archives

ANNUAL MEETING CELEBRATES COMMUNITY, HARD WORKING BOARD

(Posted 6-7-07) On Saturday, May 26, in the middle of one of the most beautiful springs in years, some 120 TRLA members enjoyed what was perhaps the most harmonious and positive annual meeting ever. Thanks belong in huge measure to a board that has worked tirelessly to keep Timberlake Ranch running through a difficult transition to competent and proper management. Thanks also to all of you who remained vigilant and stuck with TRLA through challenging times.

     The morning session was filled with almost continuous applause for the board in general, and specifically for: Jerry Toellner and Ted Rodda for plowing snow off the roads all winter and finding an excellent reconditioned grader we can afford; Duane Barbano for his production of Timberlake Times; Linda Pederson for creating a logical system of TRLA files out of chaos and her leadership in the process of bylaws revision; Eileen Domer for all the work she has done to create a proper budget and collect past dues; Anne Gilpin for her efforts to create a website for TRLA; and last but by no means least David Skinner whose term has ended, for his great service as President, holding it all together.
     Here are just a few highlights: The annual dues have been raised to $215 (finally enough to pay for the grader, buy some gravel, and conduct business). A totally refurbished grader with a year's service and guarantee has been purchased for about $70,000. Three employees have been hired; Ralph Cranston who will be the ranch hand, Margaret Allen who will maintain the bathhouse, and Robert Unkestine who will operate the grader. The three old lawsuits; McGarry, Allen, and Garcia, have all been satisfactorily resolved.
     Finally we are happy to report that 78 hot-dogs, 146 hamburgers (the hot-dogs were better), 6 cases of water and soft drinks, and a vast array of potluck offerings were consumed. Especially notable were the excellent and varied selections of chocolate desserts.
     Here are some names and numbers, including officers who were elected Thursday evening at an Executive Session: 197 lots were represented by Quorum Proxy and attendance.
     Jerry Toellner, Eileen Domer, and Jerry Ackerman were all elected to the board. The votes were 188 for Eileen Domer, 187 for Jerry Toellner, and 176 for Jerry Ackerman. Again thanks and kudos to all for helping us become the community we want to be, and our special gratitude to David Skinner for service far beyond the call.View the complete next year Board of Directors here.

TRLA ANNUAL MEETING
May 28, 2005
Afternoon Session
Mr. Cody Kelly’s Presentation

Mr. Wallace introduced Mr. Cody Kelly, TRLA’s attorney hired in September, to discuss a variety of options open to the Board and TRLA membership regarding the issues before us all. Mr. Kelly noted that the Board wanted to know its options based on the decisions of the District Courts and pending decisions from the Court of Appeals, and what began with a couple of questions has grown into many more.

1. The Association and the Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
• Does TRLA have the authority to enforce the covenants? (Negative covenants—What you cannot do with your land.)
• Does TRLA have the authority to collect assessment fees? (Affirmative covenants.)
• Is TRLA a voluntary association?
• Will the Association break up into separate sub-associations?
2. Roads.
3. Protection of the common lands.

In Mr. Kelly’s opinion, the courts will answer some of our questions but not all of them. For example, in the Allen case, part of the judge’s decision was based on the fact that the Allen’s do not use the common lands. This is not true for everyone.

Mr. Kelley stated that courts all across the country do allow for affirmative covenants. He said, “It is easier to enforce the assessment power of the covenants that it is to enforce the negative covenants, the things you cannot do with your land. So TRLA, as an entity, will always be around. TRLA owns the common lands. So as long as you have common lands, you will have to have an association to protect them and the courts recognize this.”

He stated that Mr. McGarry agreed before the recent hearing that this is an equitable power the association will have. So there will be an association and the association will have the ability to collect assessment fees.

This can happen in many different ways. One reason to do this is because we have different CC&Rs put into place over time. Once formed, these separate associations could transfer their enforcement power [for the CC&Rs] to TRLA, which already has the power to collect assessment fees. This is one way to handle the CC&R issue, but ultimately it is dependent upon the court ruling.

