CRRA Board of Directors — Open Session — June 9, 2026
EXCERPT: Agenda item — Short-term rental administrative fee (approx. 28 minutes)
Machine transcript prepared by an owner from the meeting audio. Unofficial. Timestamps are minutes:seconds from the start of the excerpt, not from the start of the meeting. The recording does not announce speakers; where a speaker is named below it is the owner's identification from voice and context. Garbled passages are left as transcribed.
Posted at coosawatteeowners.org for owner reference. Corrections welcome: svh30075@gmail.com

Outcome of this item: (1) Director Jackson's "Resolution Limiting Board Authority to Impose Rental-Based Fees" was read by the Secretary and then TABLED. (2) Director MacLaren's motion to immediately suspend the fee "until Access Management or the Association produce an impact study of STRs versus full-time and part-time residents' use of the amenities," amended by President Hazzard to include the financial impact, PASSED on a recorded roll call: MacLaren yes, Brown no, DeVries yes, Jackson yes, Anthony yes, Fernandez yes.

[00:00] Okay people find our plan. Make a suggestion just in the next newsletter. Let's do a hyperlink to it. That's good idea. I'll work with our communications folks to make sure you find the information that you're entitled to. Right. I'm going to piggyback on you.
[00:23] It was elected by the finance committee to be the chair of the committee. And I saw a crew without objection. So moved. All right, now we bring back, come around to Nick. This is you. This is the STR administrative fee discussion. You want to start off? [Jackson:] Sure. I know I sent the email out to the board.
[00:46] with the board yesterday with their revised proposal for the STR fee process and waiving that. So this is just, you know, a motion to kind of pass that resolution or email and obviously open the floor for discussion.
[01:09] Everybody's got next
[01:32] [Hazzard:] Mr. Secretary, Gary, you have it, would you read it? [Brown reads:] The resolution is "Limitation on Board Authority to Impose Rental-Based Fees." Whereas the Board of Directors is bound by the recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which serves as the supreme governing authority
[01:55] the supreme governing authority of the Association and, whereas the Board's authority to adopt rules and policies is limited and may not conflict with, expand upon, or override the provisions of the Declaration and, whereas the Governing Documents permit reasonable and uniform fees related to the use of common area and amenities, but do not provide express authority
[02:18] express authority to impose fees based solely on an owner's rental activity and whereas the Board has reviewed the short-term rental gate fee and finds that such fee lacks clear, express and enforceable authority within the governing documents; now therefore be it resolved: one, immediate revocation: the short-term rental
[02:41] short-term rental gate fee is hereby immediately revoked and shall no longer be imposed, collected or enforced in any manner. Number two, nullification of prior actions: any prior Board action, policy or administrative practice establishing or enforcing the STR gate fee or any fee imposed based solely upon rental activity is hereby rescinded and declared
[03:04] rescinded and declared void to the extent inconsistent with the resolution. Three, governing document interpretation: the resolution shall serve as the official interpretation of the Association's governing documents with respect to the Board's authority to impose fees related to rental activity unless and until such interpretation is overturned
[03:27] is overturned by a vote of the membership. Rule: limitation on rental-based fees and charges. No fee, charge or assessment shall be imposed based solely on an owner's rental activity, guest status, or use of a lot as a short-term rental unless expressly authorized by the Declaration. Nothing herein shall prohibit the
[03:50] shall prohibit the Association from imposing reasonable and uniform fees for the use of common areas, amenities, or facilities provided such fees are applied equally to all owners and occupants and are not based on rental status. Any fees specifically applicable to rental activity must be (a) expressly authorized by the Declaration and (b)
[04:13] be approved by a vote of the membership in accordance with the governing documents and applicable law. The Association shall apply fees uniformly to all owners. Any fee that treats owners differently based solely on rental activity shall be invalid unless clearly and specifically authorized by the Declaration. All owners shall be afforded equal access to the
[04:36] afforded equal access to Association gate systems, guest registration systems, and related Association software. No owners shall be subject to different access privileges, requirements, or restrictions based solely on rental activity unless expressly authorized by the Declaration.
[04:59] [Hazzard:] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Nick, was this from the STR committee? [Jackson:] Yes. [Hazzard:] All right, you have the floor. Make your case. [Jackson:] I think it's fairly self-explanatory. I mean, I'm happy to open it for discussion. But basically, this came about, a lot of it came about after the most recent changes.
