Last night's LCDC public hearing in Camp Sherman offered clarification on the proposed changes to the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) Management Plan. Three changes are proposed:
1. Implementing a process requirement for changing the management plan in the future.
2. Altering the clustering or row system for the limited development granted to the Ponderosa property east of Green Ridge and north of Black Butte.
3. Clarification of wording regarding average annual water consumption, meant to apply to all usage, which was accidentally ommitted in one area.
On January 21st in Salem, the LCDC will hold a full commission meeting to take action on the proposed changes to the ACSC.
The two (2) areas of land covered under the ACSC Management Plan offer varying degress of protection. The hydrologic area, Area 1, holds the highest degree of protection. Area 1 prohibits large scale development and places a limit on the number of homes (10) and limits the average annual water use, which corresponds directly to the number of dwellings. Area 2 protection is not as stringent, allowing 20 dwellings.
The Poderosa property straddles Areas 1 and 2, entailing approximately 320 acres of land. Small scale development is granted for this property. A hearing to map the 320 acres of Ponderosa land will be held in Camp Sherman Community Hall on December 9th at 6:00 PM.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Two Public Hearings Concerning the Metolius Basin
Hearing I
Department of Land Conservation & Development
Public Hearing on the Area of Critical State Concern
When: Thursday, December 3rd at 5:30 PM
Where: Camp Sherman Community Hall
The Metolius Protection Act, passed in June, requires the Department of Land Conservation & Development ro establish rules for managing the Area of Critical State Concern. The public hearing is the vessel to listen to public testimony regarding adopting and incorporating terms of the management plan.
Hearing II
Do Destination Resorts Still Threaten the Metolius Basin?
Public Hearing on Destination Resort Mapping
When: Wednesday, December 9th at 6:00 PM
Where: Camp Sherman Community Hall
The Jefferson County Commission has intentions to finalize a map of land appropriate for destination resorts in the county. One may ask, "How is this possible?"
Jefferson county is expected to adopt changes in response to issues raised by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) under the Oregon Supreme Court. Upon the June passing of The Metolius Protection Act, the state Supreme Court reverted the case to the Court of Appeals, which will revert the jurisdiction of the case to Jefferson County.
Oral and written comments will be accepted at the hearing. Written statements may also be sent to: Jefferson County Community Development Department. 85 SE D Street, Madras, Oregon 97741.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Fees Moritorium and it's Impact on Oregon FS Cabin Owners
Quite a few will be asking 'What does the bill recently passed in Congress temporarily altering cabin fee increases, do for ME?'
This e-mail we received from the Oregon Forest Homeowners attempts to clear it up. Please read the excerpt below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sharon Karr [sekarr@asktechwriter.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:32 AM
Subject: C2 Update for Oregon
To all,
Below is the latest information from C2 which may help answer some of the questions I am receiving about the impact of the new moratorium for Oregon permit holders. Although Oregon permit fees are not impacted by the moratorium, it is important that cabin owners understand this is a symbolic victory that included both Senator Wyden and Representative Walden as supporters.
Below Pete Bailey's message, I have copied in another email that describes the fee savings for Lake Owens, Wisconsin, provided by the moratorium. There are a number of cabin owners nationwide that are facing very high fees and the moratorium is a significant solution for the short term while C2 works toward a long-term fix to CUFFA.
Don't forget to check the NFH Blog and the OFHA website to obtain current information on C2 activities. http://nationalforesthomeowners.org/leadership/
http://www.oregonforesthomeowners.com/OFHA%20C2%20Report.html
Thanks,
Sharon Karr
----------------------------------
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Pete Bailey"
Date: November 6, 2009 9:18:16 AM PST
Subject: C2 Update 11.6.09
Greetings C2 State and Regional Coordinators,
Securing the support of Congress for the 2010 Cabin Fee Moratorium was a huge step forward in achieving our overall goal of permit fee reform. Our success was due to the efforts of individuals in every corner of the country. A gracious Thank You to all cabin owners who wrote, called or emailed their Legislators. You made a difference!
