The meting was called to order at 7:05 by president Alan Wright. Present were Craig Cowles, Carole Gabel, Lynn McDonald, Greg Smith, Phyllis Upright, Alan Wright, Robert English, and Lois Martin. Gail Hill, and Don and Linda Woodley arrived later.
The minutes of the previous meeting were passed around and read by all present. There were some corrections: there were two bids for the tractor, not eight as printed, and the dollar amount ($12,588.55) was not included in the minutes. The minutes were approved as corrected.
Treasurer: Gail Hill didn’t bring the newer printout with her, but the total amount available in the treasury is approximately $19,500 less than before (due to the slurry coating as well as the tractor purchase). All maintenance monies from lot owners have been received.
Maintenance: the last ditch job, which took two days, is now completed and there was a lot of vines and brush removed. The tractor works great and the work goes a lot faster now. There was some discussion at this point about the negative feedback from various people (none of whom has helped to keep this place clean) about the expense of this tractor. It was decided that an article should be published in the local newsletter describing how much better this tractor works than the old one.
Architectural: the meeting for this group is tomorrow night, so there wasn’t much to discuss other than the approval of the plans for Steve Larsen’s lot on Luscombe. There was some discussion about the standards that the IAHA is supposed to uphold. Gary had some hesitations about enforcing a standard that might not be workable and, as a result, be liable when it doesn’t work out. Alan stated that the purpose of these standards was as a base point for approval – more of a general guideline rather than a specific standard – in order to head off potential known problems. Talk turned to the varying sizes and types of drainage pipe used below various taxiway easements. The consensus was to have a more exacting standard for this, to make it more clear to the contractors that 8-inch perforated pipe is necessary for proper drainage.
The amount of the assessment was next on the agenda. It was decided to keep the amount the same as it was last year, that being $100.00. Gail Hill made the motion and Craig Cowles seconded. All approved by voice vote.
The ditch issue with Miles Towner was next: since we have not received any paperwork from him, we will not be doing anything. The current CC&Rs actually grant the IAHA a perpetual easement across his property for that drainage ditch, and that if he moves that ditch himself then he could be liable for any damage that happens upstream from his house. The decision was to let that issue lie until we hear from Miles about a specific proposal.
Next on the agenda was the IAHA hangar project. Craig Cowles had one proposal, which he handed out and described verbally as everyone read his flow-chart. The work-party approach was the heart of this proposal, since it would foster civic pride as well as save money. This was not a continuance of Dewey Erlwein’s project from last year, since Craig’s proposal is primarily a maintenance building with the social part being secondary. There was lots of discussion about this, mostly having to do with the previous proposals. Alan stated that he felt a need to change the By-Laws and CC&Rs to favor the use of treasury money for any part of this project, and this was not allowed under the current language. He had some suggestions for new language, in articles V and VIII, which he included with this evening’s meeting agenda. He further stated that the key was to be up-front with the membership and not do anything under the table. The proposal should have three parts: explain the benefits, explain the cost, and explain the necessary changes in the By-Laws and CC&Rs to make it legal. If 2/3 of the membership approves, fine – if not, then nothing happens. The ODA requirements are that it look like a hangar and that it could be sold as a hangar in the future. Carole proposed the idea of donors providing the private “seed money” to get the project started, which would rule out the sticking point of using the IAHA fund to do this. There was discussion about this, but no firm agreement about it. Alan stated that the informational package needs to be out before the December informational meeting to give people time to digest the proposal in its entirety.
With that in mind, the nuts and bolts of the proposal were discussed. For the By-Laws article V: Alan’s suggestion that another board position be created to head this project, a non-voting position to oversee the building process, was greeted positively though the actual person was not decided upon. The members present were leaning toward not creating a new board position. It was agreed to let this particular point be tabled until the next meeting. For the By-Laws article VIII: the proposed new language was looked over and discussed. The consensus was that it was OK to put before an attorney (Jennings) to see if they are in line with legal standards. Gail made the motion to put this before Jennings with a spending cap of $500.00. Phyllis Upright seconded. All approved by voice vote. In the CC&Rs, there was only one section requiring scrutiny (Article III section 1), and after reviewing this the members present decided that no change was necessary in the CC&Rs at all – only the By-Laws. Though these do not require a 2/3 majority to change, just a simple majority, there is still a selling job that needs to be done. Alan said that he would be glad to put together the informational letter, and those present felt that Dave Martin would be a good pitch-man for the proposal at the General Meeting. There was more discussion about possible dissenters and the reasons they would not approve this project – chiefly among them were those believing that the North Annex would “get a free ride” (consensus here was that it was better that this be administered by one board and not two). Phyllis brought up the fact that the property that we had proposed to build this hangar on is now technically up for lease by the ODA, so the IAHA had better move fast to secure the property if this project is going to start. Carole said that the new contact at the ODA was named Deb, since Trish had left, and Alan said that he would go and talk to her about it.
The next year’s officers was the next item. Alan and Gail said that they would stay on if no one was mad enough to want to take their place. Alan suggested that if anyone wanted to not occupy the same office in 2005 that they have a person ready to take over the job.
Points 6 and 7 on the evening’s agenda were tabled until the next meeting.
Since December 5th is the General Meeting, it was thought it would be good to have one more board meeting to get details straight about the informational package and ballots and then an informational meeting following that (in either October or November). There needs to be two weeks before the meeting for people to have the information, according to the By-Laws, but Alan proposed that it go out 30 days ahead. Mid-October was thought to be good for this other meeting, on a night when a large number of people could attend. The 21st was floated as a good day, at 8:00 PM. That was the same night as the OPA meeting, which usually adjourns around 7:45, and therefore we would have a captive audience. The ballots could go out a week or so later. The board meeting preceding the informational meeting was scheduled for September 27th at 7:00 PM.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Robert English, secretary.