TRLA is going to have to start looking at the CC&Rs and their enforcement relative to the multiple sets. This is because the District Courts appear pretty uniform in ruling [that] each section or subdivision is being governed by its existing set of CC&Rs.

Mr. Kelly acknowledged that it is also possible some of the associations may not want to transfer their power to enforce their CC&Rs, but it does not mean that association will have the authority to collect assessment fees. In his opinion, only TRLA will have the ability to collect assessment fees and this is because they own and must protect the common land.

In 1978, the first plat for this development was submitted to McKinley County. Ava Goldman, a planner with the County at that time, stated that one reason no paved roads were planned in this development was to help preserve the aesthetics of the area. The developer did not want them either. Goldman’s statement was used in all planning hearings and before the County Commissioners. It was instrumental in this subdivision being approved with substandard roads, meaning recreational grade, Class C roads. The New Mexico Subdivision Act would have required Class A roads, a width of 44 feet with appropriate drainage.

In 1991 there were five families living in Timberlake full-time, and now there are approximately sixty-six.

Both Cibola and McKinley counties have identified TRLA roads as recreational. This means there is no regularly scheduled maintenance program other than coming out one time per year. The only other thing they will do is “put out ‘fires’.” [From work done this spring, both counties have graded and graveled their respective sections of Timberlake Ranch Road, except for the section from the last cattle guard to the fire house. At this time, neither county is accepting responsibility for this section.]

Mr. Kelly has met with the McKinley County attorney, who expressed concern that the county “might be subject to a lawsuit from the association to maintain the roads in a manner different from the way they are currently doing.” This concern comes from a 1982 document from McKinley County, recently uncovered by the Board, which essentially contains an acceptance of all Timberlake Ranch roads in McKinley County as they were at that time. Mr. Kelly states, “this is significant, because once McKinley County accepts them, they are obligated to maintain them.”

So far, the McKinley County attorney has not acknowledged the letter or its implications. However, this gives TRLA a good argument for demanding McKinley County maintain the roads. It approved the subdivision and accepted the roads. TRLA could enter into litigation to force them to do more to maintain the boards, but this is an expensive option considering the price of legal fees.

OPTION: Forming a Special Improvement District (SID).
[The Board has used the term Public Improvement District in its communications to landowners; however, New Mexico statues refer to this mechanism for funding improvements as a Special Improvement District.]

One of the benefits of a SID is that the county will have responsibility for maintaining the roads. It would not be limited to just the people in Timberlake. It would have to go before both McKinley County and Cibola County Commissioners. McKinley County is interested. TRLA has to put together a cost estimate, and if this proves cost prohibitive, the counties will not agree to it.

Mr. Wallace stated they do not want to be the real estate business where they have to take people’s land because they cannot pay the additional assessment the SID will require. Additionally, it will require the approval of 51% of all landowners.

Total costs, the bonding period of the SID--15 years was mentioned repeatedly--and the cost per person per year for the roads improvement assessment still have to be worked out. According to Mr. Kelly, the original estimate given by McKinley County [$7,385,000] “was just outrageous in terms of what it would cost.” Using a State Legislature appropriation of $250,000 “to bring a certain stretch of road up to speed” in Cibola County, the Board “was able to determine using those numbers that the McKinley County estimate was over inflated.” Mr. Kelly added, “McKinley County was going to do all this work themselves and they have all sorts of costs in there about things that contractors wouldn't be doing.”

The county will decide who is in the SID. Mr. Kelly noted, “the more people who use these roads, the more people they can put into this district.” According to him it would include people in the Box S and others to the side of the subdivision. He believes the county will “try to encompass everyone” that uses Timberlake Ranch Roads, and “the more people in, the lower the assessment.”

However, the cost to upgrade the roads may mean only the nine miles of Timberlake Ranch Road will be done during the first 15-year bonding period. Other factors that also need to be considered are access of emergency vehicles and additional growth.

