Annual Meeting Minutes - 2008
Date: October 25th, 2008
Location: Temecula Community Center, Pujol St., Temecula, California
Time: 9:00 AM
Committee Members Present: J. Geller, K. Ebmeier, J. Szepkouski, C. Hill and D. Eaton
Property Owners Present: D. Wilbur, C. Szepkouski, Kathy Ebmeier, J. Hill, M. Williams and B. Shaw, C. and P. Smith, P. Burke, T. Bond, J. and M. Cates, R. Barbanell and R. Millot, J. and C. Ayala, M. A. Schetter and J Kilker, T. DiSandro, B. Gill and P. Rieker, A. Borges, S. and M. Chavez, T and M Chavez, B. Hougdahl, S. Plyler.
=====================================================================
Call to Order:
Chairman Geller called the meeting to order at 9:10 AM. The call to order was delayed by the presence of a video photographer who claimed he was there to record the proceedings at the behest of his father who was a property owner. When the name he gave did not match any name on the list of property owners, he was asked to leave. He refused to leave until he was informed that the police were on their way to remove him.
Additions/Changes to the agenda:
The Chairman announced that the elections would be the first item on the agenda.
Elections for two seats on the Committee.
The two seats held by C. Hill and D. Eaton were open for election. Chairman Geller asked for nominations from the floor. S. Plyler nominated D. Eaton, second by T. Bond. J. Cates nominated C. Hill, second by M. Williams. J. Cates was nominated by B. Hougdahl, second by Gill/Rieker. Cates declined the nomination.
Paul Rieker (representative of B.Gill) immediately interrupted the meeting, objecting to the nominations of Hill and Eaton. He demanded to speak at length criticizing the service performed by Hill and Eaton in their two years in office and opposed their election C. Smith yelled out asking “What are the Rules of Order of this meeting?” Chairman Geller responded, “The Rules of Order are that if a party will not respect or allow the orderly conduct of the meeting, the police will be called and they will be removed”.
The nominations were closed after no more nominations from the floor were forthcoming. The Chairman advised everyone to fill out their ballots and hand them in. Property owners D. Wilbur and John Kilker volunteered to count the ballots.
Chairman Geller repeated his observation from the previous year's annual meeting that it was revealing, given the disagreements in the community, that no one “dissatisfied” with the Committee sought to have their name placed on the ballot. He expressed that the lack of anyone wishing to run for a seat on the Committee serves as a blanket endorsement of the job the Committee is doing. B. Shaw stood to say that some member of the Liberty Tree should run for the Committee to address whatever concerns they have in a productive manner. There was no response from any such members.
Financial Report:
Report was presented by Treasurer Ebmeier. Account balances, payables, receivables and collection status were reviewed. Legal expenses incurred protecting the Community from actions by Rancho Heights Liberty Tree were explained. Gill/Rieker spoke at length criticizing the Committee's negligence regarding their road, Sunset Peak and the decision to put $25,000 into an emergency fund. They demanded that the Committee make their road passable in all weather conditions.
Kirk Ebmeier noted that two members of the Committee lived on a dirt road that was maintained by the residents who lived on the road. Gill/Rieker were advised that the Community did not have enough money to do extensive work on dirt roads and it was up to the property owners on those roads to improve the roads. T. Bond responded that as the only resident on the road, he was happy with the work the Committee had done and was currently proposing to do in partnership with property owners on Sunset Peak.
It was noted that the funds do not exist to pave any of the three miles of dirt road in the community and that all available resources needed to be spent on the maintenance of the five miles of paved roads or kept in an emergency fund. Motion to accept Financial Report made by C. Hill, seconded by J. Szepkouski. Passed by all.
Road Report
The Road Report was presented by J. Szepkouski, who spoke of weed abatement and other smaller jobs completed this year. He then asked for the location of any potholes that needed to be fixed. T. Bond, B.Shaw and Mary Williams mentioned three places. It was also noted that at the curve by Wyatt ranch there is erosion of the pavement from runoff. Kathy Ebmeier emphasized that all property owners and their guests should be observing the 25 mph speed limit in the community because of the narrowness and curvy nature of our roads.