[05:22] some changes with the amenity fee. I've never had more owners reach out to me in a 24, 36 hour period of time, bringing up some decent points. The case here really is that I don't believe the Board has uniform authority to charge fees to one group over another. This kind of sets that precedent where all owners are created
[05:45] You know, all owners are created equal to a degree. If the board can have the authority to change, you know, fees based on rental status, next we could say the owners that live on Legion Road pay an extra $25 because it's used the most, you know. So if it's in the declaration, it's in the bylaws, that's the way it is. But it's a slippery slope allowing the board uniform authority.
[06:08] board uniform authority to charge one group different than others. So that's my only piece. [Hazzard:] All right, open for discussion. [MacLaren:] I'm gonna add on to that. So this gate fee came back in the era of First Service. It was to help... (static)
[06:31] capture some of the losses we had. And I will, anybody wants to correct me, please do. I'm just going off my knowledge. It started out at $29, went to $39, then it went to $59. The bylaws are pretty clear. The covenants is clear that when
[06:54] that when you have charges of this nature that it's dispersed equally. It would be just like saying anyone driving a white pickup truck with ladders on top, the board could say, "Hey, tomorrow those trucks now are required to pay $59 per gate fee."
[07:17] I also questioned when that gate fee came into place, I questioned what was the premises and background of it. I was told that it was a study, an impact study, about STR. You have to see those documents of that impact.
[07:40] When I say impact, the usage is of, and I'm just gonna use pools as an example. I would like to know that we have the data to back up what our stance was. That should be readily available.
[08:03] When I look at it, I have three grandchildren and I have three children of my own and we all utilize the amenities. I'm here 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. My wife and I come and go several times a day. My children come and go. My neighbor is an STR.
[08:26] the house is vacant. Except for on Friday night, Saturday and on Sunday they leave. So his impact on the community is far less than mine. So that's why I question a little bit of the impact.
[08:49] impact scenario for the short term guests. If all of these homes were occupied by full time residents with families, the impact would be much higher.
[09:12] I'm going to request that Access Management produce all of the information for the impact study that was done. I would like to see that all records of amenity usage
[09:35] the usage is calculated and shown on a spreadsheet with a graph, owners versus STR so that this board and any other board can make educated decisions, not just a board or a group of board members that decided to implement a fee.
[09:58] I think it's unfair. I'm going to make a motion here. That the gate fee is suspended until this documentation is presented to the board of records for further review.
[10:21] analysis and decision-making. We cannot govern this based on perceived hypothetical information. I only make good decisions based on what I have for data. And so I'll make that motion that
[10:44] that the gate fees as commonly assigned to STR owners is suspended until further review and access to all of the documentation on request. Does treasurer or the secretary of time write it out?
[11:07] [Brown:] And the motion is to suspend gate fees until the Access Management and/or Association can produce the impact study.
[11:30] [MacLaren:] showing the physical impact to our amenities. That would be, and that is not only STRs, I wanna see homeowner statistics along with. So basically I wanna see the whole package. I wanna know how many gate entries everybody has. I wanna know every and broken down between. I wanna see a column of STRs.
[11:53] and homeowners. I want to know pool usage. I want to know homeowners versus STRs so that I can see is there really an impact by STRs on this community. This was already supposed to have been done when that fee came into place. If it wasn't done then it
[12:16] wasn't done, then it just reinforces my point that somebody made a decision to collect money from one small area of the community that is unfair and unjust and not within our process. [Hazzard:] I would say to be clear on that, they were collecting a fee on a particular part of the community.
[12:39] a particular part of the community for common elements, for common amenities. That's my understanding that that was administrative and that was the cost of processing all of that. Now whether that's actually $59 or not, that's available. Can I ask you to amend
[13:02] [MacLaren:] I would have to say that that's correct. In this, what I'm asking for is I want to know right down to how many STRs utilize the amenities and what the financial
[13:25] financial impact is. Because it could go the other way. It could physically show that the homeowners, because we're here all the time, utilize the amenities more than the short-term rental. Well, yes, that would do to all of us. It would completely reverse. And all the
[13:48] And all the homeowners are going to have to pay the $59. You see what I'm saying? Because if that's what you're saying, then it's basically, "I'm sorry, I'm out of order." What I'm saying, Nick, was that you? No, it was me. I apologize. Sorry. No, that's all right. Did you say so? No, it wasn't. What I'm saying is think about what I just said. If they're saying that the $59...
