May 5, 2018
Mt. Index Riversites Community Club, Inc.
annual meeting of property owners
Board members present: Mark Bollman, Carrie Byrne, Brent Corey, Rebecca Davis, Kathleen EckartLove, Patty Harbaugh, Gary Johnson, Don Larsen, Earl Van Buskirk, Mat Williams
Absent: CJ Holmes, Dave MacFarlane
Announcements & Opening Remarks
The meeting began with a welcome from Mark Bollman, President of the MIRCC Board. Bollman reminded property owners that there was a clipboard at the back of the room for topics for discussion or community comments.
Meet the Board of Directors
Mark Bollman started introductions. All Board members introduced themselves.
Dave MacFarlane and CJ Holmes were missing from the meeting.
Rather than go around the room to introduce everyone, community attendees preferred that they introduce themselves if and when they speak during the meeting.
Five Candidates for Five Positions
Gary Johnson announced that there were five positions up for election for Board seats. Mark Bollman sent requests for nominations to all MIRCC property owners to self-nominate by the deadline of April 1.
The five incumbents were the only property owners who expressed interest in running for a position. Because there were five nominees for five positions, the Board did not mail ballots for an uncontested election to property owners in good standing.
Phil Reichel (E-Section) had a question regarding the MIRCC Bylaws – that they say that MIRCC “shall” conduct an election. Reichel suggested that the election was held improperly and the Board needs to address the matter.
Gary Johnson replied that the Board discussed the matter and that the Board believes it was correct to not send out a ballot. Mark Bollman said that he understands the comment from a philosophical standpoint; from a practical standpoint, sending ballots for an uncontested election was not a good use of resources.
Tracy Smith asked if Board meetings are run by Roberts Rules of Order. Smith inferred that if they are, he would make a motion to accept the vote by acclamation so the meeting could move on.
Bollman stated that as President of the Board, he uses Roberts Rules of Order for guidance to run meetings; ultimately the Board must refer to MIRCC Bylaws for its governance. The Bylaws require all property owners in good standing to be afforded the chance to vote.
Bollman further reiterated that sending out ballots for five candidates for five positions would have been perfunctory. Historically for the past 20 years, similar situations have occurred. Most often, the Board doesn’t have enough candidates.
Reichel said there was no election. He believes this is an illegal juncture.
The alternative is to incur the cost of mailing out ballots. Earl Van Buskirk asked rhetorically if the outcome be any different? Gary Johnson asserted that we would be in no different place; that’s why we chose to not mail ballots.
Don Larsen asked if the ballot has had a write-in space in the past. Mark Bollman said no, because the Bylaws say that property owners in good standing must nominate themselves to be elected.
Mary Ann Toms (A-Section) stated that our Bylaws are there for a purpose. Toms said that it’s important to stick to what they say. She went on to add that she knows it’s an inconvenience and an expense, but they are there for a purpose.
Phil Reichel suggested that the only solution he can come up with is to hold an election or the positions remain open. The Board has the ability to take applications and appoint Directors to vacancies.
Tom Boullioun (E-Section) stated that we didn’t meet the criteria for an election. If the Board had six people nominate themselves, we would run an election.
Ben Keith (E-Section) said there was a deadline for suitable candidates and nobody else stepped forward. To solve the problem, Keith said we can ratify the positions right now. There’s nothing that binds us to Roberts Rules.
Mark Haenlein suggested that the Board takes it up at the June meeting. We are not going to solve it today.
Four Corporate Officers
Mark Bollman said that the Board will address the corporate officer positions at the meeting that follows. Gary Johnson said we will need to resolve the election issue first.
Understanding Your Assessment Invoice
Handouts were mailed with invoices for both E-Section and A-Section. They should answer general questions about each line item on the invoices. If you have specific invoice questions, please talk to Mark Bollman or Earl Van Buskirk about your questions.
Financial Report for 2016-17 Fiscal Year
Earl Van Buskirk introduced the financial statement as a preliminary accounting of the year. We are five days past the end of the fiscal year, so there will still be more transactions to post to the books.
Collections efforts have boosted the collection rates this year for A-Section (90%) and E-Section (95%).
When we make our budget up, we assume an 80% collection rate. The higher collection rate for this year is due to collections from significantly past due accounts. There is ~$17k still coming in from collections activity this month.
While collections efforts have been effective, there are still many past due accounts. In A-Section, 70 people are on the past due list. In E-Section, there are 85 people on the past due list. 135 E-Section property owners pay, which means the payers are subsidizing the non-payers.
