LTPOA Meeting Minutes September 8, 2009
    
The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. with the following board members present:  Janet Hirsch, Ann Schatzman, Chris Townsend, Marilyn Meyer, and Matt Schweiss.   
    
President’s Report    
President Townsend started off the meeting by making a change to the July minutes asking that #5 under building be changed to the board not allowing the boat lift in A-cove.  Motion to accept minutes was made by Marilyn Meyer and seconded by Janet Hirsch.  Motion passed. 
  
Treasurer’s Report    
Marilyn Meyer, Treasurer, reported for August. The Financial Report for August is listed separately.  Motion to approve the Financial Report was made by Janet Hirsch and seconded by Ann Schatzman.  Motion passed.
 
Marilyn presented the following bills for payment:   

Gas for patrol boat 			= $43.43
Toilet 					= $90
Citation Order Book 			= $119.12
Clip Board for Security 		= $15.23
Gas Cutting Refund 			= $120
Sewer Mailing 				= $120.60 (will be reimbursed)
Work Comp Insurance 		= $927
Commercial Package Insurance 	= $574
Truck Insurance 			= $219.50
        
Motion to approve bills was made by Janet Hirsch and seconded by Ann Schatzman.  Motion passed.    
   
Building  
John Hindrichs reported that Mr. Hejnal will be submitting plans for a new dock and Mr. Richars will be submitting plans for a boat lift.

Maintenance
Nothing to report.

Security
Rick Hannick reported for August.  His security report is as follows:
 
SECURITY REPORT, SEPTEMBER 8, 2009
 
Stryker Security has hired two new security patrol officers, Shawn and Noble.  Both are ex-police officers who have been trained through the police academy, and are licensed to carry a firearm.  Noble was our guard for the Labor Day weekend.  He is kind of feeling his way regarding how we want things done here, but I had a long conversation with him on Monday, and I am confident that he will be fine.  I had Stryker alter the hours for this week so that we would have a guard present on Monday for the holiday.  Noble tells me that he had the boat out on Sunday for about an hour, and had several people tell him that they were glad to see it on the lake again.  The problem is that as he was getting ready to dock it for the day, it died, and would not restart, so he was unable to use it again that day, nor on Monday.  I can’t stress enough how important it is to have the boat on the water to increase the awareness that we are patrolling and enforcing the rules, as well as the deterrent effect the boat has on the boaters who break the rules.  Why can’t we get it fixed, and fixed right, so that it is available for the security guard?  So far, between James and I, we have written six citations to vehicles and empty boat trailers on the parking lot, but without a boat to go onto the lake to find the offender, we have no way to know if they are trespassers or property owners.  We need all of the tools at our disposal if we are to fix our security problems.
 
James caught, and wrote a citation to the driver of the sports car that has been terrorizing the south side.  He has been given a written warning, and the next time he is cited, he will be subject to the $25.00 fine.  I have been told that he is driving much slower now.  I hope that lasts.  James also wrote two other warning citations to vehicles without stickers, and gave them sticker applications as instructed.
 
I would like to bring in a guard on a Saturday morning while the gate is open and have him stop every vehicle going in or out that does not have a sticker.  I want citations written to every property owner vehicle not stickered, and verification of the destination of everyone claiming to be a visitor.  I think we should confront all property owners without stickers, and force them to get them.  Do I have the authority to do this, and if not, I am asking for board approval to set it up?  
 
I would like to know if there has been any more board discussion regarding closing the gate 24/7.  I still firmly believe that holds the key to shutting down our community to trespassers, and we will never be secure until the board takes action to close it full time.  We have the mechanism in place to keep out unwanted people.  Why are we not using it?
 
I have set up a spreadsheet to track the citations issued, and will be including a copy of it with each month’s report to the board, see attached.
 
Respectfully submitted
Rick Hannick
 
Gate 
Russ Wilner reported that there was only one minor incident with the gate in the last month. The UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) circuit breaker blew and had to be reset to restore gate operation.

LTIA REPORT 
Mary Leiweke reported on the upcoming community events:

September 12 - Tailgate/Garage Sale
October 17 - Arts & Crafts Sale
Parents Club Sponsored Bake Sale
Fish Fry on LTIA Dinner Night ($10/person)

Finance Committee 
Janet Hirsch stated that the fiscal year end report and budget were available at the meeting for anyone that would like a copy.