[14:11] The $59 is an impact fee because of STRs and actually the data shows the opposite. It would just reinforce that it was done illegal. [Hazzard:] All right, let's call the question. Okay, let me make sure I'm getting it. Frank, you've got something to say. [Darrow:] I was just going to suggest, I appreciate what you're trying to do and I would offer that
[14:34] offer that we get 12 extra sets of eyes from the finance committee, they can work with the management company, they'll put together this analysis. I know we're looking trying to take back stuff from what First Service... we got two parts to the question, first part is to approve the motion... let me just make sure
[14:57] [Hazzard:] Let me just make sure we've got the motion, that motion from Ross that he wants to suspend, to immediately suspend gate fees until Access Management or the Association produce an impact study of STRs versus full-time and part-time residents and it was
[15:20] and it was amended by Bob to include the financial impact. That's the motion. That was the motion. Joy, you're up. [Owner comment:] So, hopefully you all can hear me... So, everybody talks about how to start, First Service Residential, whatever.
[15:43] First Service Residential came in here trying to make money. Okay. The fee was $29 flat for like a hundred years. Then it went up to $39 for quite a few years. And Bob may recall some of this. And in a virtue to make money on everything is what they were trying to do between the First Service and Access.
[16:06] Access, to lower our dues, whatever the situation is, they raise the fee. And I objected because I said, "What are you going to give them in exchange for raising the fees?" Well, we're going to have them have access to the amenities. Well, every homeowner used to get four passes. Okay? And they took
[16:29] And they took that away from us. So we only get two passes now. Well, why? Because the board decided to change it because the numbers showed that the part time renters weren't really using their cards, whatever. But there was a takeaway. There was a takeaway on renting the villas during the holidays, the 50% discount again. There were certain
[16:52] There were certain individuals with Access still and with First Service Residential that are drilling for money on everything they can get and make this more of a for-profit organization. So I disagreed with it because I watched the numbers. The other disasters, we went to Chamberlain touchscreen in 2020. That was a total disaster.
[17:15] Then we went to pin codes. Here comes the problem. Everybody in the three or four counties got the pin codes off your cards at Walmart. They saw that sticker, they got four digit numbers, they were in. We had pool parties. Again with that, the assistant general manager at that time had a brain trust that we did not need any kind of check in or control.
[17:38] to check in or control at the pools, that it was an overreach to know what residents were using the pool. Historically, we have done that. We've checked IDs. You have to be either an owner or a guest. Okay. And we have to have the names and the numbers to tabulate what Ross is asking about.
[18:01] They threw that all away and they said we're going to have a fitness whatever key card. We spent thousands of dollars handing out brand new IDs and the brain trust six months later said, not even six weeks later, let's get an RFID card. Bill is still in here. He remembers that. So we went in our RFID card, it doesn't work because still the bathroom
[18:24] still the bathrooms that we're supposed to be able to use at the campgrounds as general property don't work for us, it doesn't work for the residents of those areas, doesn't work for the campers. So we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lost equipment and we're still back to 2020, we can't secure this place. So the idea was when people come into the pool
[18:47] come into the pool you tabulate what they're doing, what they're using, so you can address it accordingly. We are now getting the numbers. I go in there frequently and check the numbers. When the children in this county were in spring break, which there's a lot of counties throughout America, okay, Monday and Tuesday we're 300 plus, 300 plus at main pool.
[19:10] pool, 400 and something on Wednesday, 300, 300. So you're talking a couple of thousand people went through that pool one week. That's a lot of bodies and that's a lot of chlorine to take care of those bodies. So just say, yeah, but that's the truth. That's at the end of the day, it's still
[19:33] I think it's a good thing. It's still, that's the community we live in. We have no idea what's going on. [Hazzard:] We need to wrap this up. Any other discussion. [Brown:] I think one thing we need to consider here is that this is actually a change of the rules.
[19:56] about changing the rules. [Hazzard:] All right, wait a second. I'm going to break in here, Gary. I appreciate the point, but I got a motion on the floor. Let's clear the motion first, because I think after that, the chair will entertain a motion to table this, pending the results of... [Brown:] my point is relevant. We cannot change our rules by passing this motion.