While an accurate figure for costs has yet to be determined, “to sell the idea to the McKinley County Commission,” the Board is looking for a figure in the range of $100 per lot per year for the 15-year assessment period. To do this, they “would also have to go to the State Legislature for some seed money.” Mr. Kelly has spoken to several of our representatives in the legislature representing both McKinley and Cibola counties, and believes “they will be receptive if we come up with a way to fix this after all the years these problems have been kicking around.”

Mr.Kelly believes we may have to lower our expectations, figure out a plan, and get help from various sources to be successful. There is no “overnight fix” for these problems that have been around a long time. He believes construction could “begin on Timberlake Road in about one year” at the soonest, and that is everything went smoothly. The Board needs to get the numbers right and approval from both county commissions. He stated, “the [McKinley] County will work with us because they would like to avoid the lawsuit.”

Mr. Kelly said changes are coming and that the Board is going to wait and see what the Court of Appeals does. This does not necessarily mean it will stop assessments from being made, or “stop your ability to enforce your negative CC&Rs. We will “just have to change the mechanism by which [we] do it.”

Setting up separate associations and transferring enforcement authority “gets rid of one of the arguments used in District Court successfully.”

Speaking rhetorically, Mr. Kelly asked, “Is there a mechanism in place to allow voting to have everyone under one set of CC&Rs?” From his experience, Mr. Kelly stated, “it is almost impossible.”

The Attorney General’s Office did go after the developer to fix the roads. The AG insisted the developer upgrade the roads, however there was no follow through. In 1991, Eva Miller, who handled the AG investigation, was hired by McKinley County to see if it had violated the New Mexico Subdivision Act. She concluded that it did and the county ignored the findings of her report.

Mr. Kelly has contacted the AG to see if there is anything that can be done about this. If the AG becomes involved again, it will (1) bring in a powerbroker people will listen to including judges and developers; and (2) save the landowners lots of money in the long run.

Q: Many property owners are not residents of New Mexico. Would those who are not residents have a vote relative to the Special Improvement District?

Mr. Kelly: “A very good question. I am not absolutely certain what the proper answer is, but I am quite certain that it would be 51% of the landowners [who would approve the PID], so you would have a vote. I am not 100% certain, but very confidant that you would have a vote.”

Q: Regarding the SID assessment fee--how would we have to pay? Do you mean by acres of by what?

Mr. Kelly: “The nuances of how this would work would be set by the county. But the more property you own along the road, the more your assessment would by impacted.”

Q: In your opinion in the McGarry lawsuit, if it goes through in the way it is set up, there could be no association?

Mr. Kelly: “No, absolutely not. Obviously, that is my opinion and we will see what the Court of Appeals does. The case law is very, very clear. If you have common land there has to be an ability to protect the common land.”

Q: Okay, the common land is fine. What about the CC&Rs…where does the enforcement come from?

Mr. Kelly: “If I understand your question correctly, what you want to know is: If you loose the lawsuit in the Court of Appeals, will you have the ability to enforce the CC&Rs? If you lose the Allen and Garcia cases which are in the Court of Appeals, you are going to have a very, very difficult time enforcing them, if not impossible.”

“But, there are options. Here is one of the options I don’t think anyone will like. If we could get the AG’s office involved, we could file what is called a Declaratory Judgment Action in which every single lot owner would end up being independent. You would have to go through and prove what the intent was when everyone started buying into property. There are always options, but I don’t think it is dire. I also don’t think you can fix it overnight.”

Mr. Wallace: “Speaking for the people sitting up here, it is unlikely there will be an appeal.”

Q: The roads have to be fixed. With the SID, would it be possible to put the same amount of gravel on the existing roadbed…? [End of tape.]

Mr. Kelly: “It appears the County has been willing to negotiate, but there is nothing we can do to force them.”

