Annual Meeting Minutes - 2011
Date: October 22, 2011
Location: Temecula Community Center / Pujol Street / Old Town Temecula
Time: 9: 00 a.m. - 12: 00 a.m.
Committee Members Attending: D. Eaton, C. Hill, J. Geller, M. Williams, J. Szepkouski
Property-Owners Attending: J. Driscoll., S. Simmons, R. & N. Martin, C.& G. Glasgow, D. Wilbur, J. & M. Cates, G. Tellier, R.& C. Steffey, P. Bulfinch, R. & J. Barbanell, S. & W. Plyler, E. Dunnick, M. Schetter, B. Shaw, J. Hill, J. & D. Rising, P. Burke, C. Szepkouski, C.& S Lingafelt, T. DiSandro
====================================================================
Call to Order
Chairman Eaton calls to order. Speaks regarding Road Agreement speaking to improving the roads of the community and that is what we are here to discuss. Asked that participants in discussions speak respectfully to each other. Requested a Moment of Silence for two property owners we lost over the past year: Terry Thomas and Connie Ryan.
Election of Committee Members
Opening, Seconding and Closing of Nominations:
J. Hill nominated J. Rising, Seconded by J. Cates
J. Rising nominated R. Barbanell, Seconded by Craig Hill
R. Barbanell nominated J. Szepkouski, Seconded by R. Steffey.
J. Hill moved nominations be closed. Seconded by J. Cates
Nominations voted closed, unanimous agreement by Committee
Statements of Candidates:
Rising: I have been a member of this community long enough to recognize the work and commitment put forth by others who have been on the road committee for sometime. As a ember of this community it is my obligation to serve as well so now is the time for me to contribute. I think some fresh blood, new ideas and a different approach may be a good thing.
Barbanell: I've spent a great deal of time talking with members of the Rancho Committee and community over the last two years. My experiences in doing so have lead me to believe that it is kind of scary to run for a position on the Rancho Heights Road and Management Committee. This is a feeling also expressed by Mary Williams two years ago when she first ran for office. Her anxiety then, and mine now, is because of the overwhelming vitriolic discontent amongst a vocal and energetic few, which continues up to the present. Thus far the Committee nor myself has been able to resolve issues put forth by the dissidents, many of whom are my friends. Now two committee members (Mary and Jon) have chosen not to run re-election, I am sure these decisions were in part, due to frustration with the existing situation, especially ongoing litigation. With regard to dealing with my dissident friends, I have listened to their complaints and studied their arguments. I feel as a committee member this process continues to be my moral, intellectual, and fiduciary responsibility to the community if elected.
There seems to a lot of responsibility and liability which accrues to Committee members in trying to make the best decisions for the community based upon current and past decisions being contested by the dissidents.
It has been very time consuming and stressful to committee members to address legally complex complaints of all sorts put forth by the dissidents. The Committee has had to make a lot of important decisions on its own (with some attorney advise) because there is virtually total community apathy and therefore absence of needed input. The Committee has justifiably assumed that such community apathy is always the rule, and, therefore, the committee has had to make expedient decisions. These decisions, which are made in the current vacuum of community support, are what some of the community often complain about when choosing to be involved at all. The community at large is generally unwilling to spend the time to be involved which is necessary to provide and effectuate alternative solutions to those the Committee has offered. In a similar vein, amendments cannot be passed because needed votes are not cast for various reasons in legally sufficient numbers to take needed action.
Jeff just tried to say that with two new people on the Committee there should be room for new problem solving ideas. I join in this goal and opinion. I want to work in harmony with each incumbent Committee member, but new approaches should be tried and then should be supported or contested by the community as it (the community) is made aware of such approaches which reflects the new committees’ recommendations. Absence of community involvement invites a committee which justifiably dictates rather than represents. Its hands furthermore are tied by the inoperable Road and Management Agreement which was cobbled together four decades ago when circumstances were quite different and there were fewer parcels.
I thank the Committee for coming way more than half way and working so hard in the last year in expanding the involvement of non-Committee members (including dissidents) who care to join with the Committee in decisions affecting the community at large. Meaningful important compromises have been made to improve communication and begin more effective dispute resolution. Even the voting and structure of the meeting today are a result of such compromises.
I look forward to working as a Committee member to continue to solve the complex problems facing our community, and to get appropriate advice from objective and reliable professional sources when prudent, and economically sensible. I also look forward to the Committee being able to get back to fixing Rancho Heights roads, the Committee’s primary responsibility, and management on behalf of community (including issues of safety).
Szepkouski: My priority is maintenance of our which is our shared asset, working with County on safety, working with Sheriff on Neighborhood watch program.
