Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
I fully trust the board for making urgent porta potty decisions on its own. But for insurance matters, best to get membership input. Yes, it is more effort to move forward when more people are involved, but it builds confidence.
Thank you for that extra info Jamie and Tim: Only the DWR requires insurance, not the Forest Service. And hopefully the DWR reviewed and is satisfied.
Thanks to Jamie for sharing some details of what the board selected for insurance…
First, the Ranch does NOT have RRRG insurance. When the CSS initially switched from RRRG coverage to a company called Next, they assured the Ranch that it was still covered under the new policy. However, after three months of requests and a great deal of insisting (mostly on my part because I have an extreme distrust of insurance companies), the CSS finally produced a copy of the certificate of additional insurance showing that the Ranch was in fact listed as an additional insured on the policy. But, for the owners of the Ranch, this didn’t provide much assurance that they were protected. So, they insisted on seeing the underlying policy. That was refused for another three months, but eventually the CSS president gave in and provided Owen with a copy of the policy.
Simply put, the policy is garbage. Under “Schedule of Project or Operation” which is where the scope of activities covered is laid out, the policy lists “adult education”. As if this weren’t bad enough, this “adult education” includes “teaching, educating, coaching, or otherwise transferring of knowledge to a client for the purposes of educating that: DO NOT include the practice, instruction, participation, or demonstration of any athletic activity, physical activity, or sport, including but not limited to activity in preparation for or following such activity or sport.”
Under “Exclusions“, section G heading is “Aircraft, Auto or Watercraft” and it excludes “bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, etc….of any aircraft.”
While I agree with the club leadership that the club doesn’t need insurance and we shouldn’t have to have it, the Water District (landowner) requires it. Even if the CSS is protected by this $238/year policy, there is absolutely no question the Ranch is not and that was confirmed directly by Next.
It was after this discovery and after an unfortunately incident that could very easily have given rise to a claim (but thankfully did not) that the Ranch owners realized they were hugely exposed and were forced to close access to the pond and the 350 launch on the Ranch property until they could secure some kind of protection. They are working on that now.So, help me understand… How is the DWR (for the LZ) and Forest Service (for launches) satisfied with the policy, if flying is not covered?
It’s always fun to meet fellow Canadians. Will you have Labatt beer?
For rides up during the week, you have a few options. Gene Embree is often offering rides mid-week.
The process is the following…
- Send an Email to the club’s web administrator (Daniel Quick): info@crestlinesoaring.org
- He will ask you for a different Email address than the one you have on record with CSS, a quirk in the ballot system which cannot resend a ballot to the same address.
- Your original ballot will be voided.
- You will get a new ballot at the alternate Email address.
Best wishes to all the nominees, and to Tom Evans for offering his candidacy and introduction.
There is also Ed Wiggins, as a write-in for President.
A repeat today, April 2nd. A little less wind, but better orientation, yielded the same altitudes and a longer flight time (3.2 hours). Smoother than usual. Ideal conditions.
About 2 dozen pilots in the air. One HG zooming around.
Thank you Jamie !
I wish other candidates would also post their motivations for their desired positions. Voting ballots are already out, but for those who already voted and want to change something, they can by asking Daniel Quick by Email to info@crestlinesoaring.org
Good flights, Jerome.
Thank you for thinking of me for this role Linda. I have the following thoughts:
- I can do this, but to do a super job (focus on good decisions involving key people and membership), I would have to devote a large amount of time & effort.
- In similar past roles (VP of Quebec association, Pres of Soboba) I had overall positive experiences, but also learned that one gets exposed to negativity (you cannot make everyone happy). It helps me appreciate past/current board members.
So I pass, but will gladly help when consulted on any situation. It’s a fun club, long live the CSS. Jerome.
PS. I may vote for all the girls running for a position.
Thanks to all those offering to volunteer their time.
Jerome
I don’t remember ever seeing Stephen exceed his flip-flop conditions threshold (source).
For those who like SPAM, this new Forum user is serving some. Enjoy.
Just wondering what would be the appropriate amount for the CSS to pay for the ranch…
Some refer to Zillow’s listing and current value. Real estate values are still relatively high, but what would happen if it was the opposite and the ranch’s value had dropped from the time it was purchased by its current owners, would the CSS acquire it for less and have owners accept a loss? That does not seem right. So I am just asking, without knowing the answer…
- For the current situation where values are high, should the owners be offered by CSS the current market value? If they want to sell now, they can refuse a lower CSS offer than the market allows.
- Disregarding market value, would current owners be satisfied with CSS offering the original investment, upgrades and some interest on the initial investment? Let’s refer to this as the “Investment+Interest” price.
- Should CSS wait/hope for a market adjustment such that the market value matches the above “Investment+Interest” price, realizing that there is a risk of the property selling to someone else before? But maybe we are near this situation if Zillow correctly states the January 27 2006 sale price of 525 k$.
- Could the CSS buy the property and to avoid a big mortgage, offer shares of ownership? I have seen this at another flying site, and one can expect share owners later seeking resale with interest. Proper share owner contracts can avoid future squabbles.
Good luck in the negotiation, I hope everybody can agree and be comfortable.
Related: Major Decision being considered by CSS.
And a Solution to minimize rumors/concerns: Copied here for convenience:
I encourage the board to continue sharing their planning and options considered (about any topic) on this forum, and resume posting minutes of all meetings (board and general). Otherwise a portion of the membership will attend meetings but afterwards: Every time info is repeated it gets further from the original, amplifies concerns, feeds rumors. By sharing planning, members will appreciate more the work going on “behind the scenes” and identify areas where they can help. Win-Win on both sides (CSS board and members).
Thank you for posting the above detailed message Jai Pal.
I encourage the board to continue sharing their planning and options considered (about any topic) on this forum, and resume posting minutes of all meetings (board and general). Otherwise a portion of the membership will attend meetings but afterwards: Every time info is repeated it gets further from the original, amplifies concerns, feeds rumors. By sharing planning, members will appreciate more the work going on “behind the scenes” and identify areas where they can help. Win-Win on both sides (CSS board and members).
Maybe the CSS board has always been in favor of having the ranch owned by the CSS.
If you make people fear loosing access to the ranch, then more will be willing to fund its purchase.
Smart.
-
AuthorPosts
