From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
Cc:
Gregory Ayers [email protected]
Re: Special Assessment
May 8, 2017 at 1:12 AM
Richard Fant [email protected]
Richard,
Givenyouseemnottogetthelinkage,letmehelpyouout,howeverIam
notalawyer.Youmaywanttocontactyourownlawyerforfurther
informa=on.Givenyouarelikelyagoodman,IthoughtIwouldprovideyou
withabitofperspec=ve,andwhatIamdoing.Youareaskingforabitmore
ofmystrategyagainstyou,butnoharminsharing.
TheUSAGcanchoosetoprosecuteFederalLaw,suchastheTLIA,infederal
court.TheUSAGislikeanaEorney,theycan“takeyoutocourt”,ifthey
believethereisaviola=onoffederallawtheychoosetoprosecute.Iam
workingtoshowthemthatyourac=onsareaviola=onoffederallaw.They
maychooseto“bemy/ourlawyer”fortheresidentsofWrightRd.Idon’t
havemanyminori=esordisabledpeopleontheroad,sothismaynotwork.
Let’ssee.Itiss=llaviola=onofFederalLaw.
SothesecondstepIamexploringiswiththeUSDepartmentofJus=ceitself,
wheretheyarethegovernmentlawyers,actuallytakingyoutocourt.They
actonthedesireoftheotheragenciesofthefederalgovernment,ac=ngas
theiraEorneys,defacto.ThesecanbetheagenciesthatoverseetheTLIA,
whomaywanttoprosecuteyou.Iammee=ngwiththeDOJweekaOernext
inDC,onadifferentmaEer,soIwasplanningondiscussingitwiththem,and
toseewhatthebestorganiza=ontohaveastheirclienttotakethison.They
tendtocallintheFederalMarshallserviceformaEersthatare“urgent”.So
whatrecordsdoyouhave?Computers?Ireallyliketheseguys,theyhave
zip=esinsteadofhandcuffs,interes=ngtowatchinac=on!!FewUtube
videostowatchwhenyougetachance.
TheotheritemsthatIampursuingisthatIcan’tfindwhereapermithas
beenfiledfortheconversionoftheroadtobeingimpervious.Haveyoufiled
astormwaterpermitapplica=on?Ihavenotfoundone,soIhavesenta
leEertoDooliEletoseeiftheyhave.Manypartsoftheroadtransit“cri=cal
areas”asdefinedundercountyordinances,andunderprotectedareasunder
areas”asdefinedundercountyordinances,andunderprotectedareasunder
theShorelineMasterPlanoftheDepartmentofEcology.Whileyoustate
thereisnoimpactofthechipsealonmarinesafety,ourcountySMPisunder
finalreview,andIamfiguringthatevenunderthepresentone,wecanget
youtoaSEPAbeingrequired.
Solet’smakeiteasy.Permyprioremail,you,andtheboard,seemtohavea
bitofhomeworktodoandmaterialstobeprovided.Quitfocusingon
ge\ngtheroaddone“now”andfocusonge\ngthewholeprocessdone
“right”.Thatincludesfulldocumenta=ononhowyouwillhandlepayments,
debt,interestandpre-payments.Rightnowyouhavesomeformof
convolutedmessof“ifyoupaynow,this,ifyoupayonlythismuchnow,then
this,etc”.Fixit.Getanaccountantandalawyer,draOthecorrect
documents,andprovidethem.Doyourjob(Igetityouareavolunteer,but
s=ll?).
Secondpoint–fixtheland-bridgeatthepond.Pleasedon’tmakemedoit.
Dothejobsuchthatitwilllast.
Greg
GregoryMAyers
+1(206)390-6714
From:RichardFant<[email protected]>
Date:Sunday,May7,2017at11:22PM
To:GregoryMAyers<[email protected]>
Cc:
Greg - I have answered your questions to the best of my ability and will share any
documents that exist. And, will continue to do so as requested.