Though the moratorium does not fully address the most egregious situations, it does help considerably, but more importantly indicates that Congress recognizes that we have a serious problem that needs to be resolved. The initial Senate version held 2010 fees at the 2009 level, but created a $3.9M offset (reduction) in the Forest Service recreation budget. The House/ Senate conference version that was signed into law capped any potential increase at 25%, reducing the offset by about $1M. The hard budget times in DC clearly impacted our situation. The actual moratorium language follows for your interest.
SEC. 433. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used by the Secretary of Agriculture to increase a recreation residence user fee for calendar year 2010 by more than 25 percent of the recreation residence user fee applicable to the recreation residence for calendar 2009.
We are not resting with this initial success with Congress, but continue to push forward. Coalition 2 has developed 1) draft legislation language and 2) a summary of the intent of the draft legislation. We have tried to capture the principles and structure of the User Fee/Transfer Fee (UF/TF) idea as proposed. You have informed us that you agree with the UF/TF Proposal, in fact, 92.7% of all those responding to the Sales Data and Appraisal Survey, just completed, support replacing CUFFA with the UF/TF concept. Thanks for this clear affirmation of support. Congress and the Forest Service wanted to know what degree of support existed. Now we can answer their question.
Our Washington Representative, Aubrey King, now is tasked with ‘shopping’ the draft bill in Congress. We are seeking sponsorship for the draft legislation among several likely candidates. They will be approached in the next few weeks. We’ll keep you posted on the results.
Other challenges remain. Once the draft bill is submitted to Congress, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will be asked to assess the revenue impact of the proposed legislation. We are preparing to defend our assertion that the Proposal is ‘revenue neutral’. This is a key issue if we expect to keep the fee tiers in the affordable range. We also expect negotiations with Congress and the Forest Service to include other issues, e.g., the final percentages and the exact tier assignments with their related fees. Leadership believes that the proposal, as written, fairly addresses these complicated issues. Be assured that leadership will remain fully engaged in this process. The hard work begins now.
Overall support has been great! But, we have not crossed the goal line. Your continued moral and financial support will be required going forward. I ask that you stay informed and engaged as much as your life demands allow.
Pete Bailey, C2 Legislative Contact chair
FYI:
You have all heard me talk about Lake Owens, WI and how they are facing a similar situation as Lake Wenatchee. Here are their fee numbers. The 2009 fee is a one third phase in of their 98 appraisal. Without the moratorium, they would face another big jump in 2010 when their 2008 CUFFA appraisal ($320,000 or a $16,000 annual fee) gets phased in ($9062), 2011 ($12,531) and 2012 ($16,000). The 25% moratorium helps by reducing the 2010 obligation to ($6992), approximately a $2070 savings. These are approximate numbers, as I ignored the IPD-GDP inflator. But, you get the idea...
Pete
This e-mail we received from the Oregon Forest Homeowners attempts to clear it up. Please read the excerpt below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sharon Karr [sekarr@asktechwriter.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:32 AM
Subject: C2 Update for Oregon
To all,
Below is the latest information from C2 which may help answer some of the questions I am receiving about the impact of the new moratorium for Oregon permit holders. Although Oregon permit fees are not impacted by the moratorium, it is important that cabin owners understand this is a symbolic victory that included both Senator Wyden and Representative Walden as supporters.
Below Pete Bailey's message, I have copied in another email that describes the fee savings for Lake Owens, Wisconsin, provided by the moratorium. There are a number of cabin owners nationwide that are facing very high fees and the moratorium is a significant solution for the short term while C2 works toward a long-term fix to CUFFA.