The following financial highlights were reviewed:
Byron Ellwood (E-Section) asked if the financial statements were available in advance of the meetings so people can come prepared. Earl Van Buskirk said that the financial statements are posted on the web and he is willing to meet with anyone who may have specific questions.
Rudy Mueller (A-Section) asked if the financial information can be sent in advance? He comes from Camano Island. He saw $112.34 on his invoice for Administrative expense and wants a breakdown of the costs. Earl Van Buskirk offered to meet 1:1 to explain the numbers.
Budget Planning for 2017-18 Fiscal Year
Earl Van Buskirk provided a guided walkthrough of colored budget spreadsheets for the new fiscal year—red for E-Section and blue for A-Section. Each spreadsheet includes owners, the county’s assessed values of their property, and column values applicable to the annual MIRCC assessment.
Assessed values from the county are listed on the spreadsheet and compare last year to this year’s values on a per-owner basis.
Earl Van Buskirk walked through each column of information on the budget spreadsheets to explain how the assessments are calculated and shared among property owners. For E-Section, everyone pays the same amount for the following line items:
For A-Section, equipment purchases and equipment maintenance are new – they weren’t there last years. Everyone pays the same amount for the following line items:
Collection Efforts
Last year, the Board saw significant returns in its investment to collect past due assessments and fees on aging accounts. Earl Van Buskirk provided the following summary of activity:
McCoy paid up entirely without going to court – he paid nearly twice the amount of the original debt. Shiotani also paid – roughly $7k. Then these two properties were purchased by paying owners in the community. MIRCC was made whole on these collections efforts.
The Board pays out attorney fees initially as an investment to eventually recoup the investment plus past due assessments, penalties, and interest.
O’Toole gave MIRCC a dead in lieu of foreclosure. They owed about $6k; the lot is on the county records for $13k. We took the land, but lost attorney fees that will be recouped by the sale of the land.
Lahey/Russek – two people bid up the purchase to $13,700. MIRCC will get about $9700 because that’s where the bidding started and what we had into it.
Olson went up for sheriff sale and no one bid on it. MIRCC now owns it, and there is a 12-month redemption period during which the former owner would have to pay about $28k to redeem that property. We cannot market the property until the redemption period is over.
Satterlee – MIRCC has a full judgment for the amount but we haven’t seen anything on it. It’s a bank foreclosure so we are not first in line.
Manley – judge will rule on May 15 how much they will have to pay in attorney fees to MIRCC.
Dumas – the owner paid up right away plus attorney fees when he heard that there were foreclosure proceedings happening. He ended up only paying twice instead of three times to value of what was past due.
Terry Dievendorf (E-Sec) purchased a property from a neighbor who wanted to let go of the property. Dievendorf paid Ryden’s past-due account in full.
The Board’s preference is to settle the collections efforts without involving a lawyer, which gets very costly.
Byron Ellwood asked what procedure is in place to clean up the Olson property? Mark Bollman said it will be a volunteer effort. We don’t want to spend money on it. Maybe dump fees. Any cleanup fees get added to the redemption price during the 12-month period.
Erika Palmer (E-Section) asked how much personal time Earl Van Buskirk has spent on Collections? Van Buskirk said “a lot.” Palmer reminded the community that the Board is a group of volunteers.
E-Section Road Committee Report
Mark Bollman said that Dave MacFarlane chaired the road committee all winter. Mark Haenlein gave a report in his absence. The committee is responsible for the road from the Canyon Falls Bridge to Deep Woods Road.
We haven’t assessed for this part of the road for three years now due to collections activity and trying to keep costs down while we pay for the bridge. Any monies needed to maintain the road has come from past dues getting paid.
Paul Hery has good equipment now. Often he runs it up and down the road without even charging us for it.
Ben Keith suggested if we were to make a capital investment in a compactor, wouldn’t it make the pothole filling last longer? He has compacted pothole filling and it has lasted a year. Using a grader to scrape the material into the hole doesn’t’ last as long.
Haenlein thought a compactor was a good idea. Bollman said Paul Hery has been looking into a compactor. Ben Keith said he would be interested in letting the community use his equipment if he buys it.
Canyon Falls Bridge, Gate, Access Road
Earl Van Buskirk said Paul Hery now has a road grader. He’s working on putting a crown on the road. There are very few potholes today.
The road is in great shape and the gate is working fine.