Web Site & Newsletter  
Janet Hirsch reported that the newsletter has been mailed and delivered and is available on the website and October 20 is the deadline to submit anything you would like to include in the next newsletter.  Also, the PWSD#13 minutes are posted on the website.
  
Community Coordinator 
Nothing to report.
  
Fishing Club 
October 10 is the fish fry.  There will be drinks available, a blues band and a washer tournament.
  
Sewer Committee    
Janet Hirsch reported that the sewer design plans have been submitted and we are waiting for final approval from MO DNR and USDA-RD. MO DNR has indicated that they would like to make changes to the plans that are based on format and not construction related and have not yet to receive a response from USDA.  As soon as we receive approval from the two agencies, the project will go out for bid.
   
Old Business (Board)    
President Townsend reported on the issue of the cell tower upon the request of several individuals. In December of last year, Matt Schweiss approached the board about a cell tower proposal in a private meeting.  
President Townsend further explained that Matt Schweiss brought to the board the proposal and survey from a company called Cellective Solutions that works for US Cellular. They have 354 site locations for US Cellular and had a contract that was an agreement for usage of our lake roads going to Matt Schweiss' L-30 lot and to his property behind the subdivision.  There was also in the agreement that the lake would be paid $600 a year by US Cellular for use of the lake roads.  

Insert CT here:
In December, Janet Hirsch and Ron Sansone contacted this company based on the premise that there is to be no commercial use of a lot within the development.  Janet and Ron also gave Cellective Solutions a survey plot plan of the property that is across from the front of the gate and maintenance yard and indicated that would be a more preferred site for the tower. 

From that point forward, Cellective Solutions did not hear from Matt, Janet or Ron.  The issue came back up around a month ago.  

President Townsend stated that at that point he started doing some due diligence.  Additionally, President Townsend explained that there was a school or church in Pevely that sued US Cellular because they were trying to build a cell tower on their property and it became a $250,000 lawsuit.  President Townsend contacted Ed Kemp and had a discussion over this lawsuit and Ed stated that it was a $300,000 lawsuit and the main premise was the lost time that US Cellular had been diligent in finding site locations for the towers.  The main reasons they cited that went all the way to the MO appellate court were:
1.  Prohibiting Progress 
2. 911 Dispatch & Amber Alert 
3. Homeland Security.  
At this point, President Townsend stated that he wished not to go any further at this time with his comments.

Marilyn Meyer then stated that the board went to their attorney, Dennis Tesreau, regarding the cell tower proposal and he responded to the board with a letter.  Marilyn read the following paragraph from the letter from attorney Dennis Tesreau:
 
In any event, with respect to the Board’s objection being based on Restriction #1, I agree with the Board’s objection. I agree that the access road on Lot L-30 would be used for commercial purpose and not a residential purpose. I think this is made all the more clear by the fact U.S. Cellular wants to alter the lot by building an access road that would be 30 foot wide on a 31 foot lot. I think that this is totally and completely unreasonable. I even think it makes it all the more certain that the property is being used for commercial purposes. 
President Townsend responded to the letter written by the attorney by stating 
“If the cell company has sited this location for their cell tower, if back in 2008 gave Cellective Solutions a different site and a different authorization to put it a different place, they pretty much have already gone through the legal expenses to find their location and then the board turns around and says 'here's a place to put it instead', if the other suitable location is suitable for them based on past precedence with what Ed Kemp (Ed was on the commission when this suit took place) cited, I think the lake opens themselves up to a big can of worms.”
 
Property owner John Dauernheim had the following issues with the proposed cell tower:
 
•	Why should we pay assessments for someone else to use our roads? 
•	The issue is against our Restrictions and the Restrictions can't be changed.  The lake has not lost one case wherein the Restrictions were challenged.
•	The board was elected to follow the Restrictions and there should be no one on the board that is for this proposed tower.

President Townsend stated that he does not want the lake to have a lawsuit that the lake cannot afford.  The lake has easements and in 1962 and 1965 Harold Hurd documented several locations all throughout the lake with easements and gave the board a document that was done in 1971 when Hurd granted further properties and a 2- ft. pathway separation which most of the property Elmer Richars and his brother owns. All of the locations on that document are specific survey points which clearly Harold Hurd granted easements for those properties.  And in one sentence that the board can attest after I gave it to them states, "rights for residential and/or commercial except mobile homes and trailers".  We have to be clear that this Fortune 100 company hasn't done their own due diligence to make sure that they are ok with it before I can agree with what the property owners are saying.  President Townsend also stated that he agreed with the property owners concerns but we need to be careful when dealing with something so much bigger than this subdivision.  

