COMMENTS SINCE ELECTION BEGAN
HOA board—can you advise what analysis determined the 165 feet when WSIA is recommending at least 200 feet from docks. In an attempt to be transparent, it would be appropriate to tell voters how this distance was determined.
HOA Board response: The HOA board carefully analyzed the competing concerns before proposing the amendment. The HOA board had TD2 Engineering prepare drawings illustrating various distances, specifically, 40’ from shore (dock limits), 130’ from shore (dock limit plus 90’ state distance requirement), 165’ (midpoint between 130’ and 200’), 200’ from shore, and 240’ (200’ from dock limit). The shore was assumed to be at rear property lines, as rear property lines are the measurement basis for the 40’ dock limit.
A version of the drawings illustrating the distances used by the board in analysis is attached as WestShores-40-130-165-200-240.pdf. For boater use, we had TD2 prepare a version showing only the 40’, 130’ and 165’ distances as WestShores-40-130-165.pdf
One of the motivating considerations behind this amendment was lot owner concern that some wake surfers tend to hug the 130’ buoy line, when it seemed feasible for them to stay some further distance out and provide some mitigation of the waves. The objective of the proposed rule is simply to move the use of wake enhancing devices further off shore.
The board carefully debated all of the various considerations, including the WSIA recommendation. As illustrated by TD2 drawing, the 200’ and 240’ distances would render it impossible to navigate certain coves or for two boats traveling in opposite directions to pass through choke points at speed and maintain 200’ or 240’ distances from shore, much less remain compliant with the 90’ distance required between boats.
A majority of the board voted to propose this amendment calling for 165’ from shore (which is 125’ from dock limits) to lot owners, as the majority concluded, after careful debate and consideration of the various concerns, that it was the most prudent approach in the context of our particular lake and community. The board notes that, like any other lake rule, even if it is adopted in 2022, it is subject to amendment or revocation in the future if a majority of lot owners so desire.
The board included the “where feasible” clause deal with the fact that, at certain situations at choke points, it will not be possible for both boats to stay 165’ off shore and maintain the required 90’ between two boats passing in opposite directions and docks or shore. The 90’ distance is, of course, imperative for safety.
Please clarify the following on the proposed covenant amendments currently up for vote:
The proposed amendment (Proposition1) to the Lake Rules concerns an existing provision relating to wake boat devices that has been the subject of disputed interpretations.
Does voting “no” prohibit wake boats having such devices (part of manufactured boat and not aftermarket) from being on the lake even though they may not be used?
HOA Board response: If a majority vote “no”, the proposed amendment simply does not pass.
Would a vote of “no” ban such boats from the lake or just the use of bladders if not original manufactured equipment?
HOA Board response: The defeat of the proposed amendment has no impact on the existing lake rules and, therefore, the provisions of the existing lake rule (which is ambiguous) will remain unchanged. In that event, the board is likely to propose some other amendment of the ambiguous lake rule that, based on the results of this election and other feedback, the board believes will meet with the approval of a majority of lot owners.
Provision as written seems to only try to clarify whether wake boats can have only manufactured bladders or aftermarket ones and does nothing to address the problem of using bladders to create larger wakes, thus eroding the beach lines and damaging docks.
HOA Board response: The objective of the proposed amendment is to eliminate the ambiguity in the lake rule. If the amendment is approved, the existing language of the lake rule will be modified to eliminate the ambiguity and to clearly state that factory wake enhancement equipment is permitted.
The proposed amendment (Proposition 2) concerning the use of bladders to create wake, moving the distance from 90 to 165 feet from shore. Is this a moot point if Proposition 1 doesn’t pass?
HOA Board response: No. Prop 2 creates a rule will be enforced whether or not Prop 1 passes. The board notes that Prop 2 refers to wake enhancing devices, not just bladders, and that buoys are typically at placed at 130’ from shore, which is 90’ beyond the 40’ dock limit.
How do you intend to enforce this rule change?
HOA Board response: By visually observing that boater’s using wake enhancing devices stay at least 35’ beyond the yellow buoys that are 130’ from shore, except where not feasible in choke points.
