From: Susan Corwin
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 7:45 AM
To: Saldivar, Barbara - villages; Dougherty, Nancy - villages; Applegate, Rick - villages; Mench, Don - villages; Dueber, Shirley - villages; Lythgoe, Dave - villages; Reeves, Bob - villages; 'Roth, Christine'; McGinnis, Cherie; Greene, Kirstin; Graeper, Steve & Judi
Subject: Some comments/questions on the minutes of the September
Although I wasn't able to attend, I have some comments/questions on the minutes.
1. I think the minutes should note that both Dave Lythgoe and I were
"absent with written notice"
since the bylaws have something to say in this area.
2. Supported activities, Barlow Recreation area.
The minutes mention that
"Barlow Recreation Area: Don Mench: this activity had the highest
number of votes and as a member of the board of directors of the friends
of Barlow Trail Park I do not feel comfortable withdrawing it, and Mitch
Williams is also a supporter of it and I know he is not willing to
withdraw it. If there is not any opposition to moving any of these forward
I don’t see why we cannot move them forward starting with this one.
Motion made by Don Mench: To adopt the application of the
Barlow Trail Park as a supported activity..... "
This would seem to be confused:
a) "Barlow Trail Recreation Area - BLM lands" has been withdrawn
=> it is outside the boundaries of the Villages.
b) Barlow Trail County Park" - Mitch's activity, was not withdrawn.
I assume there was some confusion due to similar names and
Barlow Trail County Park was approved to go forward.
3. "Holding Applications #1,#4, #5 and #7 for Susan Corwin"
From the agenda sent out by Rick, shouldn't this be:
"i., iv, v, vi" (or #1, #4, #5, and #6)"
since I think "vii Community Input on County Lands" (#7) was approved to go forward.
4. On the "Community Park" discussion by Keith, wasn't there any discussion of the likely cost to the Villages:
a) Wasn't there a discussion on loss of funds from the Parks Trust fund?
if 15 acres aren't sold (assuming any are) and assuming $50K/acre (low) or
$100K/acre (high) that is a lost of $750K to $1.5 million from the Clackamas
County Parks Trust fund....
(and my guess would be that it comes straight from any $ support for the
new community center)
With numbers of that magnitude, I would think it important to capture
the thinking of the BOD as to it.
b) Wasn't there any substantive discussion on the costs and issues of operating
such a facility? These typically are not self supporting and require some
other financial support such as a trust fund or a tax base.
Again, with a potential need for asking for a funding source, I would have
thought that it is very substantive to capture the key points of the
5. I don't know if it matters but it would appear that in the "Community Park"
"Would like a letter of support to Dan Zinzer at Parks and Recreation
and that this board support this project and move it forward to the
Town Hall as a supported activity.
Nancy Daugherty made a motion for a letter to be written to Dan Zinzer
giving the Village Boards permission for reserving the 15 acres for
a future community park
Seconded by Barbara Saldivar
Yes votes: Don Mench, Steve Graeper, Barbara Saldivar, Shirley Dueber,
Nancy Daugherty and Bob Reeves"
is in violation of Bylaws Article III
Section 6: Constraint of Action
At all times the supported activities are the allowed scope of involvement
of the Board of Directors. The Directors are constrained to act only on
supported activities as contained in the "Villages at Mt. Hood Activities
List". While the Board of Directors members, collectively or individually,
may review and comment on other areas or activities, those comments and
actions will be those of the individuals and not those of the Board."