And, as I stated on the phone. The loan has not been finalized since we don’t yet know the
amount of the loan due to one-time payments. As soon s that information is available, it will
amount of the loan due to one-time payments. As soon s that information is available, it will
be shared. However, as further stated, the association will be “signing” the note, not any
individual.
I have no idea what the US Attorney Generals office in Seattle will make of this situation.
However in reading the FAQ on the their website I note that the USAG does not represent
individuals or prosecute local businesses (except for civil rights violations) - so I fail to see
how they could be involved.
Standing by to answer questions.
-Rick Fant (msn)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rickfant
Mobile: +1 425 802 8205
----------------------------------
On May 7, 2017, at 11:04 PM, Gregory Ayers <[email protected]> wrote:
Kevin
IhaveactuallybeenabletoreachMr.Fant.Hisanswershavebeenlessthanuseful
withrespecttotheloan.Hehasreferredmetotheassocia=onwebsite,whichhas
nothingontheloan.IamturningthatemailandthisonetothepersonIam
workingwithatUSAGoffice.
Frommyside,IamgoingtolettheOfficeoftheUSAEorneyGeneralinSeaElesort
itallout.Ilikeitbecausetheyareindependentandhavebigfines,nottomen=on
FederalPeniten=aries,forviolatorsoffederallaws.
AsIsharedwithMr.Fant,Ithinktheseboardmembersaretryingtomovetoo
quicklywithoutback-updocumenta=onandmaterials.Abitfootlooseandfancy
freeforme.Whenmyemployeesgetinthissidewaysposi=onItellthem“stop
moving,donotdoanythingelse,sitdown,calmdown,wecanfigureoutwhatis
goingonandwhataproposedreasonablesolu=onis”.Ithinktheyprobablyneedto
hireanaccountantandalawyertosortouttheir“loandocuments”,which,of
course,donotexist.
AmateurhouriswhatIsee–IsurehopetheFedstakethatintoaccount.Theyare,
aOerall,onlyvolunteers,andIamsuretheyarenicepeopletoo.
Iwillkeepyouposted,neighbor
Greg
GregoryMAyers
+1(206)390-6714
aswellasourcountyengineer,aboutthepotenOalforfailureofchipsealonthelandbridgenext
tothepond.Itookafewcoresamplesandhadthemanalyzedanditappearsthatroadbed
needssomesubstanOalimprovement.WhenIcheckedtheprojectscopeIdidnotfindwhatI
waslookingfor,namelythatsomeformofsubstanOalroadbedimprovementwouldbedone.
Frommyindependentassessmentwithmy“consultants”,thelandbridgeneedssomeupdated
culverts,a12-18”replacementofbasic7/8”orgreaterroadbedmaterials,followedbyanother
1”of“fines”,priortoapplicaOonoftherockandtarforthechipseal.Itappearsthatthelackof
prep-workmayactuallyjeopardizethepromiseofthechipseal,withrespecttolongevityand
decreasedmaintenancecosts.TakealookatMt.Bakerroadifyouwanttoseechipsealfailure
duetounderlyingcompositefillfailure.PleasecheckwithyourcontractorsandletmeknowifI
needtofixthelandbridgebeforeyouchipseal,undertheallowancesofthebylaws.Iwould
rathermakesureitisdonerightsothatyoudonotwastethemoneyofmyneighbors–incase
youareunaware,youcan’tgradechipseallikeyoudothepresentdirtroad,soifyoudon’tmake
thelandbrigecorrect,you(orwe)willbeproverbiallybe“f-ed”.WedothingsrightonWright
road,asagroup,sothatwesolveissuesproacOvely.
Incaseyoucan’ttell,letmemakeitcleartoyou.Ireallydon’tcareabout“your”chipsealorits
costs,orthepartIneedtopay.InorderofwhatIcareabout:
· YouprovideappropriatedocumentaOon-theTILArequiredmaterialstothepeoplewho
maytakeoutaloan
· Youvolunteers,don’tgotojailorgetfined,becauseIdon’twanttodowhatyouare
doing
· Youmakethepaymentsfairandequitable,byregion,bylot
· Youfixthelandbridgecorrectlysothattheroadisrepairedinasustainableway
· Youstopmakingstatementslikeyouhave,providingstupiddocuments,makingclaims,
keepdoingwhatyouaredoing
· You“stopmoving”anddothisright,correctly
Maybeifyousolvetheseissuestherestwilljustfallintoplace.