Paul Hery would like more gravel if we can afford it.
A-Section Road Committee Report
Mat Williams said the first chance to get the grader out was last week. A-Section purchased a grader, a snow plow, and a large commercial vibratory roller. We now have equipment that the community can maintain the roads at a very reasonable cost to us.
In the future, we should spend a lot less money and enjoy a great road.
Brent Corey encouraged anyone wanting to participate in the road maintenance to get in touch with himself or Mat Williams. We have the equipment and are relying on volunteers to run the machinery.
Bekka Davis asked if anyone in A-Section has noticed by the gate there had been sloughing but now it’s gone. It’s across from Swamp Road and belongs to USFS.
Mat Williams had USFS come out and look at it. They said until that area is declared a disaster area, they won’t have money to fix it. If MIRCC fixes it, we will have to assume all costs. The road committee repaired the road because USFS wouldn’t declare a disaster.
Mary Ann Toms added some history about the area. When the river comes up, it takes part of the road with it as it goes down. Burlington Northern and USFS had come out in the past. They both looked at different solutions in the past. Nothing can be done to this area of road except to continue filling it.
Community Comments and Open Discussion
Five people had a topic that they wanted to address. Bollman said what we want to avoid is any two-way conversations. Please address the President, the Board and the group.
Setting One-on-One Meetings for Personal Matters
Don Larsen shared a handout that he wrote to address issues that don’t affect the broader community to please set up a private meeting with the Board. At last year’s meeting, there were several attendees who ranted about personal issues and were not property owners. The Board can more efficiently resolve individual concerns in a smaller setting without consuming time during a community meeting.
As an example, Earl Van Buskirk said that Ben Keith contacted him regarding a specific issue related to his side road. Van Buskirk said they were able to reach a solution by working together one-on-one.
With regard to voicing community concerns, Lora Cox suggested a time limit if there are many people wanting to speak. When people talk about what’s affecting E-Section, is it relevant to A-Section?
Whom Can Voice Concerns to the Board
Lora Cox asked if only paying property owners can address the Board? The day before, Cox came in contact with someone who is outside MIRCC but has a job interacting with property owners. The third party claimed that there is a nonpaying property owner who allegedly has been denied the opportunity to speak at Board meetings. If it is true, Cox said it gives someone ammo to criticize the Board.
Bollman said that he is unaware of a situation of when a property owner was denied the chance to speak. The Board does have a Code of Conduct however; Bollman said he doesn’t care for outbursts or swearing. We welcome people who can respectfully address the Board.
Bollman also mentioned that in the past, the Board has invited non-property owner guests to share something that pertains to the entire community.
Cox asked that it be recorded in the meeting minutes that it is a fallacy that nonpaying property owners are denied an opportunity to speak.
Easement Agreement for E-Section Access Road
Don Gerend spoke as an A-Section owner, although he said he had no idea how he came into ownership of this property. Gerend came to speak about the property he and his partner own along the access road from Route 2 to the Canyon Falls Bridge. He owns 18 acres and has owned it for 45 years.
Gerend said he doesn’t have a problem with MIRCC using the access road across his property for ingress and egress. He just needs access to the gate. Gerend also would like to have a formal agreement put in place with MIRCC for ingress and egress over his property. Earl Van Buskirk said he’d be happy to meet after the meeting.
Canyon Falls Bridge Approach
Phil Reichel asked the Board to consider buying four or six eco blocks and placing them at the ends of the Canyon Falls Bridge. He is concerned that an accident could happen that would be devastating.
Roberts Rules, Speaking, and Rebuttal
Mary Ann Toms brought her book on Roberts Rules of Order and wanted to clarify something for people about speaking out during a meeting run according to the rules. She said that you cannot speak again until everyone else has had a chance to speak, then you can have a second chance to speak. Toms volunteered to work with the Bylaws Committee on the election process and people’s conduct at meetings so everyone is aware of how and when they should have a chance to speak.
Mt Index River Road to Sunset Falls
Ben Keith said that Earl Van Buskirk alluded to his topic about road maintenance near his property on Mt Index River Road, which is now a side road. From Sunset Falls to the railroad bridge, there are two new faults in the road that are dangerous. If you’re coming down the road, stay as far left as you can heading toward the falls. Keith said the road has deteriorated considerably, and we are working on addressing it.
