a safe and adequate road system are more than recovered in property values while a deteriorating road is concerning enough to steer potential home-buyers away from our community.
On the subject of Market Value, great concern has been voiced about the “Yellow Signs”. It is obviously very degrading in the public eye, demeans our community and decreases both our monetary and perceived property values. If you are upset with the signs, you need to speak directly with your neighbors who have them posted. Perhaps if enough of you express your feelings, those property owners will respect the wishes of the community and remove them.
With such limited budgetary funds, the Road Committee has no choice but to severely control our Asset Allocation. As of this time, the operating and spending priorities of the Road Committee will be limited to:
1.Safety
2.Emergency / Catastrophe reserves
3.Spot repairs in heaviest traffic zones.
4.Unpaved road maintenance relative to safety access.
Volunteers for Vote counting:
The Chairman asked for volunteers to count the votes of the day’s two elections. Volunteers were L. McGonigle, C. Ayala, D. Wilbur, and B. Romans. They were aided by bookkeeper Cori Szepkouski.
Chairman Geller explained that the process for counting the proposed amendments to our Road Agreement, submitted by Prince et al, would be directed and overseen by Mr. Prince himself. He would also be allowed to participate in the actual counting of the votes if he chose. Chairman Geller directed Mr. Prince to conduct the counting as “he saw fit” as the entire ballot and voting system had been designed by him. The Rancho Heights Road Committee in no way participated in the design or creation of his ballot and accepts no responsibility whatsoever for its effectiveness, accuracy, or viability. It was re-iterated at the meeting that while this ballot was labeled as an “Official Ballot” by Mr. Prince, the Road Committee denounced this labeling. The Road Committee stressed there is but one “Official Ballot”, that is designed, utilized and endorsed by the Road Committee itself. The Road Committee’s Official Ballot identifies each property’s parcel number and owner, complete with the owner’s signature and considers any ballot without this complete information to be invalid.
Financial Report:
The Financial Report was presented by Treasurer, K Ebmeier. Account balances, payables, receivables and collection status were reviewed. It was noted that the cost to defend the community in the recent lawsuit amounted to a $1000 deductible payment. Property-owner Everett Dunnick asked a question challenging the cost of postage, a P.O. Box and Power and Phone expenses of the past. It was explained to him that these were costs to power the gate and telephone at the gate, and other clerical expenses. He expressed dissatisfaction with the answer. Chairman Geller agreed to note Mr. Dunnick’s complaint in spite of its apparent contradiction of the Memorandum of Understanding that Mr. Dunnick signed in the recent lawsuit that was dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. This memorandum stated that “the parties agree that this action has been settled to everyone’s mutual satisfaction”.
Motion to accept Financial Report was made by J Szepkouski, and seconded by D. Eaton. Passed by all.
Road Report / 2007 Accomplishments:
Entrance:
J. Szepkouski presented the Road Report and detailed work that had been done over the year, including the major renovation at the entrance of Rancho Heights at Pala-Temecula Road. The work included excavation of dirt and stone, the installation of nearly 600 ft of concrete gutters and patching of the adjoining asphalt.
Property owner T. Taufer rose and complained that he had been working with Rainbow water on a plan to move fire hydrants at the bottom of Rancho Heights Road back 8 feet in order to widen the entrance considerably. His complaint was that he would now not be able to do the work because the Committee had improved the bottom of the road and constructed concrete gutters and curbs there. J. Szepkouski responded that Rainbow Water had been informed of the work and approved of it after inspecting it. D. Eaton responded that he hadn’t seen or heard of the plan until after community-funded construction had begun. He suggested that Mr. Taufer should have informed the Committee of the work he was planning to undertake, because the Committee would have gladly worked with him to improve conditions within the easement at the bottom of the road. Chairman Geller stressed that this is a perfect example of how all parties could benefit if property-owners worked in conjunction with the Committee rather than in isolation.
Cut-Off Road Grading:
The unpaved road which connects Rancho Heights Road on its South end with Magee Road on its North end was graded for emergency access. In case of natural disaster and emergency, this provides another route for residents potentially trapped beyond the intersection of Rancho Heights and Magee Road.
Weeds:
E. Dunnick rose to contest the cost of weed abatement which was $1200. It was explained to him that the weeds destroy pavement at the sides of the road and need to be controlled or they will eat away the road. Again, Chairman Geller agreed to note Mr. Dunnick’s complaint in spite of its apparent contradiction of the agreement signed by Mr. Dunnick in the settlement of the lawsuit.