Don't forget to check the NFH Blog and the OFHA website to obtain current information on C2 activities. http://nationalforesthomeowners.org/leadership/
http://www.oregonforesthomeowners.com/OFHA%20C2%20Report.html
Thanks,
Sharon Karr
----------------------------------
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Pete Bailey"
Date: November 6, 2009 9:18:16 AM PST
Subject: C2 Update 11.6.09
Greetings C2 State and Regional Coordinators,
Securing the support of Congress for the 2010 Cabin Fee Moratorium was a huge step forward in achieving our overall goal of permit fee reform. Our success was due to the efforts of individuals in every corner of the country. A gracious Thank You to all cabin owners who wrote, called or emailed their Legislators. You made a difference!
Though the moratorium does not fully address the most egregious situations, it does help considerably, but more importantly indicates that Congress recognizes that we have a serious problem that needs to be resolved. The initial Senate version held 2010 fees at the 2009 level, but created a $3.9M offset (reduction) in the Forest Service recreation budget. The House/ Senate conference version that was signed into law capped any potential increase at 25%, reducing the offset by about $1M. The hard budget times in DC clearly impacted our situation. The actual moratorium language follows for your interest.
SEC. 433. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used by the Secretary of Agriculture to increase a recreation residence user fee for calendar year 2010 by more than 25 percent of the recreation residence user fee applicable to the recreation residence for calendar 2009.
We are not resting with this initial success with Congress, but continue to push forward. Coalition 2 has developed 1) draft legislation language and 2) a summary of the intent of the draft legislation. We have tried to capture the principles and structure of the User Fee/Transfer Fee (UF/TF) idea as proposed. You have informed us that you agree with the UF/TF Proposal, in fact, 92.7% of all those responding to the Sales Data and Appraisal Survey, just completed, support replacing CUFFA with the UF/TF concept. Thanks for this clear affirmation of support. Congress and the Forest Service wanted to know what degree of support existed. Now we can answer their question.
Our Washington Representative, Aubrey King, now is tasked with ‘shopping’ the draft bill in Congress. We are seeking sponsorship for the draft legislation among several likely candidates. They will be approached in the next few weeks. We’ll keep you posted on the results.
Other challenges remain. Once the draft bill is submitted to Congress, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will be asked to assess the revenue impact of the proposed legislation. We are preparing to defend our assertion that the Proposal is ‘revenue neutral’. This is a key issue if we expect to keep the fee tiers in the affordable range. We also expect negotiations with Congress and the Forest Service to include other issues, e.g., the final percentages and the exact tier assignments with their related fees. Leadership believes that the proposal, as written, fairly addresses these complicated issues. Be assured that leadership will remain fully engaged in this process. The hard work begins now.
Overall support has been great! But, we have not crossed the goal line. Your continued moral and financial support will be required going forward. I ask that you stay informed and engaged as much as your life demands allow.
Pete Bailey, C2 Legislative Contact chair
FYI:
You have all heard me talk about Lake Owens, WI and how they are facing a similar situation as Lake Wenatchee. Here are their fee numbers. The 2009 fee is a one third phase in of their 98 appraisal. Without the moratorium, they would face another big jump in 2010 when their 2008 CUFFA appraisal ($320,000 or a $16,000 annual fee) gets phased in ($9062), 2011 ($12,531) and 2012 ($16,000). The 25% moratorium helps by reducing the 2010 obligation to ($6992), approximately a $2070 savings. These are approximate numbers, as I ignored the IPD-GDP inflator. But, you get the idea...
Pete
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Copy of NFH Letter on Cabin Fee Freeze
The Senate passed the Appropriations bill with an amendment that sets 2010 cabin fees at the 2009 fee level, that is no increase of any kind and no inflationary increase either for any cabin permit, regardless of where in the appraisal/fee cycle they are at or which appraisal cycle is being applied. This includes all cabin permittees. No cabin owners are excluded. Most have paid '09 fees based on their 90's appraisal value, which in many cases includes a 3 year phase in period. Others have paid '09 fees based on their more recent CUFFA appraisal value, which may also include a 3 year phase in period. This may be characterized, by some, as somehow unfair. But, given the complexity of cabin fee implementation across the Nation with many varied permutations, a simple freeze was determined by the Senate as most reasonable. No national database is kept that informs us of which cycle is being applied where, because it is administered locally, rather than regionally or nationally.