Inanycase,asofnow,Iwillallowourfederalgovernmenttosortthisout,andyourbehaviorsare
appropriatelyrecognized.Mymessage–getitright,don’tjustgetitdone.
Greg
GregoryMAyers
+1(206)390-6714
From:RichardFant<[email protected]>
Date:Sunday,May7,2017at2:06PM
To:GregoryMAyers<[email protected]>
Cc:
Subject:Re:SpecialAssessment
As before I have moved the other 80+ to BCC to reduce filling everybody’s email
As before - I have moved the other 80+ to BCC to reduce filling everybody s email.
Greg - thanks for the phone call. As mentioned, I’m very willing to answer any questions
and meet with you or any others at any time.
Just to reiterate what we discussed:
- All the material on the process, the loan and the work has been posted on the association
website. A summary has been sent by US Mail. Please check the website for any updates.
- The association is the entity signing the loan papers (the amount of which will depend on
how many people pay the one-time fee). No individual lot will sign the loan.
- The association is working on behalf of a majority of the lot owners on Raccoon Point
Road - who want to see the road updated this year
- The due date for the payment is May 15, 2017 in order to allow us to make the June work
date.
-Rick Fant (msn)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rickfant
Mobile: +1 425 802 8205
----------------------------------
On May 7, 2017, at 1:18 PM, Gregory Ayers <[email protected]> wrote:
Kevin,
InteresOngenoughIhavebeenfollowingmuchofthesamelinesofasserOons,
includingafewotherrelatedtovoOngirregulariOes,wherethevoteswerenot
sealed(postcardwithvotevisible)andsentdirectlytoaproponent.AddiOonally,
thereisnoformalauditoftheresultsthathasbeenprovided.Iwasofferedthe
abilitytomonitortheballotcount,inaboardmembershanger,butwasunableto
anend.Thatsaid,Iclaimeditshouldhavebeencountedbyanindependent
3rdparty.Sotherewereotherflawedpartsoftheprocess.
Iampleasedtoseeyouwereabletoobtainthefulllistofmembers.WhenI
requestedoneIwasdeniedaccess.Iwasgoingtopollthegrouptoseeiftherewas
interestincross-sharinginacourtacOon.Withouttheemaillistthecostformeto
doitalonewastoohighascomparedtotheassessment,whatwasthen,$1875,
whichnowappearstobe$1985.Thecostformeindividuallywasnotworththe
costofalegalfilinginFridayHarbor.IamfullyanOcipaOngreceivingathirdinvoice,
datedagainApril7withaduedateofApril7,despitereceivingitinMay.Thisisan
enOreotherissue.HowdoInotreceiveaninvoicefor30aQeritwascreated,foran
amountthatis$110morethanwevotedon,thatwasdueamonthago,and
paymentisdemandedin8daysinordertoavoidaloanissued,etc.etc.
AnotherroutewhereIhavehadopinionsdraQedanddocumentspreparedisusing
theConsumerProtecOonActof1968,specificallytheRegulaOonZ,alsoknownas
theTruthinLendingAct.TILAismainlyapplicabletoloansrelatedtorealestate,
g
,
therewasaprovisionaddedforcreditcardsandotherloans.Giventheofficersof
theassociaOonstateintheirlenersandintheinvoicethattheloanresultsina
propertylienandthatitisrequiredtobepaidbackatOmeofsalemakesthis“loan”
verysuspectoffallingunderthisfederallaw.
TheofficersoftheassociaOonstatethattheinterestcostwouldbe“about”$600.