Security:
Szepkouski reported how an intruder had followed a property-owner through the gate and on to their home and then entered their residence causing the Sheriff to be called. This was a frightening experience for the homeowners. Property-owners were asked to be highly aware of cars loitering around the gate area and use caution while attempting to “safely” prevent these parties from entering the community when they don’t have authorized access. It is advisable to jot down the license plate and report to the Committee. Committee-member Craig Hill offered his cell number for anyone to call at any time (760-505-1127).
Sunset Peak:
Doug Eaton also detailed work currently scheduled on Sunset Peak that includes dumping and spreading 20 truckloads of road base to help make the road passable in wet weather. The cost was approximately $1700 for trucking and materials. Grading and compacting work was to be donated by property owner Tom Bond. Paul Rieker asked whether the work to be performed would prevent erosion at a section of road where erosion had occurred around underground power lines in the storms of 2004/2005. Eaton responded that the answer was “no.” Given budget restraints, prices for extensive work to redo the drainage system at Sunset Peak with culverts and Arizona crossings and re-grade the surface were too prohibitive to accommodate anything but minor road maintenance this year.
Rieker asked if the Committee received a bid from a contractor who is a friend of his. Eaton and Ebmeier replied they had contacted this individual but he said he would call them back the next week and they never heard back from him. Rieker said he would get a bid from him but that this individual did not have a California contractor’s license. Szepkouski responded that any contractor who performs work for the Committee for a fee must be licensed.
Gate Report: The Gate Report was presented by J. Szepkouski. He reported slight damage and vandalism to the gate during the year and answered questions on gate operation. He suggested it was nearing time to distribute new codes to property owners, since there were many people out there with access codes who were not members of the community and who might he passing the codes around. He cited real estate agents as particularly egregious in violating the community’s security by giving out codes to large numbers of people with whom they are barely familiar. Security violations that had occurred were discussed.
Property-owner Tom Taufer rose to register his yearly statement that the gate is on “his private property” and the conditions he set when he granted permission for the gate to be constructed within the easement on his property had not been met. The Committee disagreed and cited the letter from our Counsel sent to Mr. Taufer addressing this and other issues. Mr. Taufer denied receiving this letter.
Mr. Taufer also stated that he had been assessed property taxes for the gate. J. Szepkouski responded
that this issue was resolved within one day of occurring in 2004 and that all of these statements had been addressed repeatedly in previous years.
New Operating Policy:
The objective of this new operating policy is simply to stop independent property-owners from performing work on the road and/or within the road easement area without prior coordination and approval from the Road Committee. Work performed without the coordination of the Road Committee can result in conflicts and additional costs to all parties and does not serve the best interests of the community.
Secretary Eaton read the text of a new policy (Policy #011—see www.ranchoheights.com) that prohibits the performance of substantive work done on drainage systems and the roads by property owners without consultation with the Committee. The Committee requests that all property owners attempting to do road work or drainage work at new or existing homes consult with Committee to ensure they are performing work to the Committee’s standards.
Specific language of Policy 11 includes; “No road work or repair shall be undertaken by anyone without prior notification and approval of the Rancho Height Road Maintenance Committee…Work may be undone by Committee and it’s contractors and the property-owner who performed the work will be charged the exact amount of the cost to undo the work performed”.
Pre-Submitted Community Agenda Items:
Cluster Mailboxes:
Jan Geller reported on a project to replace single mail boxes within the easement just outside the gate with cluster mail boxes. She said that the price would be approximately $130 (including installation) for each box in a set of 13 boxes. She suggested that people who were interested give her their name and phone number.
T. Taufer rose and stated that he was also organizing a project to convert the existing mailboxes to cluster boxes. The Committee had never been made aware of this. Chairman Geller stated “this serves as yet another example of how all parties benefit when a property-owner works “in conjunction” with the Road Committee rather than in isolation and at cross purposes with one another.
Official Ballot, Amendments, Liberty Tree Claims:
Former Chairman S. Bochinski rose to question the plaintiffs in the recent lawsuit on the nature of their proposals to amend the Road Agreement. Specifically, how many votes were required for passage and how could there be a recount if the ballots were separated from the envelopes that detail parcel information? T. Prince responded that he believed it would take 65% of apportioned votes to approve of each of the amendments. After discussion, Mr. Prince decided that the number of votes on each envelope would be written on the ballot and that all ballots and envelopes would be kept and sealed in separate envelopes after counting.
