A PLACE TO BE
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Pledge of Allegiance
Absent were VP Pelletier, Dir. Guerra, and Dir. Bergsma was fifteen minutes late
Owners Speaking
None
Presidents Remarks
None
Managers Report
GM Rick Horner said 73 work orders were issued, eight not finished, and 142 owners are in arrears totaling $93,998. There will be an open house this Friday between 9am – 11am at the Welcome Center.
Comments from the Board
Treas. Steffensen talked about the Port Isabel Camber gathering and learned that many Parks are getting early traffic this year.
Dir. Gagan expressed a dock problem to the GM. (no lot number)
Armando said they had worked on the sewer problem at the Lot 870 location. Rick Horner described the way they inspected and resealed the sewer lid and feel they fixed the problem. The large filter pump for the outdoor pool is currently under repair.
Approval of Minutes
After minor corrections they were approved.
Treasurer’s Report & Financials
Everything appeared normal in the T-report. The P&L showed that all the Revenue Centers except our Newsletter were losers. So far this year the Golf Course has spent $25,000 less on water. Fewer rentals are going through our Rental Dept. making the Rental Revenues $110,000 less.
Major Improvement folders were handed out to each Director. It was said our water costs are less but our attorney fees are far more. Dir. Montalvo is of the opinion the legal fees are up because the Board had been putting us in situations where litigation had to be involved and added that the Board had challenged owners on issues that shouldn’t have. He said he feels that now we are moving in the right direction. Treas. Steffensen agreed.
Committee Reports
D&E- Dir. White said we a Saturday 4pm Halloween Party. Profits will go towards new Rec. Hall tables
Golf-None
Pool –None
Hurricane-One more meeting left.
Unfinished Business
Pool Rules-Treas. Steffensen made a motion that was approved to add open wound and Texas stipulated warnings to the pool rules.
Dredging Questionnaire- after quoting most of how 490 members voted on the dredging questionnaire, Dir. Bergsma emphasized that a majority of owners voted to dredge. He noted that he was one of the 49 owners who had a problem getting their boats on and off their lifts and followed with a lengthy personal analysis of our dredging situation. He felt that it was unreasonable to make owners responsible to pay for the removal of the debris around their own boat lifts and wants that to be included in our estimated $985,000+ or a $1000 plus assessment cost.
Secretary Montalvo said anything of this enormity in cost should be included in the Annual Meeting packets for the owners to decide. Dir. Bergsma argued that this is a Board responsibility towards the care of our common facilities and should not include the vote of the people. He added that any owner who doesn’t want to spend the money towards this should go somewhere else.
Dir. White agreed that the canals are important but our roads are more of a priority at this time. Secretary Montalvo reiterated that this should be voted on by the Village membership.
Dir. Gagan said the way he sees it was that Dir. Bergsma had three potential motions to make, an engineering study, partial dredging, or full dredging and asked him what was his choice. Dir. Bergsma said an engineering study since we are unsure of what exactly needs to be done.
Treas. Steffensen said she had just given out the budget and major improvement packets and that it is an important time to list things like this that needs to be done. She said she thought a study needs to be done first and that it be set up budget wise.
Dir. Bergsma responded with saying that we have been looking at this for a year now and then talked at length about what a study provides. He went on to say that the cost of dredging is nothing compared to cost in ignoring the issue and if this continues our property values would fall. We have to do this because we have a legal and moral obligation to do it and leaving it up to the people is wrong. Dir. Bergsma added that those people have nothing to say about it. It is our responsibility to take care of this facility.
After the Board talked about making a motion for a Annual Meeting membership vote, Dir. Bergsma appearing upset said I bought my property based on the fact that I would have access to these canals and now I don’t because these canals are not being taken care of. Whether you like it or not, you are going to get legal action from this meeting. When you say we need to put it off to the membership you are really saying is we don’t have the guts to make a decision. He again said the membership has nothing to do with it. Motion was made to present this to the membership to vote for full dredging of canals at our Annual Meeting. All but Dir. Bergsma approved. Dir. Bergsma concluded with saying that we failed in our responsibility and should fully expect a lawsuit from our members.