Property owner Martin Holland stated that the issue is not the cell tower and where it is being built.  The issue is how the company will get to this cell tower.  The company can find another way to access the tower instead of using a lake lot for an access road.

Matt Schweiss stated that he has an easement to his property and the company has spent a lot of money.  The board replied that they have yet to see a copy of this easement.  

The board had a private meeting on August 24, 2009 to discuss the cell tower issue and had planned to have an additional meeting to talk more about the issue after doing some due diligence.  (At that meeting President Townsend read to the board from a document that he believes grants permission for L-30 to be used as an access road. Subsequently President Townsend provided that document to the board and it is also posted at the lake website: laketishomingo.com | History | Legal Documents | “General Warranty Deed H Hurd.”)

Janet Hirsch stated that the document that the board was provided (“General Warranty Deed H Hurd”) dealt with the area outside the subdivision and not with the subject property.  A previous owner of the subject property, Ken Marschuetz, was also present at the meeting and stated that there was an easement, but did not recall the nature of the easement.

Property owner Scott Schatzman added:

•	The board has a duty to the property owners to enforce the Restrictions. 
•	What has been provided to the board?  Have you reviewed the Pevely case and what kind of case was it - eminent domain?  Always more to a lawsuit than meets the eye. 
•	Has the board communicated with US Cellular?  What is their position?  They could have the right to condemn. 
•	Is US Cellular threatening a lawsuit? And why are you concerned about a lawsuit?

President Townsend stated that he does not have a copy of the Pevely case and doesn't know all the particulars and is just going off what Commissioner Ed Kemp stated to him.  He also stated that the Cellective Solutions has spent all this money since 2008 regarding this issue and read an excerpt from a letter from Cellective Solutions to Ron Sansone from December 2008:

Ron,
Attached is the Grant of Road Access that we discussed on the phone for Lake Tishomingo POA.  US Cellular is looking to put a 250' Self Support tower with a 75' X 75' compound with a shelter that houses the equipment. the compound is 75' X 75' to allow t-or collocations of other phone carriers. I am attaching a couple of pages from the zoning drawings to give you an idea of what it will look like.

This property was chosen due to the elevation of the property and the RF Engineers felt that it best fit with the other towers they have in the area. The reason they need the tower is to help support the US Cellular customers in the Hillsboro and surrounding area. If you would like someone at the Board Meeting to help explain this we can do that. Please give me or Russell Been a call if you need anything else.
Thank you,
Donna

Property owner Ken Kline stated the following:

•	Does a cell company constitute a utility company?
•	The money the cell company has spent does not have anything to do with the lake.
•	The issue is the cell company using our roads.  If US Cellular wants that property, they do not need a lake lot to access their commercial property.

President Townsend then stated that he has heard way too much opposition from property owners that they don't want to see the cell tower at the entrance of the lake.  

Property owner Rick Lippitt asked the board if there was any reason to believe that US Cellular would sue the lake and President Townsend responded that from what he has been told by Matt Schweiss via Russell Been of Cellective Solutions then the answer is yes.  Marilyn Meyer responded that the board has not signed an agreement with the cell company.

Janet Hirsch replied that it is not the board's responsibility to protect the investments of US Cellular or of any other individual.  It is the board's responsibility to protect the investments in the property of the lake and property owners.  The board did not want to use L-30 as a commercial access road to the back so the board offered US Cellular the opportunity to use a property outside the lake which is not subject to the Restrictions and is owned by the lake, that is 17 ft lower than Matt's property but still could be used for a cell tower.  That way the lake would receive the money for the tower, the roads would not be affected and the Restrictions would not be affected.  That's why the board offered them the other property.  They never responded to the board and signed a contract with Matt for his property.  The board does not object to the cell tower, or the position of the cell tower, just converting L-30 to a commercial access road.  The attorney stated that we cannot allow a subdivision lot to be used for this commercial purpose because this would be a flagrant violation of the Restrictions and that's it.  That’s the advice of the LTPOA’s attorney. The board tried to accommodate the cell company and they did not respond.  They can have their tower but will have to access it some other way.