Hasanyoneseenapaymentschedule?Theannualpaymentwouldbe“about$200”,
againhasanyoneseenapaymentschedule.Thatthepaymentperiodisnineyears,
butisdueondemandonsaleofthehouse.Henceitisalienonthehousewithout
appropriatedocumentsforaloan.Thereisnodiscussionofpre-payment,orprepaymentperiodorcosts,otherthanthissaleofpropertyclause,andthennothing
relatedtoanyfeesorpenalOesdueatthatOme.IstheassociaOonthelender,or
someotherorganizaOon,andifsowho?So,ifsomeonedoesnothavethecashor
someotherliquidassetunOlaQerMay15,whatif75%ispaid,thenwhenother
liquidassetsaresold,theownerturnsaroundandpaystheremainder,sayonJune
15.Someofushavenotsigneduptohavethelienonourproperty,soarethey
goingtolienourhousestoo,withoutnoOcetous?Ipersonallydidnotreceiveloan
documentssoisitthatshouldwenotpaythe$1985upfrontwearebeingsigned
uptoaloanwithveryfewdetails,onlycommentsatthebonomofaQuickbooks
invoice?Theinvoiceisfor$760,sobasedonthepureinvoice(withouttheseside
comments),$760ispaymentinfull(canclaimthatcommentsonaninvoicebinds
youtoadebt).Itisevensopoorlywordeditdoesnotcallouttheyearfor“May15”
inthesecommentsontheinvoice,soisit2017?Technically,ifIpayitbyMay16,
2022,wouldInotbelegallyboundtopaytheir“approximately$600”ininterest.
Whatabout2028?Isthatinterestof“approximately$600”,similartothefeewas
“approximately$1875?”Fromapurefinancial-legalstandpointitappearsthat
doingwhateverthisboardneedstodotogettheroadworkdonethisyearoutstrips
standardpracOces.Giventheyareall,oratleastmostlyproponents,andboththe
treasurerandpresidentliveonthefurthestoutpartoftheroad,shouldwebe
surprised?Doitnow,figureouthowtocleanupthemesslater?Wealsomayget
heldholdingthefinancialbagduetotheir“May15”issues,andinvoicesduebefore
received,becausealoanmaybeissuedandfewpaybytheOmetheystartthe
work.ManyofthesearepotenOalTILAissues,accordingtotheAssistantFederalAG
inSeanleIhavespokenwith.ButthepotenOalgoodnewsistofollow-------
TheTILAactuallyallowsforbringingchargesagainstindividualsoflarger
organizaOons,includingofficers,wheregrossnegligenceormisconductare
suspected.AddiOonally,mostdirectorandofficerliabilitycoveragehasexclusions
foratleastgrossnegligence.TheseareFederalLaws,notstateorlocallaws,andare
neitherpreventedbynorcantheybeassertedbasedonanorganizaOonsbylaws,
accordingtotheAsst.AG.SowemightnotincurtheliabilityasanassociaOon(and
needtopayanyfines).
First,IAMNOTproposingthatIamtakinganylegalacOon,justtryingtoprovide
informaOon.IDOWANTtomakeitclearthatIamnotaccusingourofficersofany
offencesorbreakinganylaws,theyareassumedinnocentunOlprovenguilty.Iam
alsoNOTinaposiOontoeithergiveanylegaladvice(Iamnotalawyer)noramI
i i ’ f
C
P
anempOngtodoso.Again,nothingthatcan’tbefoundontheConsumerProtecOon
BureauorUSDepartmentoftheTreasurywebsites
hnps://www.consumerfinance.gov/f/201503 cfpb truth-in-lending-act.pdf
hnps://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/consumer-protecOon/truth-in-lending/indextruth-in-lending.html
LastlyIrecognizethattheofficersarevolunteersandarenotreceiving
remuneraOon,norwouldtheyfinanciallybenefitfromanyoftheseirregulariOes.At
thesameOme,weshouldexpectthattheyobtainaccounOngandlegaladvicefor
suchamajormaner.
WhatIamtryingtosayisthatracingforwardasisbeingdonebythisboardis
probablyilladvised.IamtryingtopointoutsomeofthepotenOallegalmaners,as
wellasfinancialmaners,thatappeartoneedanenOon.Iamhopefulthattheboard
willobtainandprovideuswiththenecessarydocumentsaheadofforcingusto
incuralabialityforwhichweareunawareofthefullterms.