Gill/Rieker asked if there were a set of printed standards that the Committee adheres to when doing road work. Szepkouski replied that there was not, that it greatly increases the price of the work to comply with standards that are not always necessary, and that common sense and skilled contractors are all that is needed. The roads are built to standards that have been established over the years and were originally based on the standards for private roads in effect at the time. Eaton noted that building roads is not rocket science, that there are several people in the community with knowledge of road building and that their expertise has always been used.
Eaton discussed a project on Sunset Peak that was being contemplated in which the Committee would pay for 120 ft. of 24” culvert pipe (to be installed at three locations), and related materials for catch basins while property owners with frontage on Sunset Peak would pay for the labor and equipment to install the pipe and basins. Motion to accept Road Report made by K. Ebmeier, seconded by Geller, passed by all.
Election Results
After counting, election results were announced. Having run opposed, Craig Hill and Doug Eaton were re-elected by acclaim excepting one write-in vote for John Cates who had declined the nomination.
Open Forum
* Discussion of Legal Expenses
Chairman Geller introduced the Open Forum with comments regarding why legal expenses vis a vis Rancho Heights Liberty Tree were necessary. He read portions of letters from Community attorney Robert Caietti to property owner Tom Taufer on a variety of subjects ranging from interfering with the Committee's duties and constructing an unauthorized cluster mailbox installation without consulting with the Community or the Committee. (See Reference 1 below.)
* Letter Demanding 3 Million Dollars
Geller read portions of a letter from Gill/Rieker to the Committee that demanded $3 million in damages from the Community. In response to Gill/Rieker's vocal and physical interruption of today’s meeting, Chairman Geller reminded them of their official status with the Road Committee by reading excerpts from Ms. Gills letter of February, 2008 as well as the Committee’s written response.
Ms. Gills letter included the following:
“Gentleman, this is a demand letter for $3,000.000. Please forward this claim to your insurance company. Your Committee has caused great distress and improper actions: For equitable considerations and legal violation of responsibilities/duties…..I have suffered legally and equitably to my detriment, among other things, I demand $3 Million.”
The Committee’s written response stated:
“Due to the legally threatening nature of the first letter in which you demanded $3,000,000 from the Rancho Heights Community, you leave the Committee no choice but to cease all communication with you until such time you demonstrate your intent, legal and otherwise, towards the Rancho Heights Community.”
* Yellow Signs
C. Smith asked what was being done about the Yellow Signs which express dissatisfaction with the Road Committee as they are damaging to the Community.
Chairman Geller read the text of two petitions that had been circulated regarding the removal of yellow signs and noted that the first one had garnered more than fifty signatures from resident homeowners, an overwhelming majority of the people who live in Rancho Heights.
(See Reference 2 and Reference 3 below.)
Smith asked why the yellow protest signs were still up after so many years, and why the Committee could not take them down. A broad discussion ensued over easement rights in general and the Community's right to have the signs removed. It was generally agreed that the Committee had the right to take them down if they were in the easement, but perhaps not if they were on exclusive private property, unless the nuisance clause in the Road Agreement were invoked. The Committee is in discussions with its attorney on this matter. C. Ayala accused the Committee of “bullying” certain residents but did not provide specific examples.
Reputed actions by Rancho Heights Liberty Tree to dissuade potential investors from buying property in the community were described. General dissatisfaction with the yellow protest signs that are posted at the side of the road on a few properties was expressed. Chairman Geller responded that the matter of the yellow protest signs was being addressed in the current discussions between the attorney representing our community and those parties who challenge the Community's right to utilize the easement areas as described in each property owner's property Title.
Geller stated that this dispute had been ongoing for many years but had reached a new stage in the summer of 2007 as indicated by the letters from Attorney Caietti to Tom Taufer. Most speakers agreed that the signs were having an adverse effect on property values and should therefore be legally removed wherever posted because they constituted a nuisance and are forbidden by Section 8 of the road agreement.