President Townsend reiterated what he stated above regarding the easements of 1962 and 1971 and stated again that all pertinent documents relating to Matt Schweiss' property were provided the rest of the board.  

Janet Hirsch replied that President Townsend provided the board with documentation relating to:

•	40-ft wide Lake Tishomingo Rd
•	1.36 A site that is the current maintenance yard
•	Approximately 11 acres immediately east of the subdivision along Lake Tishomingo Rd
•	2-ft wide strip behind many named lots (the buffer zone)

She also stated that one thing President Townsend neglected to include when reading the document aloud at the private board meeting was the fact that any mention of residential or commercial use related only to the 11 acres east of the subdivision.  President Townsend replied that that is incorrect and that tonight the board does not have an answer.  Janet stated that if Matt can provide proof that a commercial access road can be put on L-30 then the board will consider it.  All documents that were provided to the board were forwarded to the attorney for the lake.

Property owner Jerry Arbini stated that if there is an easement then it will be recorded so there will be record of it. He further stated that utility companies have easements and are allowed in here to provide service to the property within the subdivision. This cell phone tower will be servicing the area outside the subdivision and should not be able to come in here.

Matt Schweiss stated that he has had a signed contract with the cell company for over a year and work is to start in 18 months. 

Property owner Larry Kimmel stated that our community is private with private roads. The public utilities are servicing our properties and using our roads not borrowing our roads for servicing the tower which is not exclusively for our community.  He further asked if we would be setting a precedent for commercial developments to use our roads. Let’s say an apartment complex is built up there. We will have to give them access too if we allow this commercial access. 

Ken Kline stated that it is a conflict of interest that Matt Schweiss is on the board and he will need to recuse himself from voting on this issue.

President Townsend said that his only concern is to protect the lake from a lawsuit.

New Business (Floor)
Mr. Lauer had a question regarding the electrical hookups for the sewer project.  Many property owners were under the impression that the electrical hookups were not going to be the property owner’s financial responsibility.  Rich Hirsch stated that in May, the lake found out that there is not enough grant money available to pay for the hookups; therefore, it is the homeowner's responsibility to pay.

Clarue Holland reported on the water testing of the lake.  Below is the August Water Testing Report:

                          LAKE TISHOMINGO WATER TESTING
                               COMPLETED ON AUGUST 24, 2009
  
On August 24, 2009, Martin and I again collected water samples to be tested at PDC Laboratories, Inc. located at 3278 N Highway 67 (Lindbergh), Florissant, MO 63033 – 314-432-0500 or 314-921-4488.
The lab tests our lake water for Fecal Coliform.  This is the recommended testing for lake water where the usage is Whole Body Contact Recreation (WBCR) and defined as “swimming and other uses where a person is fully immersed in water”.  Secondary Contact Recreation (SCR) is “wading or canoeing, where swallowing the water is unlikely”.  Each sample costs $31.00 or a total of $372.00 which is payable at the time of pick up by the courier.
 
We took 12 samples, which are in the same locations as have been tested over the past year.  At 8:00am we began the collection in D-E-F cove, as this is our cove.  The morning was sunny, temperature in the low 60’s and the water temp was 83 degrees at the surface.  We worked our way towards the Creek Inlet, going to about the middle of each cove, taking the sample from about two (2) feet under the surface with a clean container.  After reaching the beach area, we continued our sampling around the north side towards the dam and then on the south side of the lake.  
 
As each sample bottle is filled it is labeled as to location, time and date and then placed in an iced cooler (provided by PDC).  At 10:00am, I met the courier from PDC for him to take to the lab.  He had the samples back at the lab at 11:45am for the samples to be set up to be read the following 24 hours.  I received the results by email on Thursday, August 27, 2009.  (This was unusually fast.)
 
Fecal Coliform is the type of bacteria that could come from human waste, although most often is the result of animal, bird, duck or geese waste.  Whenever there are ducks and geese on the water, farm or wild animals in the watershed area, Fecal Coliform can be found. The maximum limit per the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Clean Waters Law is 200 colonies per 100 milliliters for Whole Body Contact and 1800 colonies per 100 milliliters for Secondary Contact.  Our lake readings  fall below these maximums.
 