AsIjustsharedwithRickFantisthatIwanttoseeisthattheboardtakeastepback,
anempttoshoreupallofthelegaldocuments,andthenmoveforewordfromthere.
IalsodonotplanonmakingpaymentasfromwhatIcantell,anditsonlymy
opinion,thatmyporOonisdueonMay14of2062,my100thbirthday.Ihavean
invoicethatseemstoindicatethatmyplanmeetstherequirementoftheinvoice,
thatIpay“byMay15”.
Greg
GregoryMAyers
+1(206)390-6714
From:KJC<[email protected]>
Date:Sunday,May7,2017at9:22AM
To:
'
<[email protected]>,
'RickFant'
Subject:RE:SpecialAssessment
Jim,
IsOllhaveissuewiththisSpecialAssessment.
IreceivedareplyfromRickFantonmyconcernsthattheBylawswerenotfollowed
andheassuredmethattheywere.IreviewedtheinformaOonagainandIsOlldon't
agree.
Kevin & Lisa, thanks for your note.
The Bylaws have been followed very carefully in creating this spacial
assessment. As you may know, the Special Assessment (SA) was initiated and
approved by the membership at the August 27, 2016 RPRMA annual meeting.
The members instructed the Board to create a Special Assessment (SA) where
the cost is equally shared across all lots.
A) I do not believe the meeting was binding because there was not a
quorum. You need members holding 50% of the votes entitled to be
cast. The minutes of the meeting stated that 51 members were
present and a minimum of 37 members met quorum, but my math
figures that 50% of 132 is 66. How is 51 a quorum?
B) There is a provision for using only a 25% “quorum” but that
B) There is a provision for using only a 25% quorum , but that
requires a meeting to fail to achieve a quorum and for a second
meeting to be called (Article III section 7), but notice has to be given
at least 10 days prior to any meeting (Article III section 5).
C) Following the bylaws very carefully would have the annual meeting
in October as defined in Article III section 2, not in August.
As per section 1(6) of the Bylaws the Board has the responsibility to set the
allocation by region. Currently, for the yearly standard assessment, the Board
has set proportional percentages for each region (at 18%, 28% and 54%
respectively). These percentages are listed in the Bylaws as the initial allocation
but the idea is that as the makeup of the association changes (distribution of lots
in regions) that the proportional allocation would be updated by the Board to
maintain the current balance.
D) Yes Article I section 6 does task the Board to set assessment by
region, however Article X states that to change Article I sec.
6 shall require approval by 75% of ALL LOT OWNERS
For this SA the Board took direction from the membership and equally divided
the cost across all lots in regions A, B and C. This is not a precedent as we
expect each SA to be evaluated independently.
E) In order to share the cost of the Special Assessment equally among
all regions, the Bylaws must be modified by 75% of all lot owners
(not just members in good standing).
No updates to the Bylaws have occurred to this point, no need to charge what
has been working.
F) Shortly after this was sent, the bylaws were updated to expand the
authority of the board (Article I section 3 paragraphs a and b).
Let me know if I can answer any further questions.
-Rick Fant (gmail)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rickfant
Mobile: +1 425 802 8205
Changingtheassessmentbyregionfromthatstatedinthebylawsrequiresachange
tothebylawsanda75%approvalofallLotOwners(ArOcleX).Soallowingaspecial
assessmenttochangethiswithonly51orthe132eligiblelotrepresentedandonly
38votedyesisclearlyagainstthebylaws.EffecOvely28%votedyes.Withinthe
minutes,Icannotdeterminewhichlotsvotedforforcingallregionstoshareequally,
butanasserOonthatthiswasbecausealllotsbenefitequallyisjustcompletely
false.RegionAonlyuses0.6milesofroadandsomeofusmuchless.Idon’tsee
howasmallimprovedsecOonenhancesourpropertyvalueaswellas1.9milesof
improvedroadenhancesothers(RegionC).ThisseemstoustobethefoundaOon
ofwhythereareregionsinthefirstplaceandwhythebylawswerewrinentomake
arbitrarychangestotheallotmentdifficulttomake.