Q&A of Candidates:
Tellier: Q: Ron, what about opening Magee Road? Answer: This is an issue of fire safety which is not a matter of litigation. Gene, you are guilty of not attending the meetings you were invited to. Am I going to promote something which could cause more litigation? “NO”.
Tellier: Q: Ron, My understanding is that Mr. Bulfinch works for you? A: Yes, he does. Q: Mr. Bulfinch is in litigation, what side are you going to be on? A: Phil Bulfinch one of the most honorable people I’ve ever met. As an elected official, my allegiance is to the community. I would look forward, not backward. I will not participate in trying to remedy the past. Individuals on the Committee should not be personally responsible.
Telleir: Q: Ron, Would you be willing to make a pledge? A: I already have. I would vote for what is right. If Committee is given wrong legal advice, the attorney is to be held responsible. I will act in good faith for all property owners.
Q: What about the signs? A: This is America and people get to express themselves
Williams: Q: Ron, do you agree with the people who have the signs.? A: If I did, I’d have a sign up.
Eaton: The signs are a problem for property values and the community fabric.
Burke: As Americans , everyone has the right to disagree. Everett and I disagree but we are neighbors and friends. We take care of our differences through existing means. Ron is not responsible for the signs.
Rising: I’ve been in many of the meetings at Ron’s house which are being referred to. In these meetings, there is much disparity of opinion but the discussions are about eliminating the “us and them”. Some people can’t really reach a middle ground but some new perspective on the Road Committee will be very positive and healthy for everyone. I don’t like the signs but I respect their rights to post their sign. Some new folks on the Committee can help healthy dialogue on this and other topics.
B. Shaw: It won’t matter who’s on the Board. Theses people are unhappy and nothing is going to change it. I believe they don’t care about the Community.
Tellier: Ron and Jeff, would you two candidates work to get those signs down. A: Yes, Yes.
Burke: Until the Committee can actually change the governing Road Agreement, we are forced to live within certain limitations.
D. Rising I’m a Realtor, I don’t believe the signs have lowered our value. It’s more a matter of our odd location in San Diego County while most Realtors in the area or located in Temecula, Riverside County.
Bulfinch: I’d like to put a personal comment on this. Development is restricted and property value has declined on vacant lots because of the following reasons: The lots exceed the maximum dead end road length for fire code; the lots exceed the maximum response time from the Rincon Fire station for fire code; the lots failed to have deeded secondary road access/egress for fire code; developers would have to improve the road to their lots along that easement road and to those lots, to County standards.
I’ve had my property for sale since 2003 with wide ranging offers. My property had documented offers of $1.2M, $1M, $900K, $650K, and $380K. None of those buyers came to me and rescinded the offers due to either negative disclosure from SD County, or by claiming that the lots were not subdividable. Development Cancellations of escrows were due to road construction concerns, and why I had to maintain the dirt road at my own costs.
Tellier: How many people have not paid their annual dues? I don’t believe people who haven’t paid should be allowed to vote. If they don’t pay, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Geller: Q.: Gene, I’d be willing to make a motion to re-open nominations if you’d like to run for the Road Committee: Would you like to run?:
`A: I’d like to but my wife won’t let me.
Eaton: If spousal approval was required for being on the Committee there would be no Committee.
Simmons: Much time has been spent on election process this year. I’m sure you’ve noticed these changes. This was developed so your votes would be completely private. I am the only person who ever sees the identifying information of the voter and I am completely independent. As a CPA, I am licensed to assure validity and confidentiality. The people counting the votes will not know who has placed the vote.
Volunteers for counting of ballots: C. & G. Glasgow
Vote Casting / CountingSimmons
Financial Report C.Hill
You’ve all received the financial report in the mail. A few of the basics: Earlier in the year, $8,000 was transferred from the emergency fund to the general fund to facilitate cash flow until assessments were received. This will be replaced when funds are available.
Through August, 2011, income was $51,905.69; expenses were $56,277.10. Of the legal fees reported, $10,685 are for collection actions and are typically recovered. The remaining $17,776.41 in legal fees relate to the two ongoing lawsuits and how much will be recovered is unknown.
Operational funds currently available are $4,357.42; emergency funds available are $17,299.37.
Receivables are $24, 468.88.
Dunnick: Is it not true you lost on the late fee issue: Yes. You spent $22,000 from our maintenance fund. Somewhere along the line, we have to vote on how you spend money.
Eaton: If we don’t pursue collections cases, no one would pay. That ruling was a technicality. It is an established practice after five years. And we’ve been charging late fees for 8 years. Unfortunately we changed the way we did it three years previous to the trial.