Community Blockwatch
Julia Akin (E-Section) wanted to remind everyone about blockwatch in the community. Akin urged everyone to please take a chance today to get to know your neighbors. The last time she called 911, they suggested reporting online to MyCrimeReport.us, a website for Snohomish County Citizen Crime Reporting.
Akin also mentioned that the email address MIRblockwatch@gmail.com is a good way to get hooked up with neighbors.
Assessment Concerns
Rudy Mueller (A-Section) took the opportunity to speak directly about his assessment invoice. Mueller said that he finds assessments for equipment purchase, maintenance, and administrative fees unreasonable that they are equal across the community. Mueller asserted that a flat assessment is unreasonable in a democractic society. He does not believe that Judge Wynne intended for the formula to be interpreted in this way.
Earl Van Buskirk offered to meet with Mueller immediately after the meeting to help him understand the assessment formula that Judge Wynne outlined. Van Buskirk assured Mueller the Board is following the decree that the judge dictated.
Mueller went on to say he has owned his property for 50 years on Stub Road. In the wintertime, it’s impassable because water is over the road. It has scared him to go into the property based on how it looks – old cars, rubbish. He doesn’t know if there is illegal activity happening there, but he would not want his wife to come to MIRCC alone. Never seen any appreciable work on the road to keep the water from crossing.
Firewood Theft Concerns
Phil Reichel voiced a concern about firewood theft in the community. Reichel urged that we should be going after individuals who are sending the wood to grocery and convenience stores and making money. He also said the community should address the commercial buyers of stolen wood by not patronizing their businesses.
Board Members in Good Standing
Anita Shultz (E-Section) asked are all Board members in good standing? Bollman stated that he believes they all are. He said that it is important that the Board adheres to the Bylaws by ensuring all members have paid their assessments in full by the due date. Bollman mentioned that new fiscal year invoices had been sent recently and were due by May 31.
Concern about Discounts for Multiple Property Owners
Scott Shannon (A-Section) said he has watched the erosion of the pool of money in MIRCC. Shannon said as people forfeit lots, he believes there are inside deals happening for property to exchange hands.
Shannon said that multiple lot owners are not paying their assessed values for all the value of the property. He alleged that discounts are being applied. Shannon went on to say that easements to the bridge are verbal. The judge didn’t provide detail about the membership – he left it up to us. In Shannon’s opinion, the judge left a lot of things up to MIRCC. He has been told that new assessments are being renegotiated now.
Don Larsen said that Shannon’s assertion is “fake news.”
Shannon maintained that multiple lot owners aren’t paying the full amount they owe.
Earl Van Buskirk rebutted that we cannot see this practice in the books. All property owners are assessed according to Judge Wynne’s formula, which is very clear.
Anita Shultz added that she was aware of an incident of someone avoiding MIRCC assessments. Shultz said she was aware that Tammy Baumgartner sold a property to someone else, but they haven’t recorded it with the county because they don’t want to get an assessment.
Bollman said that it may be true some people may conduct transactions without recording them. There is not a lot we can do about that.
Larsen said the non-payers are really the low hanging fruit. It’s your neighbors who aren’t paying who are subsidized. Rather than spread misinformation, look at the aging reports and talk to those who don’t pay.
Lora Cox believes that allegations like this are even more reason why the books are open and the Board provides financial transparency.
MIRCC Election Issue
Ben Keith asked again why can’t we ratify the election right now? Bollman said that would be OK, but it doesn’t solve the technicality that Phil Reichel brought up earlier in the meeting. A vote now would not include all property owners, because they are not all present at this meeting.
Tracy Smith said that according to Roberts Rules, it is a vote by acclamation. Smith suggested considering it as a bylaws change for the future.
Bollman stated that the Bylaws trump any Roberts Rules of Order until they are amended.
Closing Remarks
Please join the Board on the first Saturday of the month for meetings of the Board of Directors. The next meeting is Saturday, June 3 at 9am at the Index Fire Station.
Respectfully submitted by
Carrie Byrne
Absent: CJ Holmes, Dave MacFarlane
Announcements & Opening Remarks
The meeting began with a welcome from Mark Bollman, President of the MIRCC Board. Bollman reminded property owners that there was a clipboard at the back of the room for topics for discussion or community comments.
Meet the Board of Directors
Mark Bollman started introductions. All Board members introduced themselves.
Dave MacFarlane and CJ Holmes were missing from the meeting.
Rather than go around the room to introduce everyone, community attendees preferred that they introduce themselves if and when they speak during the meeting.