The process of moving this bill to final signing is important to understand, too. From an affirmative vote in the Senate, the bill goes to a House/Senate conference committee to work out any differences that may exist. When the committee is in agreement with all language and aspects of the bill, it is returned to both the Senate and House for a final vote. Language is often changed in this committee. It is here that concerns about the use of the term 'levied' will be addressed to be sure that the amendment says what Senator Tester intended as explained above. Contact with the appropriate Congressional staff has already occurred. There is no concern about who the amendment applies to or when. The date you receive your billing should not effect whether this moratorium applies to you or not. After an affirmative vote from both houses, the bill is sent to the President for his signature. We have been told, that because the Appropriations bill is so critical, this process should play out over the next week or so. But, while no major opposition is expected, it’s not done until it’s done.
Setting the moratorium based on 2008 fees was considered. But, the required offset was a much higher hurdle to get over. Let me explain. Because the moratorium eliminates any revenue increase, their is a shortfall based upon the revenue that would have been collected with no moratorium. That is the offset. The Congressional Budget Office determines this number. The offset for the moratorium, as passed by the Senate, is $3.9M. If fees were set back to the 2008 year, the offset would have been, at least, $9M to $10M. Senate passage of a moratorium with such a high offset was considered very unlikely. So the Tester amendment, using 2009 fees, was put forth. To say that the Senate rejected a moratorium based on 2008 fees mischaracterizes the process.
The source of those offset funds was another major concern and not a simple issue in the Senate or for the Forest Service. The $3.9M will come from the approximate $12M increase in the Forest Service Recreation budget. The FS will probably comment about this loss of Recreational funds. So you can see that the likelihood of a $9M+ offset gaining traction was quite miniscule.
This moratorium is meant to provide fee relief for only the next billing cycle (2010) while we pursue a legislative solution to replace the current faulty CUFFA fee determination process. So current appraisals will proceed under CUFFA. You need to remain fully engaged with that process, too. If second appraisals or appeals are in process, stay with them to their conclusion.
Most importantly, the moratorium brings credibility to our issue with members of Congress, the Forest Service, and others which hopefully translates into action to solve this issue once and for all. We are already working on the next steps to achieve legislative change. Congressional staffers in key offices are ready to work with us too.
We are encouraged with the progress. Stay engaged.
Pete Bailey
NFH Director & C2 Leg. Contact chair
The process of moving this bill to final signing is important to understand, too. From an affirmative vote in the Senate, the bill goes to a House/Senate conference committee to work out any differences that may exist. When the committee is in agreement with all language and aspects of the bill, it is returned to both the Senate and House for a final vote. Language is often changed in this committee. It is here that concerns about the use of the term 'levied' will be addressed to be sure that the amendment says what Senator Tester intended as explained above. Contact with the appropriate Congressional staff has already occurred. There is no concern about who the amendment applies to or when. The date you receive your billing should not effect whether this moratorium applies to you or not. After an affirmative vote from both houses, the bill is sent to the President for his signature. We have been told, that because the Appropriations bill is so critical, this process should play out over the next week or so. But, while no major opposition is expected, it’s not done until it’s done.
Setting the moratorium based on 2008 fees was considered. But, the required offset was a much higher hurdle to get over. Let me explain. Because the moratorium eliminates any revenue increase, their is a shortfall based upon the revenue that would have been collected with no moratorium. That is the offset. The Congressional Budget Office determines this number. The offset for the moratorium, as passed by the Senate, is $3.9M. If fees were set back to the 2008 year, the offset would have been, at least, $9M to $10M. Senate passage of a moratorium with such a high offset was considered very unlikely. So the Tester amendment, using 2009 fees, was put forth. To say that the Senate rejected a moratorium based on 2008 fees mischaracterizes the process.