Roberts Rules of Order do not apply to this organization so the Committee makes these decision.
Bulfinch: I applaud the people who are willing to speak here today.
Barbanell: We’ve held quarterly meetings one of which dealt with how we can make the voting process more effective. The people in this room today (only thirty three of us, comprising representation of only twenty two parcels out of 144 or less than 20% of the total) are those who show they care, by their presence and time which they are willing to spend on behalf of dealing with the problems facing the community at large.
The Committee needs to inform and educate all property owners of the community in order that legitimate and effective joint responsibility becomes our paradigm. At the three quarterly meetings held this year, there were never more than a dozen owners present representing even fewer parcels. I believe that once property owners defacto forfeit their rights by not expressing themselves and not participating, the rest of us Committee members and participating community members need to move forward and make the decisions that need to be made NOW! Legally enforceable disenfranchisement of those who abrogate communal responsibility is what the community is devolving into.
Tellier: We need the financial resources to fight these legal battles.
Road ReportSzepkouski
Presented color-coded map, have driven every road and this is the status:
Rankings by what percentage of funds would be spent on indicated section
0-5% - pretty good, maybe some potholes
5-25% - alligatored
25-50%: - significant potholing, alligatored and needs sectional paving
100%: - can’t patch at all, needs complete removal and replacement: complete re-paving
If we had to replace 25% of the overall roads, the economics are $20,000 just to fix a half mile. We actually need a couple hundred thousand to take care of the fixes now.
Burke: Is there a proposal for how we take care of this?
Szepkouski: With our existing funds, we would be lucky to take care of the existing potholes.
We are changing gate codes and remote codes on October 25th at 11: 00 p.m. Please pay attention to the instructions you received in your annual mailer packet.
What would people’s opinion be of using a sole-source serialized remote that you can only get from the community?: Transitioning over the next year:
Supporting: 80% hands raised (yea).
Objections (Nay): Tellier, a woman owner and Bulfinch James asked for reasons for objections. The woman dissenter claimed her car remote was not compatible. Bulfinch objected noting several points; that all developers since 1980 were obligated to dedicate the roads to public use; that Parcel maps support this; that the County has never vacated the dedication requirement. Five years from 1981 the road dedication was accepted by common-law means and the roads became public. More than half of Magee Road is already public for one hundred and sixty five years. Using a sole-source serialized remote improperly restricts the public from accessing the roads beyond the gate.
Chairman Eaton, upon request of E. Dunnick, agreed to adjust the Agenda and have the election results announced by S. Simmons but Mr. Dunnick left the room before the reading.
Election Results48 parcels represented / 107 votes availableSimmons
Final Vote Count
James Szepkouski: 92
Jeff Rising: 100
Ron Barbanell: 93
New Business & “Pre-Submitted” Agenda ItemsEaton
(Submitted prior to 10/15/11, as published)
Interpreting the Road Agreement on voting proceduresEaton
Eaton: 2 Governing documents that bind us:
1. Road Agreement
2. California Corporations Code for Unincorporated Assoc.
Eaton: Title III of the Corporations Code gives us some rules and regulations on running the Community. Gives us the rule of established practices, which says that if we've been doing something a certain way for five years or more, it's an acceptable practice.
Road Agreement has four sections that describe voting procedures on issues of interest to the Community. I assert that the language in two of them allow us to conduct votes without having to achieve 65% percent approval of apportioned votes of all property owners. For example, I believe to pass an increase in assessments we need 65% of those who vote. That said, a 33% quorum would need to be achieved to pass an increase in assessments, based on Title III of the Corporations Code.
I also believe, based on Title III, that to amend the Road Agreement we need only a majority vote of property owners, but that it would be advisable as a precautionary measure to rely on Davis-Sterling, which requires a majority vote of approval of all property owners. County of San Diego has passed a new General Plan: we are now zoned for 40 acres which means only a couple of parcels could subdivide.
The proposals we presented in 2010 which created a one parcel- one vote/ one benefit unit and a one developed parcel- two vote/two benefit unit system of assessments and voting power are still the best way to go and in light of the change in the General Plan are now more appropriate than ever. No property in Rancho Heights will likely ever be subdivided again, which means all properties regardless of size are inherently equal.
It is important that we interpret the Road Agreement in such a way as to make raising money to improve and maintain roads easier to achieve. I believe the existing language allows us to raise assessments with 65% approval of those who vote.
Comments
Burke: Get formal legal opinion on how these changes can be made….
Eaton: Legal expert opinion from Mary Howe: determined we are not covered by Davis-Sterling due to not having parcel map of community recorded with the County.