Usingthebylawassessmentbyregion(A:18%B:28%C:54%),Icomputethetotal
assessmentasA:$1,169.35B:$1905.60C:$2,616.16insteadof$1985forall.This
planisclearlyshiQingthecostoftheimprovementsfromRegionCtoregionA
ReferringtotheresultsfromthevoOngreportedinalenerdatedMarch12,2017,
theresultsindicatethatthisspecialassessmentpassedwith65%ofthevotescast
sincenotalleligiblevoteswerecast.Thisisquitedifferentfromthe51%ofthelots
vo:ngyesthatwasagreedtointheAnnualMeeOngminutes.Therearealsoissues
withthenumberspresentedinthisvote.Referringtothebylawsforguidanceand
consideringthattheywereupdatedbytheboardthismonths,thenumbers,lots
andregionmembersshouldbecurrent.Icountthefollowing:
LotsperRegionA:44B:42C:59Total=145
Thelenerindicatesthattherewere132eligibletovoteand108voted,butthe
countsfortheregionsdonotmatchthebylaws.Thelenerindicatesthattheeligible
voteswere
EligiblelotsperRegionA:47B:31C:54Total=132
PlusIneligiblelotsineligible:12Total=144
(assuminglot171651024000istheexcepOon)
VotescastperRegionA:36B:25C:47Total=108(75%oflots)
YesvotesA:21B:19C:30Total=70(49%oflots)
SothisvotedidnotmeettherequirementssetforthattheannualmeeOng.Itdid
notachieveover51%ofthelotsvoOngyes.
Insummary,Idonotunderstandhowtheboardfeelsthatthisspecialassessment
abidesbythebylaws.MeeOngsareheldcontrarytothebylaws,quorumisnotmet
butresultsofthosevotesareupheld,regionalassessmentisset-asideandcounts
fromthevotedonotmatchthelotslistedinthebylaws.Therearesomany
quesOonsaboutthisthataregoingun-answered.
Kevin&LisaConner
-----OriginalMessage----From:JamesBiddick[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:Wednesday,April26,201710:40
To:
Subject:SpecialAssessment
IhavebeengeÅngsomequesOonsonthespecialassessmentinvoicesastheyrelate
totheinterest.
Inanutshellhereisthebreakdown.
BecausetheAssociaOonistakingoutaloantopayfortheworkthereisinterested
chargedontheloan.IfyoupaytheenOreupfrontcostof$1,985byMay15,youwill
notbepayingforfutureinterestontheloanasallfundscollectedwillgotowards
payingdowntheamountdue.Ifyouchosetopaythroughyearlyassessmentsand
payjustthe
$760upfrontyouwillincurapproximately$600ininterestoverthe9yearsofthe
loan.
Ifyouelecttopayallmoneyupfrontyouwillonlybeinvoicedinfutureyearsforthe
operaOonsporOonofthebudgetandthemiscmaintenanceexpenses.Ifyouchoose
topayyearlyyouwillreceiveayearlyinvoicelisOngtheoperaOonandmaintenance
expensesplusalineitemforthespecialassessment.Thespecialassessment
amountwillnotbesubjecttoaninterestchargeunlessattheendofthenineyear
loanpaymentyouarenotcurrentontheamountdue.Ifyourlotshouldsellduring
thenineyearperiodtheoutstandingbalanceduewillbecollectedattheclosingof
thesale.
Attheendofthenineyearperiodweshouldhaveenoughmoneysetasidetopay
forthemaintenanceliQandfromthatpointontheassessmentpaymentwillrevert
backtothepercentagebasisasayearlyassessmentandbesubjecttoournormal
interestpolicy.
Secondissues-pleasetellmeifyouhaven'treceivedyourinvoiceyet.Theywere
mailedovertwoweeksagoandeveryoneshouldhavethembynow.
-JimBiddick
7WindfallLane
Eastsound,WA98245
360)376-2488