Currently we still have plenty of violations concerning 90 feet. Also the amendment as written tends to make the rule more subjective to the boater by stating “ where feasible”. That wording may be interpreted differently by different boaters. Example, in the narrow channels or coves where 165 feet is “not feasible” it does not prohibit the use of bladders or wakes and that’s where it presents the most danger and most damage.
HOA Board response: The purpose of the amendment is simply to require an additional 35’ of distance from shore where feasible, not to establish channels or coves where you can and cannot go.
“As is” I think the wording is too subjective for interpretation. To avoid subjectivity and make the rule enforceable, you need to specifically state either where bladders can be used (i.e. middle of the large part of the lake) or can’t be used (i.e. narrow channels between coves or smaller coves).
HOA Board response: The objective of the amendment is to push wake surfing (and other uses of wake enhancing devices) 35’ beyond the buoy line, as there were many complaints that wake surfers chose to run just outside the buoy line. The legal concern that resulted in the “where feasible” caveat is that the lake rule needs to be clear that the state rule requiring 90 feet between vessels must trump if an additional 35’ would result in a violation.
The amendment to the Covenants concerns the use of ATVs, UTVs and Golf Carts on the streets in the West Shores subdivision. What is meant by “authorized HOA vehicles shall be permitted….” And how does one get HOA “authorization”?
HOA Board response: You are referring to language in the existing HOA covenants, and that language is not affected by the amendment concerning the use of ATV/UTV/Golf Cars on streets. All of the grassy common areas are owned and controlled by the SID. The HOA board believes that the language of the existing HOA covenant was intended to indicate that HOA authorized mowing and maintenance vehicles could be operated in the grassy common areas. If the SID chose to permit recreational vehicle use of grassy common areas by lot owners (and we have no reason to think they would), the HOA could register and authorize those vehicles
The pickleball and tennis court proposal involves four pickleball and one tennis court to be built with the financial participation of the HOA and the SID. These facilities would be private and not open to public use. Please help me understand math: 291 lots/homeowners x $130 per lot x 5 years = $189,100. The proposition states the HOA cost is $173,000. What is the delta $16,150 being used for?
HOA Board response: The delta is a 3% interest factor, which is intended to put the reserves back to where they would have been in the absences of the expense.
The additional $20/yr in maintenance fees per lot, per year is in addition to the above $130 or inclusive? What does maintenance include? (i.e. what would we be paying for?)
HOA Board response: The $20 annual maintenance is in addition to the capital cost (including interest). The maintenance estimate includes insurance, painting concrete, and maintenance of nets, fence and gate.
Dear WS HOA Board,
First of all, thank you very much for your hard work and everything you do for us. I was very appreciative of the discussions at our home owners meeting, and I agree that the Lake Rules regarding wake and boats need to be more clearly defined. However, my fear is that the current vote will not do this.
The intent of my letter is not to argue for or against any of the propositions, but to raise the question of the wording of Propositions #1 and #2.
Proposition #1: The language leaves much to desire, as it is leading to one, and only one choice: approval. Yet, there are realistically three choices: 1) Ban on using wake increasing equipment altogether (built in or added-on); 2) Allow wake increasing equipment that is built-in and part of the watercraft; 3) Allow wake increasing equipment regardless if it is add-in or built in. The vote doesn’t not capture this, and the voters do not get these choices.
(Response from HOA board: Prop 1 is intended to eliminate the ambiguity by adopting the interpretation that a majority of the board has applied to the current language of the lake rule and that the board believes a majority of lot owners support. If Prop 1 fails, a different proposal will have to be presented for a vote.)
Proposition #2: It is fully dependent on an approval of proposition #1, and already assumes that Proposition 1 will be approved. What happens if Proposition #1 fails to pass, and Proposition#2 passes? It will further divide the owners on this, very contentious topic. Those against it will point to the failed Proposition #1, those for it will argue that Proposition #2 covers it and allows it.
(Response from HOA board: Prop 2 is not dependent on approval of Prop 1. If Prop 1 fails, the existing interpretation of the lake rule will continue, and will still be ambiguous. Prop 2 will push boats using wake enhancing devices another 35 feet out. This rule can easily be enforced.)