Proposed Amendments to the Road Agreement by Prince et al:
Vote Counting: At this time the meeting was recessed in order to allow the vote counting to proceed
Vote Results:(Posted after conclusion of meeting): All Amendments Failed to Pass.
Election of Committee Members: The floor was opened for nominations for candidates to serve on the Committee. S. Bochinski nominated J. Geller; seconded by Mary Williams. S. Plyler nominated J. Szepkouski: seconded by D. Bochinski. Jan Geller nominated K. Ebmeier, seconded by J. Eaton.
Chairman Geller asked for further nominations from the floor as there were no candidates for the Road Committee other than our incumbents. Specifically, Chairman Geller urged those property-owners who have had complaints with the Committee and even more-so, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against the Committee, to run for office. He stressed that running for these positions is the positive and productive means of bringing change to the community. Chairman Geller stressed that if there were to be no challengers to the incumbents, it represented a blanket endorsement of the current Committee’s work, at which time, the overwhelming majority of those in attendance, applauded.
Regardless of his prodding for productive involvement, the election moved forward with no one stepping forward to challenge for the three open seats on the Road Committee. In closing, Chairman Geller stated that “as three of the five seats on the Committee were open for election, this was the perfect opportunity for those unhappy with the Committee to step forward and potentially assume controlling interest of the Committee and productively work for the Community’s benefit”.
Regardless of the Chairman’s urging for others to become productively involved, the election moved forward with no one challenging for the open seats on the Committee. At this point, property-owner M. Williams commented expressing disbelief that there were no other people willing to be nominated or to nominate, given the high level of dissatisfaction expressed continuously by a small group in the community. D. Eaton moved that the nominations be closed, seconded by C. Hill.
Election results: As the elections for the three available seats were uncontested, the vote tally was as follows; Kirk Ebmeier = 69 votes, James Szepkouski = 67 votes, and Jonathan Geller = 63 votes. Ebmeier, Szepkouski and Geller were all re-elected without opposition.
Open Forum with Committee:
Stephen Bochinski asked of the status of the vote on proposals to increase assessments from $200 per benefit unit to $400 per benefit unit and to establish an emergency fund. It was reported that not enough votes had been cast for or against passage, although it was noted that a majority of votes cast were in favor of the proposal.
M. Schetter suggested that another proposal be presented and that everyone work hard together to get it passed. Chairman Geller estimated it would take six to twelve months to get a proposal passed. Former Committee member Phil Burke commented that the problem with getting proposals passed was always lack of involvement by concerned property owners. He suggested that people talk to their neighbors and inform them of the looming problems faced by the Committee and how the Committee will be unable to do its job without additional funding. Former Committee member Steven Plyler spoke of similar frustration during his time on the Committee.
In response to this conversation, Chairman Geller committed to publishing next year’s meeting schedule within a few weeks with the plan of having a special community meeting in January devoted to the subject of raising funds. Numerous property-owners in this discussion agreed that they would like join a task force devoted to the successful passage of new resolution designed to increase the annual budget of our community to a sustainable level.
Adjournment:
At 11:30 a.m. the meeting was adjourned when it was realized that the vote counting on the six proposals offered by the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, would go on for another half hour at least and that our allotted time at the Mary Philips Center would run out. The final tallies later revealed that all six amendments offered by plaintiffs as a condition of the agreement in the lawsuit had failed to gain approval by wide margins.
References:
“Lawsuit” in this document refers to Timothy Prince et al, Plaintiffs v.
Rancho Heights Road Committee, et al, Defendants.
Case # GINO54132, Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego.
The case was settled in Mediation with a Memorandum of Understanding dismissing the Action in its entirety with prejudice on April 9, 2007.
“Liberty Tree” refers to the group of dissatisfied property-owners calling themselves the Rancho Heights Liberty Tree. This group started by Mr. Tim Prince is responsible for the Yellow Signs stating “Another Property Owner Dissatisfied with the Rancho Heights Road Committee.”
Their customary email address as listed on their signs appears as ranchoheightslibertytree @cox.net.
“Council’s Letter to Mr. Taufer” refers to the letter sent directly by Counsel to Mr. Taufer’s primary mailing address via Federal Express. Content of letter addressing Mr. Taufer’s complaint(s) included; “All property owners are legally entitled to use their roadway within the Rancho Heights community, and each owner will continue to exercise this right. As you are aware, the legal right each owner is entitled to exercise in reference to the roads within the community includes all legally recognized access easements as documented in San Diego County records and confirmed by recent challenges in San Diego Superior Court.”
Date Minutes Meeting Held:
Saturday, October 27, 2007