Five Candidates for Five Positions
Gary Johnson announced that there were five positions up for election for Board seats. Mark Bollman sent requests for nominations to all MIRCC property owners to self-nominate by the deadline of April 1.
The five incumbents were the only property owners who expressed interest in running for a position. Because there were five nominees for five positions, the Board did not mail ballots for an uncontested election to property owners in good standing.
Phil Reichel (E-Section) had a question regarding the MIRCC Bylaws – that they say that MIRCC “shall” conduct an election. Reichel suggested that the election was held improperly and the Board needs to address the matter.
Gary Johnson replied that the Board discussed the matter and that the Board believes it was correct to not send out a ballot. Mark Bollman said that he understands the comment from a philosophical standpoint; from a practical standpoint, sending ballots for an uncontested election was not a good use of resources.
Tracy Smith asked if Board meetings are run by Roberts Rules of Order. Smith inferred that if they are, he would make a motion to accept the vote by acclamation so the meeting could move on.
Bollman stated that as President of the Board, he uses Roberts Rules of Order for guidance to run meetings; ultimately the Board must refer to MIRCC Bylaws for its governance. The Bylaws require all property owners in good standing to be afforded the chance to vote.
Bollman further reiterated that sending out ballots for five candidates for five positions would have been perfunctory. Historically for the past 20 years, similar situations have occurred. Most often, the Board doesn’t have enough candidates.
Reichel said there was no election. He believes this is an illegal juncture.
The alternative is to incur the cost of mailing out ballots. Earl Van Buskirk asked rhetorically if the outcome be any different? Gary Johnson asserted that we would be in no different place; that’s why we chose to not mail ballots.
Don Larsen asked if the ballot has had a write-in space in the past. Mark Bollman said no, because the Bylaws say that property owners in good standing must nominate themselves to be elected.
Mary Ann Toms (A-Section) stated that our Bylaws are there for a purpose. Toms said that it’s important to stick to what they say. She went on to add that she knows it’s an inconvenience and an expense, but they are there for a purpose.
Phil Reichel suggested that the only solution he can come up with is to hold an election or the positions remain open. The Board has the ability to take applications and appoint Directors to vacancies.
Tom Boullioun (E-Section) stated that we didn’t meet the criteria for an election. If the Board had six people nominate themselves, we would run an election.
Ben Keith (E-Section) said there was a deadline for suitable candidates and nobody else stepped forward. To solve the problem, Keith said we can ratify the positions right now. There’s nothing that binds us to Roberts Rules.
Mark Haenlein suggested that the Board takes it up at the June meeting. We are not going to solve it today.
Four Corporate Officers
Mark Bollman said that the Board will address the corporate officer positions at the meeting that follows. Gary Johnson said we will need to resolve the election issue first.
Understanding Your Assessment Invoice
Handouts were mailed with invoices for both E-Section and A-Section. They should answer general questions about each line item on the invoices. If you have specific invoice questions, please talk to Mark Bollman or Earl Van Buskirk about your questions.
Financial Report for 2016-17 Fiscal Year
Earl Van Buskirk introduced the financial statement as a preliminary accounting of the year. We are five days past the end of the fiscal year, so there will still be more transactions to post to the books.
Collections efforts have boosted the collection rates this year for A-Section (90%) and E-Section (95%).
When we make our budget up, we assume an 80% collection rate. The higher collection rate for this year is due to collections from significantly past due accounts. There is ~$17k still coming in from collections activity this month.
While collections efforts have been effective, there are still many past due accounts. In A-Section, 70 people are on the past due list. In E-Section, there are 85 people on the past due list. 135 E-Section property owners pay, which means the payers are subsidizing the non-payers.
The following financial highlights were reviewed:
- In the Consolidated statement – E-Section’s Administrative income was $30,987 as compared to its General Admin expense of $73,671; this reflects investment in collections activities that take time to see a payout.
- Funds collected from past due accounts were used this year to maintain E-Section roads past the bridge. The new fiscal year will be the third year that we are not collecting assessments for this section of road because the income is being collected from past due accounts.
- Road income for side roads is accounted for Sky Loop Road in E-Section and for Loop Road, Paytan Creek Road, and Sertz Road in A-Section.
- The combined Checking/Savings account balance is $42,950; there is an additional $17k coming in over the next two weeks from collections efforts. Plus, there is an additional $7k received that haven’t posted.