The source of those offset funds was another major concern and not a simple issue in the Senate or for the Forest Service. The $3.9M will come from the approximate $12M increase in the Forest Service Recreation budget. The FS will probably comment about this loss of Recreational funds. So you can see that the likelihood of a $9M+ offset gaining traction was quite miniscule.
This moratorium is meant to provide fee relief for only the next billing cycle (2010) while we pursue a legislative solution to replace the current faulty CUFFA fee determination process. So current appraisals will proceed under CUFFA. You need to remain fully engaged with that process, too. If second appraisals or appeals are in process, stay with them to their conclusion.
Most importantly, the moratorium brings credibility to our issue with members of Congress, the Forest Service, and others which hopefully translates into action to solve this issue once and for all. We are already working on the next steps to achieve legislative change. Congressional staffers in key offices are ready to work with us too.
We are encouraged with the progress. Stay engaged.
Pete Bailey
NFH Director & C2 Leg. Contact chair
URGENT Survey Request!
Fellow Cabin Owners
Some of you may have already received this request. We apologize for the repeat email. This note is a reprint from one sent by the National Forest Homeowners and forwarded to some by the Oregon Forest Homeowners. This information and other pertinent info can be found at the MRFHA Blog site online http://mrfha.blogspot.com/
ACTION IS VERY IMPORTANT.
There is a limited time for participation in the survey linked below. Please respond to the survey by October 15 if can.
Recent developments require that the NFH expand and improve their knowledge of Cabin Sales and Appraisals in cabin tracts across the country. First, alarming appraisal results continue to be reported from most Forests. Second, our new Fee Proposal, (available by clicking here for the Alternative Fee Model Proposal from the C2 Coalition ), has been introduced to cabin owners, Legislators and Forest Service personnel, as widely as possible. Questions are being asked that this new survey addresses head on. The results will help inform discussions with Congress about our Fee Proposal and the impact of CUFFA on National Forest cabins throughout the country.
YOUR HELP is urgently needed!
Please complete this new Survey today!
This is important! Your contribution to a national database is essential to the future of the Recreation Residence Program. Your answers will help us understand the national appraisal and cabin sales picture better.
The cabin isn't just about us. It is about generations before us and more importantly about the generations to follow, our kids and grandkids. What are you doing to ensure this legacy lives on?
Your contribution is critical.
Reach out to your fellow cabin neighbors. Encourage them and provide them a way to complete this vitally important survey. Print a copy for them to complete and mail in, or suggest they sit down with a family member and complete the survey online. Every Cabin Counts!!! Help us paint this picture!
Survey response deadline of October 15, 2009.
Remember one response per cabin, too.
COMPLETE THE SURVEY ON-LINE OR BY MAIL
NOTE: The survey is by Forest and NOT by tract so select OR-Deschutes as your location
By Internet:
Click here to take the survey online:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=X4tioBYaT21M4GSVjskIJQ_3d_3d
By Mail:
1. Obtain a print version of the survey: available at http://nationalforesthomeowners.org OR use the attached PDF File (same thing)
2. Complete it:
3. Mail it to: NFH Survey, c/o: Meredith Randall, 410 Powers Court Ave, Milton, GA, 30004
Please direct support questions to nfhsurveysupport@cableone.net.
One of our NFH survey specialists will get back to you shortly.
Copyright © 2009 , National Forest Homeowners
Contact Details
Mary Clarke Ver Hoef, NFH Executive Director
1-800-669-9971 / FAX: 916-359-5271
Some of you may have already received this request. We apologize for the repeat email. This note is a reprint from one sent by the National Forest Homeowners and forwarded to some by the Oregon Forest Homeowners. This information and other pertinent info can be found at the MRFHA Blog site online http://mrfha.blogspot.com/
ACTION IS VERY IMPORTANT.
There is a limited time for participation in the survey linked below. Please respond to the survey by October 15 if can.