Furthermore, if both votes fail, we will have no clarity of the interpretation of the currently written WS Lake Rules. Will we interpret the current lake rules that using built-in wake increasing equipment is allowed, or not?
(Response from HOA board: The defeat of Prop 1 has no impact on the lake rules and, therefore, the provisions of the existing lake rule (which is ambiguous) will remain unchanged. In that event, the board is likely to propose some other amendment of the ambiguous lake rule that, based on the results of this election and other feedback, the board believes will meet with the approval of a majority of lot owners.)
I am sure that we all share the common goal of understanding what the majority of owners want. I am a scientist, and we do unbiased surveys and questionnaire designs all the time. There are ways to ensure that surveys and votes are unbiased. Should you need assistance in designing future surveys using well-established methodology, I would be delighted to help.
Hello Board, Hoping someone on the board can clarify the language in the below proposition.
PROPOSITION 1: Amend lake rules to clarify that only the manufacturer's standard options for wake enhancement are permitted and that additional equipment is prohibited.
Select ONE choice.
Article V Section J of the Lake Rules currently states: "No water bladers, weighted transoms or any modification to increase boat wake is allowed."
The explanation set forth in this paragraph is informational only and is not a part of the proposed amendment. This Lake Rule provision is ambiguous, as it has been interpreted by lot owners in at least two completely different ways. In recent years, a majority of the HOA board has interpreted this provision to preclude aftermarket modifications for wave enhancement, but not to preclude the use of such devices that come standard from the manufacturer. Some lot owners, however, contend that the provision should be interpreted to preclude the use of any wave enhancing devices whatsoever. The purpose of this proposition is to resolve the ambiguity. The proposed amendment would clarify the Lake Rule and make it consistent with the interpretation that has been most recently applied by the HOA board and would not preclude the use of any wave enhancing devices.
The proposed amendment will replace the Article V Section J of the Lake Rules with the following: "Boats shall only be equipped with the factory standard options for wake enhancement installed at the time of manufacture. Additional modifications, such as supplemental water bladders, water tanks and weights, or added external blades, fins, wedges or other wake shaping devices, shall not be installed or attached to any boat."
DO YOU ONLY MEAN AFTER MARKET INSTALLATION AND NOT THE ACTUAL WAVE ENHANCING DEVICES THEMSELVES?
HOA Board response: Correct
Yes-I approve the proposed amendment clarifying that only the factory standard options for wake enhancement are permitted and that additional modifications are prohibited
No-I disapprove the proposed amendment
By voting YES on this prop, one would want to allow wake enhancing equipment as long as it was installed by the boat manufacturer at the time of manufacture.
HOA Board response: Correct.
Does this simply mean we would then allow any/all the wake enhancing products outlined as long as it is not installed on the boat after market?
HOA Board Response: Correct.
Question: Does Proposition 1 outlaw Wake Surfing at West Shores?
HOA Board Response:
The majority of the board does not interpret the current language of Lake Rule section V.J to outlaw Wake Surfing. The intent of the election is to clarify the ambiguity on aftermarket devices by adopting the interpretation that the board has been enforcing.
A vote of NO means you do not support the use of manufacturer installed wake enhancing equipment. A vote of NO will not change our current lake rule, it is simply a vote against the proposed amendment. If the proposed amendment is not approved, the HOA board will propose a different amendment after review of the results.
A vote of YES means you agree that the Lake Rules shall allow the use of wake enhancing equipment that is factory standard at the time of manufacture.
Question: Why have Proposition 2?
HOA Board Response:
Proposition 2 establishes a rule to increase the distance between the shore and the boat when wake enhancing devices are being used. Proposition 2 adds value even if Proposition 1 fails because it will increase the overall distance of boats (which utilize Wake Enhancing Devices based on the owners current interpretation of ambiguous language used in our current lake rule) until an alternative proposal to amend the Lake Rule can be agreed on by a majority of lot owners. An additional 35’ of setback allows additional space for the wake to dissipate for boats using Wake Enhancing Devices.
Question: What is the value of our boat reg form….will the language be changed? It was clear from this form what was meant by the boating rules that we all signed.