- A-Section bought road maintenance assets this year – a road grader and snow plow. They are assets on the balance sheet valued at $7,184
- E-Section owes $108,158 on the balance of the bridge to Acrow and for owner loans.
- 70 people in A-Section are on the past due list; rows with yellow highlights are those with liens filed from 2013. The 2017 assessed value by Snohomish County is also listed for those property owners with liens.
- $167k is past due from E-Section owners on the aging report; that’s $59k more than the remaining balance on the bridge. Some on the past due list are making payments.
Byron Ellwood (E-Section) asked if the financial statements were available in advance of the meetings so people can come prepared. Earl Van Buskirk said that the financial statements are posted on the web and he is willing to meet with anyone who may have specific questions.
Rudy Mueller (A-Section) asked if the financial information can be sent in advance? He comes from Camano Island. He saw $112.34 on his invoice for Administrative expense and wants a breakdown of the costs. Earl Van Buskirk offered to meet 1:1 to explain the numbers.
Budget Planning for 2017-18 Fiscal Year
Earl Van Buskirk provided a guided walkthrough of colored budget spreadsheets for the new fiscal year—red for E-Section and blue for A-Section. Each spreadsheet includes owners, the county’s assessed values of their property, and column values applicable to the annual MIRCC assessment.
Assessed values from the county are listed on the spreadsheet and compare last year to this year’s values on a per-owner basis.
Earl Van Buskirk walked through each column of information on the budget spreadsheets to explain how the assessments are calculated and shared among property owners. For E-Section, everyone pays the same amount for the following line items:
- Canyon Falls Bridge access
- Bridge insurance
- Administrative fees
- Access road (US-2 to the Canyon Falls Bridge)
For A-Section, equipment purchases and equipment maintenance are new – they weren’t there last years. Everyone pays the same amount for the following line items:
- USFS 6020 Road
- Admin fees
- Equipment purchase
- Equipment maintenance
Collection Efforts
Last year, the Board saw significant returns in its investment to collect past due assessments and fees on aging accounts. Earl Van Buskirk provided the following summary of activity:
McCoy paid up entirely without going to court – he paid nearly twice the amount of the original debt. Shiotani also paid – roughly $7k. Then these two properties were purchased by paying owners in the community. MIRCC was made whole on these collections efforts.
The Board pays out attorney fees initially as an investment to eventually recoup the investment plus past due assessments, penalties, and interest.
O’Toole gave MIRCC a dead in lieu of foreclosure. They owed about $6k; the lot is on the county records for $13k. We took the land, but lost attorney fees that will be recouped by the sale of the land.
Lahey/Russek – two people bid up the purchase to $13,700. MIRCC will get about $9700 because that’s where the bidding started and what we had into it.
Olson went up for sheriff sale and no one bid on it. MIRCC now owns it, and there is a 12-month redemption period during which the former owner would have to pay about $28k to redeem that property. We cannot market the property until the redemption period is over.
Satterlee – MIRCC has a full judgment for the amount but we haven’t seen anything on it. It’s a bank foreclosure so we are not first in line.
Manley – judge will rule on May 15 how much they will have to pay in attorney fees to MIRCC.
Dumas – the owner paid up right away plus attorney fees when he heard that there were foreclosure proceedings happening. He ended up only paying twice instead of three times to value of what was past due.
Terry Dievendorf (E-Sec) purchased a property from a neighbor who wanted to let go of the property. Dievendorf paid Ryden’s past-due account in full.
The Board’s preference is to settle the collections efforts without involving a lawyer, which gets very costly.
Byron Ellwood asked what procedure is in place to clean up the Olson property? Mark Bollman said it will be a volunteer effort. We don’t want to spend money on it. Maybe dump fees. Any cleanup fees get added to the redemption price during the 12-month period.
Erika Palmer (E-Section) asked how much personal time Earl Van Buskirk has spent on Collections? Van Buskirk said “a lot.” Palmer reminded the community that the Board is a group of volunteers.
E-Section Road Committee Report
Mark Bollman said that Dave MacFarlane chaired the road committee all winter. Mark Haenlein gave a report in his absence. The committee is responsible for the road from the Canyon Falls Bridge to Deep Woods Road.
We haven’t assessed for this part of the road for three years now due to collections activity and trying to keep costs down while we pay for the bridge. Any monies needed to maintain the road has come from past dues getting paid.
Paul Hery has good equipment now. Often he runs it up and down the road without even charging us for it.