Mr. Gerry Ackerman (former Board member): “Having been on the Board, I have read the CC&Rs and talked to you about this on the phone. Everyone thinks the Board is trying to drive us to go to separate associations. It is not the Board. It is the CC&Rs. Read your CC&Rs. It says you will have an association at the subdivision level. And in there is a statement that says you can give away your powers as an association to somebody else. Those two things have never been done. The only ones that have been set up are Timberlake South and Cloh Chin Toh, if that is a valid association. That is the problem with the CC&Rs. They are legal documents and you got to get them changed. They have to go by a 70% vote or whatever, but that’s going to be a problem.”

Mr. Howard Williams: “What about that…one sentence, a paragraph that says forty years then ten years unless sufficient number of people in the majority—which means 50-plus per cent. That’s what Timberlake South did. Sufficient number over fifty walked away from us for a while. They are back in the fold.”

Mr. Ackerman: “The problem is, Howard, the other associations have never been set up.”

Mr. Williams: “I know. They have got to go to the Corporation Commission and get the documents.”

Mr. Ackerman: “It is not the board driving it. It is the CC&Rs driving it…separate subdivisions.”

Mr. Dorn Crowe: “I am not a homeowner here other than I live close by. My question is, why don’t we just handle the graveling ourselves? Why is there a need to bring in everybody? I mean this past winter was one in a million. I have lived around here for 21 years, and if it snows in February and January, that’s fine. If it rains, that is an oddity. And so I think a lot of people have maybe jumped to conclusions that this is how it always is going to be. And it is typically not like that. It is typically frozen most of the winter.”

Mr. Kelly: “I think that is a question to be posed to them [the Board] and not to me.”

Mr. Crowe: “And so now we are going to be haggling with somebody to gravel a road that is twice the size that it is now. So why don’t’ we gravel it ourselves and make it same width it already is instead of tearing down everything and spending millions of dollars to do it?”

Mr. Crowe: “Well, how much is the county going to eat up in administrative costs just to make it happen?”

Mr. Kelly: “One of the things you get… It is unlikely that you, as an association, will quality for a bond.”

Mr. Kelly: “That would be very expensive, but if you increase the dues. That would have be a lot of…”

Mr. Crowe: “Well, everyone in this room is faced with it one way or the other. I mean they are either going to pay an assessment to the County or they can pay for it on their own.”

Mr. Wallace: “After we get them paved, you have got the cost to maintain them.”

Mr. Crowe: “Right. And how much does it cost to maintain a 34 foot road versus a 24 foot road per year?”

Mr. Kelly: “I think you have a valid point. But what I am saying is by using the district you get to finance it over 15 years as opposed to what you are saying, a pay as you go approach.”

Mr. Crowe: “Let me say one other thing before I leave. I have been watching all of this occur go on around here for twenty years, and the bylaws were created not in legalese, but so all you could understand them. And everyone in this room, with the exception of one or two people, have read them and understood them, abided by them, and invested in a home or not yet or whatever. So I just look at it as the people that have read them and say I wanted to punch holes in them--to m--they are just not worth the work. Just because everybody else figured it out and realized exactly what they said, what they meant and abided by them.

Mr. Wutche: “May I ask you something? How much are you willing to put up if all of us had to pay for gravel?”

Mr. Crowe: “I don’t put in any. I am not part of the association. I would gladly become one if it could be done on a local basis.”

Mr. Wutche: “Would you be willing the pay the same amount as all the rest of us?”

Mr. Wutche: “No, he is talking about 15 years and only a hundred dollars per year.”

Mr. Crowe: “Right, a hundred dollars per year. That is $1500. So why don’t we do it ourselves and save all the middle men?”

Mr. Wutche: “We have been trying to do it ourselves for the past 20 years since I am here, but nothing happened. They spent the money on…and pissed it away.”

Q: I want to come back to the 1982 acceptance of the roads you mentioned. Are they backtracking?

Q.: Okay, so we have the material in hand that says we are accepted. So the chances would be fairly good if we showed them—hey, here you are, look at this, what’s going on?

Mr. Kelly: “I have showed them that…I hate to bash lawyers, but I got a very lawyerly answer. Essentially, they are saying, ‘Well, that was written a long time ago and we do not agree with it.’”