As mentioned above, all the coves registered well below the maximum limits as set by the DNR-Clean Waters Law.  The results from A-B Cove, C-D Cove and D-E-F, Cove were all less than 10 cfu/100 ml.
I Cove, I-K Cove and L-M Cove tested at 18 cfu/100 ml. A Cove, B-C Cove, F-G Cove and G-H Cove were each 27 cfu/100 ml.  M-N Cove resulted in a reading of 63 cfu/100 ml.  The mouth of the Creek Inlet into the lake had a reading of 171 cfu/100 ml.  
 
The chart attached shows the readings over the past 12 months for each location.  You will see there is a worrisome trend that should be addressed.  The sample at the mouth of the Creek Inlet into the lake over the past 12 months has increased to the point that the reading of 171 cfu/100 milliliters is only 29 cfu/100 milliliters less than the maximum quantity allowed under the DNR-Clean Waters Law.  In May of 2009 the reading was 82 cfu/100 milliliters and in August 2008 the reading was 10 cfu/100 milliliters.  
While this definite increase could be upstream, according to my conversation with the DNR it more than likely is the larger number of geese currently in residence.
 
Upon further study, we have learned that the average excrement left by one Canada Goose amounts to three (3) pounds per day.  Assuming merely 40 geese, that totals 120 pounds per day; 840 pounds per week; 3,360 pounds per month; deposited around, or in, the lake.  From our observations, that would most likely be around the beach area.  Spooky!
  
On Monday morning I spoke with three different companies that deal with Canada Geese removal and/or relocation.  I have several pages of notes that I will consolidate and forward.  In the meantime, I am submitting this report with an addendum to follow.  I have delayed this report over the past weekend to provide a little more time for research and advice. 
                                                                               Clarue Holland
                                                                                8/31/2009             
                         
Clarue also explained that there is a concern about the growing geese population around the lake area.  She suggested all property owners take a geese census in order to figure out what to do about the growing problem since the geese population contributes to the water quality of the lake.  The following are some facts about geese and ways to manage the geese population:
 
BB-53 2004 
Canada Geese Facts and Management Options 

Canada Geese are a common site around lakes, ponds and even golf courses. These birds often migrate in the fall, but isolated populations may reside year around. Nesting begins in March and April, usually along a water body’s riparian zone. Geese can lay approximately three to six eggs in a clutch, and often abandon the nest within one to two days. The geese can live upwards of 24 years and can weigh approximately 12 pounds. 

How Much Nutrient Loading Do Canada Geese Add To A 
Lake? 

One goose can consume up to four pounds of grass per day, creating about three pounds of fecal matter daily. In large concentrations, this matter can contribute to excessive nutrient loading because fecal matter contains 76 percent carbon, 4.4 percent nitrogen, and 1.3 percent phosphorus. These nutrients can cause algal blooms and excessive plant growth in lakes. 

How Can Canada Geese Affect Human Health? 

When geese defecate near shore or in the water they create a health risk to humans. Their fecal material may contain the swimmers itch organism along with fecal bacteria. Swimmers itch is a temporary skin rash caused by a small parasite, however the rash does not require treatment. A larger concern is fecal bacteria, or Escherichia coli (E. coli), which are naturally occurring bacteria in the digestive tracts of warm-blooded animals. E. coli, when present in large amounts, may cause gastrointestinal problems such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. The presence of E. coli may also indicate the potential presence of other pathogenic organisms. You should avoid contact and ingestion of water in areas frequented by geese. 

How Do I Make My Property Less Inviting To Canada Geese? 

You can employ some lake protection tips such as leaving a buffered zone near the lake comprised of bushes, shrubs and vegetation. Grass is very attractive and geese tend to flock to it. If you already have a grassy shoreline or lawn it is best to keep the grass high (6"). Remove accumulated nesting materials (sticks and shrubbery) prior to geese nesting, or remove the nest after geese have hatched and moved on (roughly two to three days after hatching). Remember however, before you tamper with the nests of Canada Geese a permit is required from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
   
There being no further business, a motion was made by Marilyn Meyer and seconded by Janet Hirsch to adjourn.  Motion passed.  The meeting concluded at 8:27 P.M.    
Respectfully submitted,    
Ann Schatzman    
Secretary