Kathy Ebmeier pointed out that the signs are an advertisement for Rancho Heights Liberty Tree and that members of that group could be legally liable if they are using the signs to slander the Committee and denigrate the Community to future buyers and others in the real estate business.
Chairman Geller described the process of how over 50 property-owners petitioned those displaying the Yellow signs and respectfully asked for their removal. He explained that the petition was written in a friendly and neighborly manner. After the Petition had no affect other than an angry response from one of those who posts a sign, the same property owners then circulated a second petition addressed to the Road and Management Committee which asked the Committee to formally address the problem as a Nuisance, per Section 8 of the Road Agreement which states: “No nuisance or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any of the land nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood.”
When C. Ayala challenged Chairman Geller to define what would officially constitute a nuisance, he cited the language directly from the first Petition: “The signs are cause for concern for people new to our community, whether they be prospective property owners, realtors and/or new community members. The signs give the impression of a community in distress or disharmony and perhaps most importantly, the signs could have a negative impact on all of our property values.”
He then said: “As the Committee has been petitioned by a substantial number of property owners to address the Yellow Signs as a nuisance, the Committee will research the matter and consult with our attorney.” He further noted that while approximately six out of 138 property owners currently display yellow signs which express “dissatisfaction” with the Committee, that only one of them saw fit to attend the meeting and express the cause of their dissatisfaction or propose solutions to the problems they believe exist. Note: Those parties who display yellow signs who were notably absent from this meeting include; Taufer, Prince and Dunnick.
The Chairman noted that the yellow signs are a subject of discussion in the negotiations between lawyers over the cluster mailboxes that the Community installed in the legally recognized easement. These boxes have not yet received service because USPS was contacted by Rancho Heights Liberty Tree and the owner of the property, both of whom objected to the project's location. (The unauthorized clusterboxes installed by Tom Taufer at the bottom of the road have also been denied service until the dispute is resolved.) The Committee is expecting some news on a possible resolution of the dispute in the near future.
* Intersection of Rancho Heights Road and Magee Road
C. Smith inquired about the intersection of Magee Road and Rancho Heights Rd and noted it was difficult for those stopping on Rancho Heights Rd, to see any oncoming traffic coming down Magee Road. He wondered if it might be better to have two stop signs there rather than one stop sign and one caution sign. The Committee agreed to consider the suggestion, although a new caution sign had recently been installed on Magee Rd. to replace a yield sign.
* Road Shoulders and Safety
Eaton expressed the general consensus of the Committee that wherever there is road shoulder in the easement, it should be preserved and maintained for safety and emergency purposes. It was noted that the roads are narrow, winding and occasionally steep and that cars often drift into the opposite lane and force drivers onto the shoulder. An avenue of escape from an oncoming car that has drifted from its lane should be maintained where possible.
* Covering Community Legal Expenses
The problems posed by Liberty Tree were discussed. The Chairman asked for opinions on whether Community assessment funds should be spent to resolve the legal issues or whether additional funds should be collected from all property owners who would be willing to contribute to the legal defense of their property rights and Community. Comments were heard in support of each approach and all agreed the community should be as legally aggressive as necessary.
C. Bolster suggested that the Committee not stray from it's duties as enumerated in the Road Agreement. D. Eaton, while agreeing with Bolster, pointed out that the Committee had a duty to defend the Road Agreement which was being challenged by members of Liberty Tree, some of whom were attempting usurp the functions of the Committee and prevent it from carrying out its obligations. He noted that the Road Committee is a deliberative body that represents the interests of property owners, and that violations of the letter and the spirit of the Road Agreement are an assault on the democratic rights of all property owners and the concept of orderly self-governance.
Chairman Geller emphasized that the Committee is committed to resolving these conflicts by means of an informal resolution rather than costly litigation. As such, all possibilities will be exhausted before committing to litigation. However, it is “not an option” to not do whatever is necessary to protect property-owner’s rights and our community’s Road Agreement.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Geller at 11 a.m.
Date Minutes Meeting Held:
Saturday, October 25, 2008