Comments from another landowner were made regarding the upgrade McKinley County did to Timberlake Road to widen it to its present size may not have been properly permitted. Mr. Kelly said there was nothing in the documentation he has seen that demonstrates this contention, but it may be an avenue to explore in the future. [This section of the tape was difficult to hear for transcription, so summary is provided.]

Mr. Skinner: “I have three questions:
1. The original estimate from McKinley County was $7,385,000. At the last Board meeting, we were informed that it was negotiated down to just under $3 million. I would like to know what got negotiated away.
2. If you take $3 million dollars and you put it out over a 15 year bond, and we just have McKinley landowners as the payee of the that bond, it is $350, I think, over a 15 year period. If you do not know how many people are going to be included in the special assessment district and you don’t know how much it really is going to cost, how can you tell us it is going to be $100 per year for 15 years?
3. The estimated cost for the maintenance of the roads here in McKinley County is $195 per mile per year. If there is 26 miles of side roads in McKinley County, that is a little over $5,000—about $5,000 per year. My question is, what does that get landowners here for maintenance—in maintenance activity on an annual basis?”

Mr. Kelly: “The first one is how did it get from $7 million to $3 million. There was no negotiation. A lot of this stuff has, at this point—these have been estimates that we have been using. We have been figures from two different counties now. For example, $7 million—I don’t have any idea even though they gave us the supporting documentation why McKinley County thinks it should be that expensive. But we do know, and one of the reasons why I think it will be less than that is because we found out from Cibola County—and I don’t the exact number of miles—but they told us how many miles they can do for $250,000. We then took that figure and we multiplied by the 26 miles and came up with the $3 million as an estimate. Okay? So there were no negotiations. We got different figures from different counties.

Mr. Skinner: Are you talking comparable work from what we have now have to go to a Class C road? Is that what Cibola did, or did they do something entirely different than what McKinley County has been talking about and what this Special Improvement District is all about?

Mr. Kelly: “You make a very good point. We did not have the ability to get Cibola County to tell us item by item, like McKinley Count did, what was included in their improvements. So the answer to that question is Cibola County did not give us that information.

Mr. Skinner: “When I look at that, that tells me we are not talking oranges and oranges. This could be apples and oranges, and the numbers you are using could be totally incorrect.”

Mr. Kelly: “Sure, sure. One of the things you have got to understand is that we have to actually do some research to find out if this is a viable option. If it turns out it is cost prohibitive and it is not viable…if you want me right now to tell you the exact cost per landowner I cannot do that.”

Mr. Skinner: “Okay, but you are giving us an estimate that says, we think it is going to be and that gets locked into people’s minds. And then you are going to come back and say, “Oh gosh, we screwed up and it is going to cost $200 or $300…”

Mr. Wallace: “The way I understand it, when McKinley County gets in this and they vote on it—the landowners in this area—they [McKinley County] become a collection agency. And they are not going to do it if…they have got to get their money back. If they think it is too high for them to collect they don’t want to be landowners. So it will be in the range of ordinary taxes or they won’t do it. They are not going to put a thousand dollars a month on somebody and do it. They can’t collect it and they will get your land. So they are not going to commit themselves unless they know it is within reason for the landowners to pay and within reason to take care of the roads. They are not going to float a bond if you are not able to pay for it.”

Mr. Kelley: “Let me go on to mention some other protections you have mentioned earlier. You also have the ability with a simple majority—51%--to vote it down. You will be fully informed of the costs before you are required to vote. I think that goes without saying you will be fully informed of the actual costs. What everyone is working with now are estimates, but we have got to get the ball rolling somewhere.

Mr. Skinner: “ I have got one follow up question. Is there anybody looking at something similar to what Dorn just mentioned? And that is for the association over a process where assessment fees are tiered according to full time owners [residents] to part time owners [residents] and then graveling and taking care of the roads ourselves?

Mr. Garcia: “You are talking about just us. What about the all the others in the Box S…who use Timberlake Road? How are we going to assess them?

