NASH RANCH ROAD ASSOCIATION

Minutes of Board Meeting –  Saturday July 5, 2014.

At the residence on Nash Mill Road of Tom Spinardi.

 

"Agenda" items: Dues; Budget; Website; Proposed work

 

Commenced at 11:12 AM. Steve Bramble, Don Harris, Tom Spinardi, Bruce Wicinas.

 

The vacated board seat

 

Steve: I understand that Francois does not want to rejoin the board?

Bruce: We've exhausted the pool of qualified candidates. I regret to coerce someone like Francois to join the board when we're benefiting by the volunteer help of people like him, Bill Seekins and even Nancy. They enjoy helping while they don't have to formally serve. I suggest we just let the board drop to four members. We can pitch this to the members as a viable situation in that we're aided by the competent help of several "block captains" who assume some of the duties of the board though they don’t vote or attend meetings.

Steve: If we don't have five boardmenbers we're in violation of the bylaws. The board will no longer have legitimacy. Why don't we try to persuade Francois to serve? We can reassure him that he doesn't have to do much.

Bruce: (after someone referred to the current state of the "aging" list) The "aging" list looks really good right now. The only people owing a significant amount "over 90 days" are _______ and _______.

Steve: Let's ask Francois.

Don: If we amend the bylaws it should be announced.

Steve: The ballot should go out ASAP and be returned by August 1.

Bruce: Need it be returned so soon? The annual meeting is August 17.

Steve: That allows plenty of time to count ballots and avoids some last minute problem.

Don: We need to give Joy a heads-up.

 

"Agricultural" Use

 

Don: There's somebody setting up a "medical marajuana" business on ___. It's a big operation, a lot of heavy equipment and supplies.

Tom: We should devise a surcharge for growers.

Don: They're using the road, heavily.

Tom: For example, _______ has observed the road use of the big growers near his parcel.

Don: I have an action item for us: let's review the original bylaws.

Bruce: The original bylaws specify a charge for logging use and a change for trucking of grapes. They're small charges. But they are a precedent for charging for commercial use.

Don: Shall we amend the by-laws?

Bruce: We should come forward with a studied policy and propose it to the owners.

Don: The growers have to go the the sherrif to get licenses.

Bruce: These licenses might have some "conditions of use." This should be public information and it could be useful for us to know.

Steve: I don't want to get into policing.

All: But they are running heavy equipment on the road. They may be heavy water users. 

Bruce: There are lots of potential causes for concern.

Don: I've seen water trucks. They may not be taking all their water from a well. Recently a guy on Holmes Ranch brought in seven truckloads of water to fill a swimming pool. He did not want to take it out of the ground.

Bruce: Let's talk to Zac concerning a reasonable policy for charging for ag use. Zac is a thoughtful and candid guy who thinks about the big picture. It's a place to start. A meeting with the growers would lack candor.

Don: Bonanno wants more maintenance.

Bruce: That's an opportunity for negotiation. If Bonano will accept some reasonable per-ag use charge, we can guarantee we'll get some maintenance up there pronto.

 

Chipping and brush clearing

 

Don: I'm still pursing grant funding to cover some work such as chipping.

Steve: The amount of chipping needed on Big Meadow is large.

Tom: He's (?) planning to burn it.

Don: I talked to “A-1 Tree.” A four-person crew can clear 1 to 1 1/2 miles per day, costs $1000.

Bruce: Great.

 

Revising the dues

 

Bruce: (briefly summarizing where the subject was left at the end of the last meeting of the “Ad Hoc Dues Committee.”)  The committee had no specific or helpful proposal. It just gave a sounding on several points. A reserve fund is desirable. There is not nearly enough money to apply the maintenance the road needs. An overall dues increase of 10% is feasible. Francois thinks people would balk at more. My view is - since we raise dues very rarely, why not go for slightly more than this since we won't be able to raise them again for a long time. How about 15%. I had wanted to restructure the use fee somehow to better reflect actual use of the road. Some parcels have multiple residences for example. However we re-think it, it should not cause someone like Mila Handley to pay more. She presently receives the largest bill. Eleanor should not pay more. Somebody like ______ is a prime candidate to pay more, as the destination of much more than one typical parcel's share of the traffic.

Don: ______ doesn't get much traffic any more. One of the tenants has left.

Tom: Get the 15% from the Ag guys by imposing a better considered fee for use.

Steve: The second parcel fee should go away.

Tom: Get rid of the second parcel fee.

Bruce: One of my goals was to at least reduce the second parcel fee. However, note that it brings in about $2000 per year. That would have to be recovered by increasing some other element of the fee structure.

Moreover, I've changed my thinking on this. The well known argument for the second parcel fee is that the quality of the road maintains the asset value of all parcels. Hence it's a modest investment in maintaining the asset value of property. But here's another point not argued. The total cost of road maintenance is roughly proportional to the length of the road. The length of the road is roughly proportional to the number of parcels on it.  The road serpentines so it services pretty much every parcel. Hence simple geometry shows there is direct correspondence between the amount of owned acreage and length of road.  They guy who owns 80 acres in effect "owns" much more of the length of the road than the guy who owns a total of 25. By this logic the extra parcel fee is super-modest as a charge for a second 40 acres, for example, when the second 40 acres requires as much length of road - and of maintenance cost - as the an owner's principal 40 acres. 

Don: I think a 15% increase it pretty high.

Steve: The lower road has $40,000 in the bank. That seems excessive.

Bruce: Somebody's gonna raise that point, soon.

Tom: Let's talk to Paul.

Let's lower the lower road fee.

Gestation of the proposal to shift fund allocation

Steve: Shift some of the lower road fee allocation, from the lower road to the upper road. That would shift major funds to the upper road. The amount paid by the lower road people would be reduced by the amount shifted. The upper road and Clowe people continue to pay the same but a chunk of it would go to the upper road (secretary: and I assume to Clowe.) 

Don: Everybody pays per-mile, including the lower road people.

Bruce: I'm sorry I don't have a copy of the dues-charging rules with me. 

What about the reserve fund? 

Steve: Keep the $25 per parcel we’ve been paying for a couple years. Let it keep growing. It's grown to $3500 already.

Steve: Shift the allocation, AND increase by 10%.

Proposed work 

Bruce: Tom, your spreadsheet of proposed work is impressive. What's the total on this? I failed to print it. 

Tom: On Chemise Ridge: $6300 for rock and grading. $1500 for trimming. That's 10 loads rock, 24 hours labor.

Oh, I see that the priority work on my spreadsheet exceeds what we can do this fall. 

Don: We need a two year plan. Thus we can tell people, "this work happens this fall" and "that work happens next spring." For example, "Chimise Ridge now," "Nash Mill in the spring."

Tom: I realize I need to budget June to June instead of Jan to December. 

Don: By showing an 18-24 month plan we can defuse impatience.

Steve: On Chemise let's take out brush clearing. 

Tom: We gotta do the brush clearing. You can't even run equipment through there in its present condition.

As Don suggests - we tell Bonano and Rudofsky "we'll get to you next spring - seven months from now." 

Don: Have A-1 do the clearing. 

Bruce: That would be a good way to try them out. Give them a sample project like Chemise.

Tom: Let's just have them do the whole thing - brush clear Chemise and upper Nash Mill. Both are urgent needs.

 

Adjourned at 12:20 

Action items for Don (he had left for a while and returned after we adjourned.) 

Tom, Don - get a list of the growers licenses and of those who may be operating without. 

Don to talk to Craig about growers' licenses. Do they contain information of use to us?

Don to talk to A-1 about brushing Chemise Ridge and upper Nash Mill.