Barbanell: We need our attorney’s Errors & Omissions policies to be on the line regarding all matters that the Committee makes legally consequent decisions about. Community policies must be backed up by attorney responsibility. Committee members should have no personal liability for the decisions they are asked to make, having been assisted by community attorneys and community affirmation. When conflicts of interest arise with regard to committee member participation in dealing with any matter, those committee members must recuse themselves from voting, but be involved in discussion.
The “Community” should ratify Committee decisions in writing and thus share responsibility and liability for “policy decisions.” Providing no opinion as a parcel owner should be interpreted as affirmation, not abstention, with regard to official voting.
As committee and community members we all need defensible attorney positions and not opinions from those who would simply tell us what we “want to hear.” Those opinions should be defensible and not too expensive to defend.
Whatever the Committee learns, by all its collective efforts to understand complex issues such information should be effectively promulgated to the Rancho community members at large. The Committee ought to disseminate all of its opinions regarding all decisions in a minority and majority format, so that the community can be comprehensively educated (when appropriate) of potentially legally binding decisions. This dissemination of balanced information needs to be done by ordinary mail unless people will provide email addresses which we can forward to on a regular basis.
I accept and understand that committee members will sometimes have information which is privileged and confidential. ALL committee members should sign confidentiality statements regarding such matters. These agreements should remain in effect in perpetuity.
Eaton: Name of this attorney is Mary Howe. Specializes in residential associations. Title III only requires a vote of the association. Not specific.
Burke: That statement gives us hope. It is still obscure as not referring to majority or undefined. So clearly more clarity from legal authority is necessary.
Bulfinch: Davis Stirling doesn’t apply, I agree. We are not a development….we are a series of developments….we do not have a subdivision with a common map applicant. You’d be better off to rescind the whole agreement by a majority vote and create a new agreement.
California Corporations Code Section 18410(b)). An unincorporated association may be dissolved by any of the following methods:
(a) If the association's governing documents provide a method for dissolution, by that method.
(b) If the association's governing documents do not provide a method for dissolution, by the affirmative vote of a majority of the voting power of the association.
.
Eaton: We'd need to have an approved, re-written Road Agreement in hand before we rescind the existing agreement.
Rising: Onus is to identify critical items and options…publish it, get some feedback and choose an option. We need to list the 10 or 12 real issues we have with the current road agreement and start with some ideas on how to correct them. I think it is obvious to everyone that our ability to respond to the changing needs of this community is seriously restricted by the current agreement. Consensus is encouraging about having options so let’s look into what could possibly be done.
Time & Place for continuation of new business
to be determined by Committee Eaton
Barbanell: The Intention of not closing the annual meeting was to allow the community to participate in on-going decision making of the Committee. I encourage “more community involvement.” The Community was supposed to submit items for further discussion today. I am unaware of any community member who did this. That’s the problem. We have too many complainers and not enough listeners and few “doers.” Those who do not want to share in the community responsibility are inviting disenfranchisement Today of the 144 parcels that could vote, 22 were present and voted. 26 parcels voted by proxy, 96 parcels (or over 70%) did not vote at all.
Intentions: Within reasonable time, announcements for quarterly meeting schedule.
Barbanell: We need to have meetings about correcting the flaws in our dysfunctional Road Agreement. We need to get legal help to create a lawfully binding agreement which fairly adjudicates contemporary problems and is legally binding in replacing the old agreement.
The US Constitution has flexibility which allows for changes with time. This is why it is so successful. The Declaration and Road Agreement does not have that constitutional flexibility and is therefore dysfunctional and detrimental to properly conduct community business in a timely and effective manner. Opinions regarding what the agreement means require specific attorney support in writing. Legally defensible interpretations are absolutely necessary before effectuating interpretation of the Road Agreement. The community should avoid inadvertently inviting more liability with no third party professional protection for our actions.
Q: Are Committee meetings open to all? A: Not all of them.
Bulfinch: How about an attorney with no conflict of interests, have the person present at the meeting so we can all raise questions.
Tellier: Take the current proposals off the table and propose how to get money to fix the roads.
We need to stand up and prepare to fight with money and every landowner pays the same.
C. Hill: Key problem is voting structure: we cannot proceed until we clarify the legality of our voting. Want a general overview of how people in this room feel.
Sense of the Community Vote: One Man One vote: No one raised hand reflecting no one is prepared to vote on anything without further discussion and information.
Adjournment (to next announced/scheduled meeting) 12:00 p.m.
Date Minutes Meeting Held:
Saturday, October 22, 2011