Mr. Skinner: “I am just talking about the side roads. As I understand it, McKinley County and Cibola are responsible for Timberlake Ranch Road.

Mr. Kelley: “Ask them what that means when they say they are responsible. They will come out and treat it as a recreational road. And that is where we are having some of the problems.”

Mr. Skinner: “I have one more. About the maintenance, what do we get for $195 per year per mile?”

Mr. Kelly: “I guess you got that out of the newsletter, and that comes out of a McKinley County estimate. And I don’t know where they got that from, where they think that they are actually able to change that. I am not certain. The whole concept is that once we bring them up to speed, that’s what we get to do would be dedicate them to the county. You are relieved from your obligation for maintenance. So I do not know where they cam up with that. I do not know what authority they have for saying that.

Mr. Skinner: “Once we bring these up to a Class C road, what kind of maintenance do we get? That is the thing I still have not heard and do not understand and am trying to comprehend.”

Mr. Wallace: “Well, number one, if they were brought up, we would not need the maintenance we need now. You know, four inches of snow on a paved road is nothing. It is when the tractor or your car sinks in and then you can’t do anything with it… They want to bring them up so they are good roads.”

Mr. Skinner: “I have another question now because you just said paved roads. Based on my understanding of the thing I saw at the last Board meeting, a Class C road is 22 feet wide. It is graveled with four feet of shoulder on each side of the road. And then you have to have a bar ditch side for drainage a foot and a half or two feet. That’s where the 34-foot figure comes from. So are we talking about paving the roads or graveling the roads? I am confused.”

Mr. Wallace: “I think if you go back and get that it will tell you what they said for the money. I do not exactly remember what it said—six inches of base, four inches of some kind of chemical topping that is dust proof, which is next to blacktop. It’s in the specs, read them.”

Mr. Skinner: “That’s because I copied information down, but I do not have the original copy, because they ran out of them.”

Mr. Wallace: “There are two books that you guys might like to have. Now I cannot get them all printed out at once. If you’ve got the cost a ream of paper, you should read Nita Miller’s book and can copy the one on subdivision laws for McKinley County. Don’t attack me all at once. If you buy the paper that will help cover the costs…”

Mr. Montoya: A lot of this property owned is vacant land. Have you thought about the assessment… if this…goes through? A lot of people don’t realize that when you build a home your property taxes—and I am going to use myself as an example. We built a 3200 square foot house. Our taxes on that vacant land were $$109.00—five acres. And now we are going to be paying over $1600 bucks for that home…and we are paying more here than we are in Tucson….

There are people who own more than one lot…what happens if they go with footage and you own a corner lot?

Mr. Kelly: “If I understand your question, already you think your taxes are too high, and, subsequently, this would be an additional…

Mr. Montoya: “Right. We went to the county and all they showed us was that all they are responsible for is Timberlake [Road]. So, how about the side roads? We are paying these outrageous taxes why are we…?

Linda Pedersen: Seven percent of the rural people in New Mexico are in McKinley County are paying taxes because 93% are not taxable.

Mr. Wutche: “I was told… the increase on your property—house or no house—the assessment would be the same…”

Mr. Montoya: “We are paying these outrageous taxes for what? There is no improvement. Nothing. How many times does Cibola come out…a couple of times a year? And it seems to me what people need to get concrete what is going to happen…

Landowner: “We cannot even collect association dues, much less try and collect from other individuals outside of the association…

Mr. Kelly: “…through a Special Improvement District you don’t collect, the counties do…They have a lot of teeth. Right now if you try and collect assessments you may get sued…But, the counties go and collect their taxes and they are pretty successful.”

Q: “I don’t quite understand when you were dealing with the option of having separate associations. You were saying that CC&Rs …separate associations could give over their authority to the main body.”

Mr. Kelly: “But they may still be limited to enforcing only the CC&Rs that are applicable to that subdivision.”

Q: “I guess my questions is, if the place where we are at gave the main body authority…okay, so in other words, the separate associations would not have to enforce their CC&Rs, they could hand them over to the main body. But isn’t that one association?”

