2020 AGM Voting Results

/

The LISECC Annual General Meeting was conducted with a Vote-By-Mail Election Process in accordance with Governor Inslee’s Executive Order concerning the phased re-opening of the state.

VOTING RESULTS

Board of Directors (for three open positions)

  • Ben Twigg: 68 votes (approved)

  • William Enoch: 67 votes (approved)

  • Jim Coats: 49 votes (approved)

  • Sharleen Peitsch-Tyerman: 31

The board will meet on Sunday, August 30 to elect and appoint officers.

2021 Budget and Dues

APPROVED

Approve: 74 | Disapprove: 2

The proposed Budget will maintain dues at $725 per year, having a total income of $392,600 and expenses of $359,100. Dues do not include the DWSRF loan, RTS, and water usage fees.. 100

Audit of financial statements of the 2021 Fiscal Year

APPROVED

Approve: 52 | Disapprove: 22

The board is recommending an audit of the 2020 fiscal year. The last audit was conducted in 2019 for the 2018 fiscal year.

2019 Coupon Books

/

2019 coupon books for membership fees are expected to arrive before January 1. The monthly payment option is only available to members who maintain a current account status.

2019-coupon book.png

Coupons cover the membership dues and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) loan payment amount. Water usage fees are invoiced separately by mail every other month. See a breakdown of member fees here.

Members have three options to pay dues:

Pay Annually - $796
Due by January 31

Pay Semi-Annually - $398
Due by January 31 and June 30

Pay Monthly - $66.34
Due on the 31st of each month.

Appeals Court rejects petition for rehearing

/

The judicial panel of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has unanimously denied a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Read the complete order here. 

Proving that he is truly incapable of taking no for an answer, Charles Ortego requested a rehearing by the same three-judge panel that rejected his claims and a rehearing en banc (by the entire Ninth Circuit) on July 5, 2018, which is rarely granted even in meritorious cases. 

According to LISECC attorney Jessica Goldman, "The only avenue for review remaining is a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.  At this point, this case concerns only issues of state law and there is zero chance the Supreme Court would accept review."

Scenic Estates water system gets 10-year Gold Award

/
From left: Isaac Colgan, Leslie Dempsey, Kevin Southworth, & Jolyn Leslie

From left: Isaac Colgan, Leslie Dempsey, Kevin Southworth, & Jolyn Leslie

Lummi Island Scenic Estates (LISE) was awarded the Gold Certificate of Achievement by the Washington Department of Health today. Regional Engineer Joyln Leslie presented the award to Operations Manager Kevin Southworth, along with LISE President Leslie Dempsey and Treatment Plant Operator Isaac Colgan.

To qualify for the Gold award the water system must exceed turbidity removal standards and have no violations with the Department of Health for at least 10 years. 

There are only seven rapid rate filtration water treatment plants in the State of Washington that currently qualify for the Gold (10-14 years) and Platinum (15 or more years) award. LISE is the smallest system this select group. The performance of rapid rate filters for turbidity (particle) removal is a key element in protecting consumers from microbial contaminants and maximizing public health. 

Lawsuit is over - LISECC won!

/

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has completely affirmed the decision of Judge Lasnik in US District Court in favor of the defendants Lummi Island Scenic Estates Community Club (LISECC) and rejected the appeal of Chuck Ortego and other plaintiffs.

The district court properly determined that LISECC has continuing authority to govern all of the properties comprising Lummi Island Scenic Estates.

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on the breach of fiduciary duty claim. Plaintiffs supplied no evidence to suggest that the directors failed
to act “reasonably and in good faith” in their stewardship of the water system.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs provided neither the authority to support sanctions nor a meaningful explanation of why sanctions were warranted.