HOA Board Response: The HOA Board voted at the April 2022 meeting to leave the Boat Registration Form as is. This was a reverse from March meeting decision on this topic. The HOA will not amend the Boat Registration Form until the results from the current election are finalized. The Boat form does not currently match language used in the Lakes Rules. Only West Shores Lake Rules and State of Nebraska Boating regulations are enforceable by the board.
Question: Will ‘bladers’ be corrected or defined?
HOA Board Answer: If Proposition 1 fails, the current lake rule will remain unchanged until a new proposition is passed by the majority of West Shores Residents.
4/28/2022 HOA Board Statement regarding Voting in Progress
A concern has been raised by a small number of residents that the wording of the in-progress HOA vote may be confusing to some. Although many of you have already voted, we wanted to provide a recap of the current proposals.
Propositions 1 and 2 background:
These are regarding the current lake rule V.J. The current rule lacks true clarity. Some people on the lake believe it means you cannot use any wake enhancing devices at all, others feel it clearly states you cannot modify your boat to enhance wake in anyway by adding weighted transoms or other aftermarket devices. They believe they can use factory installed features without violation of any rules. There is also a reference to “water bladers”. Some feel this is simply a misspelling, and it is meant to say bladders. Others believe it is referencing to a specific device that could be added to a boat to increase wake. This lake rule clearly does not ban any specific type of water activities such as wake boarding , wake surfing, or tubing.
There is a statement on the boat registration form that says if a boat is equipped with ballast tanks, the owner would not use them. We have no way of determining the source of that statement, nor is it enforceable by the HOA board. The HOA board can only enforce the covenants and lake rules. There are documented procedures to change our covenants and lake rules which all require a vote of the association. Covenants need 75% approval of lot owners while lake rules require a majority of lot owners. For example, if an individual, or a board, adds verbiage to the boat registration form that states, “No motorized boat usage on odd days of the week,” does that mean our lake is now no wake on odd days of the week? The answer is no. The verbiage on that form differs from the verbiage of the lake rule. The board should have control over modifications to the boat registration form, but we cannot find any reference to a previous board making that change.
Proposition 1:
If you agree with the use of factory installed wake enhancing devices and agree that no aftermarket “add on” devices should be used on the lake VOTE YES.
If you do not support the use of any wake enhancing devices VOTE NO.
This proposition was presented by the HOA board for vote of the association based on feedback provided by the association via email, the meeting held in February 2022, and direct contact to the board. While there were strong, viable opinions on both sides of this proposition, a majority of the board felt that this approach seemed to be the direction of the feedback.
What happens if it fails? The current rule stays in place along with the difference of opinion on its meaning. The board will very quickly propose another proposition which would support the outcome of this vote. The board wants the current rule amended by the association to be clear and enforceable.
Proposition 2:
If wake enhancing devices are used, this proposition would require boats to stay at 165 feet from shore or stated another way, 35 feet further out from the current buoys which are typically placed 130 feet from shore. (40 feet for the dock and 90 feet for the NE rule). This would allow more distance for waves to dissipate prior to hitting the shore.
If you would like boats using wake enhancing devices to be 165 feet from shore, VOTE YES.
If you would like boats using wake enhancing devices to stay at the required state of Nebraska distance of 90 feet from shore, VOTE NO.
What happens if Proposition 1 fails and Proposition 2 passes?
Proposition 2 does not automatically allow for the use of wake enhancing devices on its own. As stated above, our current rule is interpreted in various ways by lot owners. Some of those lot owners believe they can use factory installed wake enhancing devices with our current rule as is. If proposition 2 passes independent of the outcome of proposition 1, the HOA board can enforce the additional distance from shore for the boats which use wake enhancing devices under the current rule. The HOA board will not treat the passage of Proposition 2 as implied approval of the interpretation that lot owners rejected in failing to pass Proposition 1. Proposition 2 can be enforced while the underlying question of whether wake enhancing devices are going to be permitted continues.
Please note that propositions 1 and 2 are lake rules which require a majority of the lot owner’s approval to pass.
Proposition 3:
Some residents have requested the use of atv/golf carts on the streets of West Shores. Currently all non-licensed vehicles are banned from our streets. The HOA can petition the county to allow these vehicles under certain requirements of law to operate on our streets. We cannot petition the County unless our covenants allow us to do so.