A: “Right, that is what has not been done. You have to create the associations and the associations have not given that power to the umbrella board.”

Q: “Okay. Question is then, what is the percentage of those separate associations required to give their authority away? 51%?

Mr. Kelly: “Let me go back. I would want to research that answer. I do not know…”

Q: “You say there are in existence now three sets of CC&Rs—five—are they material different?

Mr. Kelly: “There is another option in addition to the Special Improvement District. And this option would essentially be a water district. There are also mechanisms that allow communities, which you in Timberlake are, to usie bonding power to improve water systems, sewer systems, and roads. So there is another option. I don’t have all the particulars about these, and so I am not really in a position to tell you the pros and cons of that.”

Mrs. Rodda: “I just really would wish we could all come together and learn about the individual issues so that we are all on the same page. They come up and they come up and they come up year after year after year. And we need to educate each other. Some how we need to find a way to learn about all the different sides of the CC&Rs, the bylaws—again what the pros and cons are—and where we go from here. I am pleading with all of you, please cooperate and get together and do this. We need to self-educate ourselves.”

Mr. Williams: “You can get them [the CC&Rs] off the net, you can get them off our website--every one of the CC&Rs…The Policy and Procedure Manual has the bylaws in it. The bylaws are the foundation of part of this. You have to have a Corporation Commission document to get a bylaw. So people in Cibola 1 and Cibola 2 should individually get together and get their Corporation Commission document, so when the CC&Rs are declared irrelevant you can already be ready to jump on and make those CC&Rs work for you.”

Mr. Wallace: “Just for benefit here, who would be in favor of pursuing and likes the idea of a PID--a Special Improvement District to repair the roads so we can get in and out?“

Landowner: “Need more money. Need more information on what it is going to cost bottom line.”

Mr. Wallace: “No, not wait just a minute. You know that before you vote on it. Would you rather live with the roads, and they have been the same for some twenty-odd years. And if we get rain, somebody said here the other day they aren’t going to get any better. ‘

A: “I am saying we need the information before I say yes. If it is going to cost $100 or $200…I just don’t want it cost two or three thousand dollars more.”

Mr. Wallace: “The other thing is that might not have a chance if we are going to put a suit on them. They might just get busy and put it on the ballot.”

Mr. Wallace: “That’s right, but we still got roads. I said if they think we are going to do that.”

A: “Pat, I would suggest we get the Attorney General’s people to spend their money to do the things and correct the things that have not been done in the past.”

Mr. Kelly: “I have contacted the Attorney General’s office…and the Director of the Consumer Affairs person… I have been unable to arrange a time to have a meeting with him. But, you are absolutely correct. If we get the Attorney General to come in here and start addressing these problems, you are absolutely correct it will save you time and money.”

Mr. Garcia: “Only if you can hold him to what the issues are… Don’t get them involved in all the rest of it or they will come in and take over. What you want him to do is the roads and what ever else…”

[There were two statements from the floor. These will be published within the next two weeks on this website. The meeting concluded after these statemtns.]

Old Business
1. Lawsuits (Richard Hawkins)
2. Road Update (Pat Wallace and Joe Wuchte)
3. Keys and break-ins (Joe DeLorenzo)

New Business
1. Appointing a Ranch Manager and job description (Richard Hawkins)
2. Dues (Howard Williams)
3. Appointing of Architectural Committee (Tim Gugliotta)
4. Real estate sales and obligation to inform of CC&Rs (Richard Hawkins)
5. New landowners (Pat Wallace)
6. Bath House Closing (Pat Wallace)
7. Reward (Joe DeLorenzo)
8. Web-site Update and what will be reported on site (Richard Hawkins)
9. News Letter Printings and Mailings (Richard Hawkins)
10. Ranch House condition and what do we do to fix. (Open)
11. Camping on Common Ground by non-profit groups
12. Discuss Woodland wanting to pay dues and use facilities.
13. Next Board Meeting.