Draft MINUTES

FRYE ISLAND INCORPORATED STOCKHOLDERS MEETING

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2003

FRYE ISLAND COMMUNITY CENTER

 

President Nancy Fournier called the meeting to order at 9:20 AM

 

Director Peter Bearor made the following motion, which was seconded by Director Carlton Hommel:

To authorize the Board of Directors of the Corporation to offer to convey the ferries, and all ferry related improvements and assets of the Corporation to the Town of Frye Island, including without limitation, all docks, storage facilities and wharves, subject to all restrictions, easements and rights of record.
 

The motion passed by a vote of 379 affirmative votes, and 12 negative votes. Director Hommel noted that the records of the Corporation indicated that there are presently 749 Stockholders, and according to the By-Laws, a quorum is one third of that number, or 249.

Director Hommel made the following motion, which was seconded by James Kuiken, Lot 323:

That the Corporation ratify and affirm those acts taken on its behalf by the Stockholders and Directors for the years beginning on October 13th 2001 through October 11th 2003.
 

The motion passed by a vote of 357 affirmative votes, and 33 negative votes.

 

Director Richard Giggey presented the report of the Beach Committee. He made the following motion, which was seconded by Oleg Svetlichny, Lot 13:

That the Stockholders authorize to Direcrors to merge Lots 75, 76, and 77 to Beach 5, to merge Lot 204 with Beach 6, and to merge Lots 1646 and 1647 to Beach 12.

The Stockholders present passed the motion unanimously.

General Manager Wayne Fournier presented the proposed 2004 Corporation budget. Joseph Potts, Lot 1633 made the following motion, which was seconded by Frank Limauro, Lot 74.

Move that the $64,000 Town Lease revenue be broken into three parts, allotting revenue from Town tax payers, golf operations and marina operations.
 

The motion passed.

Director Hommel made the following motion which was seconded by Director Diane Babineau:

That the Corporation 2004 budget as amended be accepted by the Stockholders.
 

The Stockholders present passed the motion unanimously.

Edward Charrette, Lot 79, presented the results of the Stockholders’ survey. (See Attachment)

 

President Fournier drew the prizes from the raffle. The winners were:

            Third prize, $50, Scott McCrum, Lot 1335,

            Second prize, $75, Andrew and Cynthia Wright, Lot 1625,

            First prize, $100, Mark and Roberta Thomas, Lot 505.

 

Fritz Mueller, Lot 279, moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Director Babineau, and passed unanimously
 

 


SURVEY SUMMARY

 

October 14, 2003

 

Survey #1‑To be completed by both cottage and lot owners

 

Since this survey is being done to obtain as much feedback from you as we can, please feel free to add comments. Please copy this form and complete it for each cottage or lot owned.

 

QUESTIONS: 254 AGGREGATE RESPONSES (Not all questions answered)

 

1 .        Would you support a one‑year moratorium on the issuance of new building permits until a clear assessment is made of the impact growth has had and will have on the island infrastructure (such as the ferry, the water system, and the roads), and until a comprehensive real estate management plan is developed?

                        Yes: 179 (71%)

                        No: 72 (29%).

 

2.         How important is the preservation and conservation of undeveloped FII owned real estate?

                        Very: 195 (77%),

                        Moderately: 49 (19%)

                        Not at all: 8 (4%).

 

3.         Are you in favor of selling FII owned real estate ?

                        Yes: 111 (46%)

                        No: 129 (54%).

 

4.         Would you be in favor of FII selling real estate to existing lot owners exclusively?

                        Yes: 120 (50%)

                        No: 120 (50%).

 

5.         Would you be in favor of FII selling lots as non buildable lots exclusively?

                        Yes: 151 (61%)           

                        No: 95 (39%).

 

6.         Would you be in favor of an annual limitation via a new ordinance on the number of building permits issued?

                        Yes: 186 (75%)

                        No: 63 (25%).
 

7.         Would you support a limitation, beyond existing ordinances, on the amount of vegetation and trees which could be removed from a lot?

                        Yes: 144 (59%)

                        No: 102 (41%).

8.         As feedback in developing a comprehensive FII real estate management plan, would you be in favor of transferring the substance of FII real estate and non real estate assets to the town for their administration subject to oversight control by all property owners?

                        Yes: 161 (68%)

                        No: 75 (32%).

9.         Alternatively, would you be in favor of donating only those assets marked as follows?

                        Ferries

                                    Yes

                                    No: 13 (5%).

 

                        Buildings

                                    Yes

                                    No: 29 (11%).

 

                        Undeveloped lots and land

                                    Yes

                                    No: 79 (31%).

 

                        Golf course

                                    Yes

                                    No: 69 (27%).

 

                        Marina            

                        Yes     

                        No: 71 (28%).

 

                        Vehicles          

                        Yes

                        No: 27 (11%).

 

Because each choice was not answered yes or no, only the no’s were tabulated.

 

10.       Should FII sell its real estate assets as a funding source to maintain its other physical assets or should the town maintain those assets through tax revenues?

                        Because this question was ambiguous, the answers were not precisely quantifiable. However, it appears from reading each sheet that most voters who answered clearly were in favor of taxes supporting asset maintenance.

 

Additional comments: All but a few of the comments are attached here for reference. They are an important part of this survey and communicate well and in greater depth much of the sentiment expressed in the questions above.

 

Survey #2 ‑ To be completed by owners of undeveloped lots only

 

Since this survey is being done to obtain as much feedback from you as we can, please feel free to add comments. Please copy this form and complete it for each lot owned.

 

QUESTIONS: 100 AGGREGATE RESPONSES

 

1.         Is your undeveloped lot buildable?

            Yes: 74 (74%),

            No: 14 (14%)

            Unknown: 12 (12%).

2.   Do you plan to sell your lot at some point in the future?

            Yes: 23 (23%) 

            Retain it as part of your cottage parcel? Yes: 53 (53%)

            Unknown: 24 (24%).

 

3.   Do you plan to build a house on your lot?

            Yes: 43 (43%)

            No: 44 (44%)

            Unknown: 13 (13%)

4.      When do you plan to build?

            Estimated date: varies.

5.   Is your lot adjacent to another lot you own with an existing cottage?

            Yes: 34 (34%)

             No: 61 (61%)

             NA: 5 (5%).

6.   Even, if not required to do so by town ordinance, would you be willing to combine by deed your existing undeveloped lot with your cottage lot?

            Yes: 22 (22%) 

            No: 37 (37%)  

            NA 41 (41%).

7.   If there were a tax advantage to you, would you be willing to place a conservation easement on your property restricting the future uses of that lot and donate the easement to the town?

            Yes: 20 (20%)

            No: 68 (68%)  

            NA: 12 (123%)

 

8.   Would you be willing to sell or gift your undeveloped lot to the town or to FII?

            Yes: 15 (15%)

            No: 78 (78%)

            NA: 7 (75%).

 

Additional comments: some of these numbers had to be interpreted carefully in order to tabulate, particularly for question 2.