Recent developments require that the NFH expand and improve their knowledge of Cabin Sales and Appraisals in cabin tracts across the country. First, alarming appraisal results continue to be reported from most Forests. Second, our new Fee Proposal, (available by clicking here for the Alternative Fee Model Proposal from the C2 Coalition ), has been introduced to cabin owners, Legislators and Forest Service personnel, as widely as possible. Questions are being asked that this new survey addresses head on. The results will help inform discussions with Congress about our Fee Proposal and the impact of CUFFA on National Forest cabins throughout the country.
YOUR HELP is urgently needed!
Please complete this new Survey today!
This is important! Your contribution to a national database is essential to the future of the Recreation Residence Program. Your answers will help us understand the national appraisal and cabin sales picture better.
The cabin isn't just about us. It is about generations before us and more importantly about the generations to follow, our kids and grandkids. What are you doing to ensure this legacy lives on?
Your contribution is critical.
Reach out to your fellow cabin neighbors. Encourage them and provide them a way to complete this vitally important survey. Print a copy for them to complete and mail in, or suggest they sit down with a family member and complete the survey online. Every Cabin Counts!!! Help us paint this picture!
Survey response deadline of October 15, 2009.
Remember one response per cabin, too.
COMPLETE THE SURVEY ON-LINE OR BY MAIL
NOTE: The survey is by Forest and NOT by tract so select OR-Deschutes as your location
By Internet:
Click here to take the survey online:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=X4tioBYaT21M4GSVjskIJQ_3d_3d
By Mail:
1. Obtain a print version of the survey: available at http://nationalforesthomeowners.org OR use the attached PDF File (same thing)
2. Complete it:
3. Mail it to: NFH Survey, c/o: Meredith Randall, 410 Powers Court Ave, Milton, GA, 30004
Please direct support questions to nfhsurveysupport@cableone.net.
One of our NFH survey specialists will get back to you shortly.
Copyright © 2009 , National Forest Homeowners
Contact Details
Mary Clarke Ver Hoef, NFH Executive Director
1-800-669-9971 / FAX: 916-359-5271
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
News Updates from the NFH On Cabin Fees
As a result of work by many including those who have contacted their legislators AND our Cabin Associations the Congress will consider a moratorium on the upcoming fee increases related to the most recent appraisals for a year or until such time as they have had a chance to review the issues related to amending/ changing the CUFFA rules. This is by no means certain and only notice by the Forest Service should be considered final, but its not bad news and gives cabin owners hope that their pleas will get a fair hearing.
In order that the Cabin Coalition 2/NFH is properly armed to carry our message to Congress they ask all cabin owners NATIONWIDE to complete a survey. Please follow the link if you are a cabin Permittee ...
NFH Cabin Survey
In order that the Cabin Coalition 2/NFH is properly armed to carry our message to Congress they ask all cabin owners NATIONWIDE to complete a survey. Please follow the link if you are a cabin Permittee ...
NFH Cabin Survey
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
CUFFA Review Cabin Coalition 2 with OFHA & NFH Links
C2 has been extremely busy this summer working toward obtaining a hearing. No new news yet, but we remain hopeful. Important meetings are taking place in California and Oregon this week and next, with Senator Feinstein's staff and Senator Wyden's staff.
The following week, Sept. 23-25, a key group of C2 representatives will return to Washington D.C. to introduce the C2 fee model proposal to the Forest Service and key politicians.
In tandem, we are working on gaining political support for a moratorium to save cabins in peril this next season when high 2010 permit bills become due.
Click to see added recent newspaper articles to the OFHA web site
In these articles the distinction between a lease and a permit were made to the reporters. It seems the news can't quite distinguish between the two.
Calls and emails with your feedback on the C2 fee model proposal, participating in regional Think Tanks and providing support have all been appreciated. It is gratifying how many Oregon cabin owners are engaged and closely watching the C2 efforts, hoping for a resolution to the current CUFFA appraisal situation.
An update of the activities in Washington, D.C. should be emailed to us in late Sept.
Check out the NFH Blog as it contains the latest NFH information.
The Station Fire in southern California has consumed a number of cabins. A sad end to summer for those folks.