Ben Keith suggested if we were to make a capital investment in a compactor, wouldn’t it make the pothole filling last longer? He has compacted pothole filling and it has lasted a year. Using a grader to scrape the material into the hole doesn’t’ last as long.
Haenlein thought a compactor was a good idea. Bollman said Paul Hery has been looking into a compactor. Ben Keith said he would be interested in letting the community use his equipment if he buys it.
Canyon Falls Bridge, Gate, Access Road
Earl Van Buskirk said Paul Hery now has a road grader. He’s working on putting a crown on the road. There are very few potholes today.
The road is in great shape and the gate is working fine.
Paul Hery would like more gravel if we can afford it.
A-Section Road Committee Report
Mat Williams said the first chance to get the grader out was last week. A-Section purchased a grader, a snow plow, and a large commercial vibratory roller. We now have equipment that the community can maintain the roads at a very reasonable cost to us.
In the future, we should spend a lot less money and enjoy a great road.
Brent Corey encouraged anyone wanting to participate in the road maintenance to get in touch with himself or Mat Williams. We have the equipment and are relying on volunteers to run the machinery.
Bekka Davis asked if anyone in A-Section has noticed by the gate there had been sloughing but now it’s gone. It’s across from Swamp Road and belongs to USFS.
Mat Williams had USFS come out and look at it. They said until that area is declared a disaster area, they won’t have money to fix it. If MIRCC fixes it, we will have to assume all costs. The road committee repaired the road because USFS wouldn’t declare a disaster.
Mary Ann Toms added some history about the area. When the river comes up, it takes part of the road with it as it goes down. Burlington Northern and USFS had come out in the past. They both looked at different solutions in the past. Nothing can be done to this area of road except to continue filling it.
Community Comments and Open Discussion
Five people had a topic that they wanted to address. Bollman said what we want to avoid is any two-way conversations. Please address the President, the Board and the group.
Setting One-on-One Meetings for Personal Matters
Don Larsen shared a handout that he wrote to address issues that don’t affect the broader community to please set up a private meeting with the Board. At last year’s meeting, there were several attendees who ranted about personal issues and were not property owners. The Board can more efficiently resolve individual concerns in a smaller setting without consuming time during a community meeting.
As an example, Earl Van Buskirk said that Ben Keith contacted him regarding a specific issue related to his side road. Van Buskirk said they were able to reach a solution by working together one-on-one.
With regard to voicing community concerns, Lora Cox suggested a time limit if there are many people wanting to speak. When people talk about what’s affecting E-Section, is it relevant to A-Section?
Whom Can Voice Concerns to the Board
Lora Cox asked if only paying property owners can address the Board? The day before, Cox came in contact with someone who is outside MIRCC but has a job interacting with property owners. The third party claimed that there is a nonpaying property owner who allegedly has been denied the opportunity to speak at Board meetings. If it is true, Cox said it gives someone ammo to criticize the Board.
Bollman said that he is unaware of a situation of when a property owner was denied the chance to speak. The Board does have a Code of Conduct however; Bollman said he doesn’t care for outbursts or swearing. We welcome people who can respectfully address the Board.
Bollman also mentioned that in the past, the Board has invited non-property owner guests to share something that pertains to the entire community.
Cox asked that it be recorded in the meeting minutes that it is a fallacy that nonpaying property owners are denied an opportunity to speak.
Easement Agreement for E-Section Access Road
Don Gerend spoke as an A-Section owner, although he said he had no idea how he came into ownership of this property. Gerend came to speak about the property he and his partner own along the access road from Route 2 to the Canyon Falls Bridge. He owns 18 acres and has owned it for 45 years.
Gerend said he doesn’t have a problem with MIRCC using the access road across his property for ingress and egress. He just needs access to the gate. Gerend also would like to have a formal agreement put in place with MIRCC for ingress and egress over his property. Earl Van Buskirk said he’d be happy to meet after the meeting.
Canyon Falls Bridge Approach
Phil Reichel asked the Board to consider buying four or six eco blocks and placing them at the ends of the Canyon Falls Bridge. He is concerned that an accident could happen that would be devastating.
Roberts Rules, Speaking, and Rebuttal
Mary Ann Toms brought her book on Roberts Rules of Order and wanted to clarify something for people about speaking out during a meeting run according to the rules. She said that you cannot speak again until everyone else has had a chance to speak, then you can have a second chance to speak. Toms volunteered to work with the Bylaws Committee on the election process and people’s conduct at meetings so everyone is aware of how and when they should have a chance to speak.