[20:19] passed this motion. Why? Why? Because it's a motion to investigate. Now the motion is to immediately suspend the gate fees. Temporarily. A motion is to suspend, temporarily until investigation. [MacLaren:] The rule was made, Gary. The rule was, to your point, the rule was made outside of the
[20:42] outside of exactly what you're saying. The rule was made exactly what you're trying to stop right now. The rule was made just like that. And therefore, the rule has to go under review that it was actually implemented correctly from the beginning. With that information, the rest of the
[21:05] the rest of this board can make a legal and correct decision on how to handle it. But right now, it was done illegal. That's why I'm saying we suspend it until we get the information from Access. [Hazzard:] Wow, the chair quibbles with the term illegally. However, I rule
[21:28] I rule that this is a legitimate suspension. It is not changing the rules. It's not permanent. And the motion on the floor is, would you read the motion please? [Brown:] The motion is to suspend gate fees, immediately suspend gate fees until Access Management or the Association produce an impact study of STRs versus full-time and part-time
[21:51] full-time and part-time residents' use of the amenities, amended by Bob to include the financial impact. [Hazzard:] That is correct. That is correct. Is there a second? It wasn't seconded. I'll second. Throw him in for the second. [Director on Zoom:] Hey guys, this is real quick.
[22:14] Hey guys, this is real quick. I think the problem we're having here, if you look at our neighboring counties, the owner went unchecked for so long. We're at 2,500 short-term rentals [in the county]. We have 500 plus, give or take, in Coosawattee. And if you look at our neighboring counties, most of them are 400 or 500. They capped it early, except we were in.
[22:37] [Hazzard:] The motion is called. Of course, it has been called. Time for a vote. All right. We're going to have a vote. We'll be fine by your vote sheet. Carol, I'm going to hand a motion to a recorded vote.
[23:00] Oh, I think this should be recorded. Yeah. All right. So moved. I move that this would be a recorded vote. Second. This will be a recorded vote. Mr. Secretary call the roll. [Brown:] Mr. Hazzard? [inaudible] Mr. MacLaren?
[23:23] Mr. MacLaren yes. Mr. Brown, I vote no. Mr. DeVries yes. Mr. Jackson yes.
[23:46] Mr. Graham Anthony. Yes. And Mr. Fernandez. Yes. [Hazzard:] The motion passes and the chair will now entertain a motion to table this pending the outcome of that. [Jackson:] Can I ask why this
[24:09] Why was my motion not considered as well for voting? [Hazzard:] It's a procedural thing. We can vote on that, but we don't lack the information. The motion was to get the information to make an informed decision. That motion was passed. [Jackson:] That motion was passed, right? So I presented a motion to the board with my proposal and a general statement from the board resolutions.
[24:32] board resolution so I would like that considered as well. If it's seconded. [Hazzard:] A motion to table is never out of order and is a preceding motion. So if there's a motion to table, what are we tabling? We're tabling the next motion until we get the financial and
[24:55] and impact review to guide us. Do you need to know what earlier was first? The motion we just passed was to immediately suspend gate fees until we get the study. That's what we asked. So the motion on the floor is to table this resolution.
[25:18] This resolution is to be tabled until we have what we just voted on. It makes total sense in the process. It's the most fair and reasonable. But we are immediately suspending the gate fees. Motion to table
[25:41] The motion on the table is to table this. Is there a second? I'm gonna second. All right. And I'm gonna call the question. Roll call vote. To table. Mr. Hazzard: aye. Mr. MacLaren.
[26:04] Mr. MacLaren aye. Mr. Brown is yes. Mr. DeVries yes. Mr. Jackson [inaudible]. Mr. Anthony yes. Mr. Fernandez [inaudible]. Okay so we're immediately
[26:27] immediately suspending the gate fees and then this resolution is tabled until we get back up there.
[26:50] [Brown:] The motion also includes the financial impact because this is budgeted at $800,000 for revenue for the association. [MacLaren:] That's totally fine Gary. Yeah, revenue doesn't change rules. We'll see the numbers. So everybody better get their pens out and start producing some numbers.
[27:13] All right moving on guys. Mr. President. Mr. President it's Amy. Yes, one thing I want to just make sure to clarify with the suspension of the fees you're still going to have to enter your guests into the reservation system so that they can have access. So I just, we can't just
[27:36] We can't just not have anybody enter in their information. I just want to make sure there was no miscommunication there on that. That's correct. We understand that. Yeah, we understand it. And it was historic numbers. All right. Treasurer's report has been done. General Manager's remarks.
[27:59] I wanted to do several major capital projects.

[End of excerpt]