If you WOULD LIKE atv/golf carts to be allowed on West Shores streets VOTE YES. (This would still be pending approval from the County)
If you DO NOT want atv/golf carts to be allowed on West Shores streets VOTE NO.
Please note: This is a covenant change which will require 75% approval from the lot owners.
Proposition 4: Tennis/Pickleball courts
Several residents approached the board regarding the construction of tennis/pickleball courts at West Shores in the park area. The HOA board performed some initial research and received preliminary pricing. The SID would pay 49% of the cost and the HOA would cover 51%. This funding split would allow us to keep the courts private for the use of West Shores residents and guests only. The HOA cost would be recovered over 5 years via a dues increase which would be eliminated once the five years is over. The SID would recover its cost through property taxes.
If you would like to have tennis/pickleball courts at West Shores and agree with the funding plan, VOTE YES.
If you do not want tennis/pickleball courts at West Shores, VOTE NO.
Please note: This is an advisory vote that does not change any covenant or lake rule. For this vote to be valid, we require 50% of the association to provide their opinion and at least 50% of those voting to be positive for this project to advance to the next step.
We hope this document helps with any questions. As always, feel free to email the board directly with any questions. Please remember that most of the board members have full time jobs. Responses are discussed and approved by a majority of board members. We attempt to answer all emails in a timely manner, but due to scheduling, it sometimes takes a few days.
If you have already voted and would like to change your vote, please send the board an email with that request. We can “spoil” your vote and issue a new ballot.
Once again, Thank you. Please take this opportunity to express your opinions on these important matters by voting.
Your HOA Board
Thank you for all of your efforts on behalf of our neighborhood. I recently submitted my votes on the ballot items. I must say that I was disappointed that an option was not available to ban the use of wakeboats. I do believe it is appropriate to recognize that a significant number of homeowners oppose wakeboat use. Your decision to not have that option as a ballot item ignores their position. Please consider revising the ballot to include this important question…”Do you want to ban enhanced boats intended to produce large wakes?”
HOA Board response: The HOA Board considered the option of proposing to ban such boats, but a majority of the board did not believe it would find support of a majority of the owners. There were many different proposals suggested, such as banning boats with wake enhancing devices, restricting their use to certain days or times of day, banning them from certain areas of the lake, banning them at various distances away from docks or shore, banning aftermarket devices, and allowing wake enhancing devices to be used without restriction. Any proposal to amend a Lake Rule must be submitted as a proposed amendment. The covenants give the board the power to determine what proposals that it wishes to put before the community for a vote. The board is not obliged to put every proposal that is offered before the community. The board, in a careful and cautious exercise of its discretion, determined, by a 6-1 vote, to present the two proposals before voters now, as we believed these proposals would meet with the approval of a majority of owners. If these proposals are not approved, the board will listen to the feedback and promptly propose another alternative. The board’s exercise of its discretion protects the lot owners from being inundated with every small group of lot owners might wish to advocate, however, there are procedures in the covenants whereby lot owners submit proposals.
As I thought about my missive of yesterday, I realize I did not share my personal feelings regarding wake boats. Rather, I only suggested that those in opposition be given a voice. I still believe that is the most crucial argument as the board should, no must, serve as an impartial conduit for homeowners’ concerns.
Beyond this most central of issues, impartiality, I have two major concerns about wake boats: safety and beach damage.
As for safety…On numerous occasions last summer my pontoon deck was washed over as wake boats passed us. As more of these wake enhancing boats are brought to our lake, the occurrence of this scenario will increase. It is no longer safe to kayak on the lake. The waves from wake boats spread throughout the lake making it difficult to kayak even close to shore, much less out into our cove. We have three young grandchildren. Waves from wake boats have knocked over our smallest (she’s five) on several occasions.
As for beach damage…As we have seen the increase in numbers of wake boats, we have also found that our beach sand moves much more quickly from open beach to under the dock and lift. This is requiring us to have dredging done annually rather than semi-annually. It is an increased cost that many homeowners are incurring.