Mt Index River Road to Sunset Falls
Ben Keith said that Earl Van Buskirk alluded to his topic about road maintenance near his property on Mt Index River Road, which is now a side road. From Sunset Falls to the railroad bridge, there are two new faults in the road that are dangerous. If you’re coming down the road, stay as far left as you can heading toward the falls. Keith said the road has deteriorated considerably, and we are working on addressing it.
Community Blockwatch
Julia Akin (E-Section) wanted to remind everyone about blockwatch in the community. Akin urged everyone to please take a chance today to get to know your neighbors. The last time she called 911, they suggested reporting online to MyCrimeReport.us, a website for Snohomish County Citizen Crime Reporting.
Akin also mentioned that the email address MIRblockwatch@gmail.com is a good way to get hooked up with neighbors.
Assessment Concerns
Rudy Mueller (A-Section) took the opportunity to speak directly about his assessment invoice. Mueller said that he finds assessments for equipment purchase, maintenance, and administrative fees unreasonable that they are equal across the community. Mueller asserted that a flat assessment is unreasonable in a democractic society. He does not believe that Judge Wynne intended for the formula to be interpreted in this way.
Earl Van Buskirk offered to meet with Mueller immediately after the meeting to help him understand the assessment formula that Judge Wynne outlined. Van Buskirk assured Mueller the Board is following the decree that the judge dictated.
Mueller went on to say he has owned his property for 50 years on Stub Road. In the wintertime, it’s impassable because water is over the road. It has scared him to go into the property based on how it looks – old cars, rubbish. He doesn’t know if there is illegal activity happening there, but he would not want his wife to come to MIRCC alone. Never seen any appreciable work on the road to keep the water from crossing.
Firewood Theft Concerns
Phil Reichel voiced a concern about firewood theft in the community. Reichel urged that we should be going after individuals who are sending the wood to grocery and convenience stores and making money. He also said the community should address the commercial buyers of stolen wood by not patronizing their businesses.
Board Members in Good Standing
Anita Shultz (E-Section) asked are all Board members in good standing? Bollman stated that he believes they all are. He said that it is important that the Board adheres to the Bylaws by ensuring all members have paid their assessments in full by the due date. Bollman mentioned that new fiscal year invoices had been sent recently and were due by May 31.
Concern about Discounts for Multiple Property Owners
Scott Shannon (A-Section) said he has watched the erosion of the pool of money in MIRCC. Shannon said as people forfeit lots, he believes there are inside deals happening for property to exchange hands.
Shannon said that multiple lot owners are not paying their assessed values for all the value of the property. He alleged that discounts are being applied. Shannon went on to say that easements to the bridge are verbal. The judge didn’t provide detail about the membership – he left it up to us. In Shannon’s opinion, the judge left a lot of things up to MIRCC. He has been told that new assessments are being renegotiated now.
Don Larsen said that Shannon’s assertion is “fake news.”
Shannon maintained that multiple lot owners aren’t paying the full amount they owe.
Earl Van Buskirk rebutted that we cannot see this practice in the books. All property owners are assessed according to Judge Wynne’s formula, which is very clear.
Anita Shultz added that she was aware of an incident of someone avoiding MIRCC assessments. Shultz said she was aware that Tammy Baumgartner sold a property to someone else, but they haven’t recorded it with the county because they don’t want to get an assessment.
Bollman said that it may be true some people may conduct transactions without recording them. There is not a lot we can do about that.
Larsen said the non-payers are really the low hanging fruit. It’s your neighbors who aren’t paying who are subsidized. Rather than spread misinformation, look at the aging reports and talk to those who don’t pay.
Lora Cox believes that allegations like this are even more reason why the books are open and the Board provides financial transparency.
MIRCC Election Issue
Ben Keith asked again why can’t we ratify the election right now? Bollman said that would be OK, but it doesn’t solve the technicality that Phil Reichel brought up earlier in the meeting. A vote now would not include all property owners, because they are not all present at this meeting.
Tracy Smith said that according to Roberts Rules, it is a vote by acclamation. Smith suggested considering it as a bylaws change for the future.
Bollman stated that the Bylaws trump any Roberts Rules of Order until they are amended.
Closing Remarks
Please join the Board on the first Saturday of the month for meetings of the Board of Directors. The next meeting is Saturday, June 3 at 9am at the Index Fire Station.
Respectfully submitted by
Carrie Byrne