Rental Agreement-Treas. Steffensen said as a result of owners excessively blocking and unblocking their property while in a rental contract, we have the right to limit that number and charge for exceeding it. Motion approved to charge $35 for each change after (1 for a 3 mo. contract) (2 for a 6 mo. contract) (3 for 9 mo. contract) (4 for a 1 yr. contract).
New Business
Boat Lift- Dir. Gagan brought up that the dock placement rules doesn’t state the distant between the concrete pilings and want it the rules to read up to two feet. His second issue is to have flotation and reflector markers on boat lift arms. He wants the codes to read that lifts don’t exceed 21 ft. or one third of the canal width for narrow areas. This will be tabled for the new building rule committee.
Board of Directors Absentee Policy-Since Dir. Guerra was absent this was not discussed.
Second Reading of Policy Changes- VP Pelletier was also absent.
Adjourned
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I voted for T. Bergsma. My bad.
I never dreamed he would act like a petulant child when things don't go his way. His threat of a lawsuit is especially repulsive.
I'm confused. Why would the resort be any more responsible for maintaining canal H (which is not resort property) for boat traffic than it would be responsible for maintaining Garcia St. north of the swing bridge (which is not resort property) for automobile traffic?
The principle of adverse possession in Texas - the resort has used and maintained Canal H as its own for what, 20-30 years without challenge? Canal H is now LIV property.
If the Dr. Bergsma doesn't think he should have to pay for dredging around his own dock, then how can he expect we, who don't have a boat or canal on our property, should have to pay for any of the dredging?
I am also confused. "Canal H" isn't a canal at all. It never has been. It is not our property. So, why, Mr. Bergsma, were you under the impression when you purchased your lot that it was??? Your property ends at the sea wall. So does Long Island Village. Fact is, that this whole dredging thing is based on YOUR desire to have Canal H dredged out so it will become another Long Island Village canal for your access. Get over it, Tom. Your purchase of your property and the idea of the "use of canal H" was in error. And, by the way, why don't YOU MOVE OUT?!
Director Tom Bergsma acted like a fool at the meeting.
The board put him and his pipe dream in it's place.
Sorry Tom but when you make remarks such as the owners should'nt vote on a 1,000,000.00 expense and that you were elected to make that decision you are dead wrong.
Tom you have an agenda and we know it now and will vote you out!!!
ps: I voted for you last time but go away.
RE: The principle of adverse possession in Texas
I think the Cowen Group who is currently has a lawsuit with us might have something to say about that. It is their canal and I'm sure that they would love our Park try to use that tactic.
re It is their canal and I'm sure that they would love our Park try to use that tactic.
So, why shouldn't LIV assert their claim for that property which they've used, and maintained (dredging etc), for the past 20-30 years, without a single challenge from any others?
And, how are you so certain that it's not already within LIV's property line?
RE:And, how are you so certain that it's not already within LIV's property line?
Everyone's favorite person Pat Burke said that the canal was Cowen's property. As far as 20-30 years without a challenge, they just bought this property and has not allowed us diddlysquat.
There is no legal claim against them.As a matter of fact the Park should have bought it when they had the chance. We have also a good chance to lose this lawsuit with them. They may just double the traffic past our newly moved sign.
There is a very detailed map showing the precise boundaries of LIV. It was done within the last 10 years. It is in the possession of the bridge board.
Essentially, LIV property ends at the seawall all around the outside perimeter of the village: canal H, the Intercoastal, the lake south of Sand Dollar, etc.
re: there is a very
I assume what you are saying is that P B,s opinion and advise was and is correct that we do not own or have any jurisdiction concerning that canal?
re:I assume
No, I don't recall PB ever giving an opinion or advise about not owning those canals. She just flat out said it.
re: No
So what's your point?
re: so
I'll explain it so even you'll understand.
There is a map.
PB didn't advise where the canals were.
PN didn't give an opinion of where the canals were.
She, as President, CEO, and top hat of the Board TOLD you and every other uninformed person that our Association didn't own Canal H.
My point now clear enough?
re: there is a map
point is still off base
she had the map at the head table along with the other officers on the board all you had to do was ask to see it. got it yet??
Post a Comment