The following week, Sept. 23-25, a key group of C2 representatives will return to Washington D.C. to introduce the C2 fee model proposal to the Forest Service and key politicians.
In tandem, we are working on gaining political support for a moratorium to save cabins in peril this next season when high 2010 permit bills become due.
Click to see added recent newspaper articles to the OFHA web site
In these articles the distinction between a lease and a permit were made to the reporters. It seems the news can't quite distinguish between the two.
Calls and emails with your feedback on the C2 fee model proposal, participating in regional Think Tanks and providing support have all been appreciated. It is gratifying how many Oregon cabin owners are engaged and closely watching the C2 efforts, hoping for a resolution to the current CUFFA appraisal situation.
An update of the activities in Washington, D.C. should be emailed to us in late Sept.
Check out the NFH Blog as it contains the latest NFH information.
The Station Fire in southern California has consumed a number of cabins. A sad end to summer for those folks.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
VERY LATE NOTICE of IMPORTANT MEETING affecting Cabin Owners and Camp Sherman Property Owners!
This message is intended as notice for anyone checking this site that might be in Camp Sherman and have an interest in attending an important meeting scheduled by the Jefferson County Commissioners to hear what we guess is a description of some VERY IMPORTANT land use changes they wish to impose on property owners in the Metolius Basin.
We'd have posted this earlier had we known
The meeting is scheduled for 6PM tonight, Sept 2nd, at the Camp Sherman Community Hall.
You may check with the Camp Sherman Store to verify the time has not changed.
PS: After the fact it turns out the Commissioners intended this session as a 'meet and greet' during which they wished to get a flavor of what the Camp Sherman people would like to see in an implementing management plan, following the designation of the Metolius Basin as an "Area of Critical Concern".
More on this meeting in a subsequent article. Check back later.
We'd have posted this earlier had we known
The meeting is scheduled for 6PM tonight, Sept 2nd, at the Camp Sherman Community Hall.
You may check with the Camp Sherman Store to verify the time has not changed.
PS: After the fact it turns out the Commissioners intended this session as a 'meet and greet' during which they wished to get a flavor of what the Camp Sherman people would like to see in an implementing management plan, following the designation of the Metolius Basin as an "Area of Critical Concern".
More on this meeting in a subsequent article. Check back later.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Clarification on Newsletter Article!
Recently we published the MRFHA August/Sept Newsletter and in it an article entitled "MRFHA Membership Unraveled". Unfortunately the article was NOT factual, misstating the conditions for membership in the Cabin Owners Association and who could vote. What the article SHOULD have said is...
Regular membership includes persons who meet the following conditions: they hold special use permits, or are cabin co-owners and/or are family members of permittees or co-owners . . . and . . . have paid all dues.
Associate members are those who have been designated as such by a majority vote of the board of directors and have paid the annual dues. (Currently there are none)
Other member classes may be determined by the board. (Currently there are none)
MRFHA Bylaws do not allow proxy voting. To have a vote a member must be present when a vote is called. Therefore, by way of an example, a family member, friend or cabin co-owner who is present at a meeting but NOT a member of the association may NOT vote when a vote has been called for.
Having said all this our practice regarding a these issues has always attempted to follow the intent of the by-laws.
Regular membership includes persons who meet the following conditions: they hold special use permits, or are cabin co-owners and/or are family members of permittees or co-owners . . . and . . . have paid all dues.
Associate members are those who have been designated as such by a majority vote of the board of directors and have paid the annual dues. (Currently there are none)
Other member classes may be determined by the board. (Currently there are none)
MRFHA Bylaws do not allow proxy voting. To have a vote a member must be present when a vote is called. Therefore, by way of an example, a family member, friend or cabin co-owner who is present at a meeting but NOT a member of the association may NOT vote when a vote has been called for.
Having said all this our practice regarding a these issues has always attempted to follow the intent of the by-laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
MRFHA - Camp Sherman
Metolius River