HOA Board response: The board is concerned with safety and beach damage, and we believe all lot owners appreciate those concerns. We are also concerned with the desire of owners to be able to use the lake in the way they want to. These competing concerns need to be balanced, and, obviously, there is disagreement among our lot owners on how to best do so. The decision on the proper balance will be made by the lot owners, not the board. The board does not make the Lake Rules, we simply enforce them. The Lake Rule regarding wake enhancing devices, however, has been a problem because of differences of opinion on how to properly interpret the ambiguous language. The board has the authority to propose amendments, and, in the careful exercise of its discretion, it has done so. A 6-1 majority of the board believes Proposition 1 amends the Lake Rule in the manner that the majority believes is and will be supported by a majority of lot owners. If we are wrong, and the proposed amendment fails, we will make an alternative amendment proposal and present it to the community for a vote, because the board wants the ambiguity resolved. Meanwhile, there are procedures that allow lot owners who disagree with the board to force the presentation of their own proposed amendments.
Finally, as an avid ‘rule follower’ I would like to make the argument that the covenants, which were written before the advent of wake boats, banned the use of add-on enhancements to boats to create large wakes. My interpretation of that wording is that West Shores Lake did not want to allow these types of watercraft. I would prefer the wording of any amendment to reflect that intent.
HOA Board response: Developer intent is one of many arguments. In response, some argue that developer intent is not particularly relevant, because circumstances change, and rules and covenants can be amended to change with them. A majority of the board believes that the more important concern is what a majority of the lot owners want the Lake Rules to be in the future. If the developer had not wanted to allow such types of watercraft on this lake, the developer could have stated that in unambiguous terms and could have made such provision a covenant, which would have required 75% to amend, instead of the mere 50% required for a Lake Rule amendment.
Did I read the instructions correctly that after the voting ends it is revealed how each homeowner voted? If that is the case, it doesn't seem to reflect democratic principles of privacy of voting. This affects my decision to vote at all. I especially would not want to annoy my neighbors if they found out I voted in a direction that was opposite to their wishes. We don't own a boat or golf cart, so we don't feel our input is warranted. Can you abstain from but be counted if a quorum is needed?
HOA Board response:
We do utilize secret/private voting for board elections, wherein we rely on our third party election service to ensure that no one, not even the Administrator of the election, can find out who voted for which candidates, even after the election is over.
In the case of amendments of Lake Rules and Covenants, however, propositions relate to your deeded rights to real property, and the law requires any such amendments be publicly recorded. The HOA is required to file a document with the County Recorder showing exactly who voted in favor of each proposition that passes with the required percentage. It is the electronic equivalent of a paper document that sets forth the amendment and has the required number of signatures written below.
The public disclosure requirement associated with amendments make it virtually impossible for the board or Administrator to manipulate the results, as the detailed results as to how every participant voted will be revealed immediately after the election is over. If there was some sort of fraud, it would be readily apparent to a voter whose vote was manipulated. We also use the highest level of security, requiring both email and SMS verification.
The third party election service that we utilize does not provide an option to “hide” portions of the results, such as the identities of those who vote “no” or abstain (when available), and the identities of those who choose not to vote thus become apparent. Frankly, in the interest of election integrity, I doubt any board would authorize the disclosure of some, but not all, voter information on amendments, even if it were possible. The West Shores Lake Rule and Covenant amendment voting is thus completely transparent.
There is no quorum requirement for Lake Rule and Covenant voting, as the approval of a proposition simply requires a fixed percentage, either 50% (146) or 75% (219), of the 291 total lots.
The choice to vote or not to vote is up to each lot owner. The effect of not casting a vote on Lake Rule or Covenant amendment is the functional equivalent of a “no” vote. For this reason, and since a quorum is not relevant, the board elected not to make the option of abstaining from a particular proposition available.
The board did announce that, in connection with the advisory vote on the tennis pickleball courts, at least 50% of the lot owners needed to cast a vote for the results to be deemed meaningful, which is effectively a quorum requirement. Since the tennis/pickleball advisory vote is occurring in conjunction with Lake Rule and Covenant propositions that have captured the interest of most of the community, we have no doubt that the 50% “quorum” number will be achieved.