Our Village

The Star Spangled Banner was played at the beginning of the meeting in lieu of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. It was explained as honoring the veterans. Rules have changed for owners who speak out about agenda items when the owner who didn’t sign up to speak from lot 155 was allowed to speak even though the subject was a non- agenda item. Technically one could define it as “other”, but that’s a stretch when it’s a gripe about the board having too many closed “executive meetings”, some not about legal or personnel issues. Of course the Board did not agree with the gripe which then made for a back and forth conversation that took up to a good thirty minutes. Director Vasquez gave his assurances this was not so and Director McBride added that any Board action towards an executive issue has to be done in front of owners at a regular meeting. To be fair I believe the point lot 155 was trying to make is that in many instances owners have little knowledge as to what decisions are being made about legal matters within the executive meetings.
During “Manager’s Remarks” there was a motion approved to spend $2200.00 towards our restaurant’s ceiling. We heard so far this month condo fees were $67,775 in arrears, $37762 higher than the previous month. Director Vasquez asked the GM to start including in his remarks new home construction updates.
Charles Ortiz, district engineer for the Laguna Madre Water District, gave an update on the new program of non-potable water (pink water) for our golf course and found it will be about two years before it can be completed. Because LMWD’s preliminary contract request only states 48 cents per 1000 gallons will be charged the first three years, increasing to 57 cents the second three, and 66 cents for the third three, Director Steffensen asked Ortiz to put in writing what is going to happen to the water rate after the ninth year of the contract. He agreed to do so.
During the Minutes approval, Director Gunderson indicated a problem about recording what is being said and politely asked that everyone use the microphones and speak clearly. Director Vasquez blamed the recorder. Minutes were approved after Director McBride corrections. Director Gunderson also stated that it would help immensely if the Minutes were available prior to the Workshop so corrections could be done then. Director Vasquez who replaced Director Gunderson as Secretary appeared upset, claiming Director Gunderson never gave him instructions at doing it that way until today. Director Gunderson calmly said that doing it that way was in the folder given to you when you first started. That seemed to upset Director Vasquez even more who fired back saying Director Gunderson never gave him these instructions, then claimed she was nitpicker of the Minutes. Director Gunderson calmly replied that it was in the folder but more importantly my corrections to the Minutes was never intended to be” nitpicking” but instead to reflect accurate accounting as to what transpires in a meeting.
Director Steffensen said the Village was able to complete most of the major improvement projects this year and went on to mention the infrastructure account balance was $159,270. We heard confusion about rules to whether one could remove soil from LIV. The Board wishes to increase building permits to cover the increased construction dump volume and will be addressed in the upcoming building code revision meeting.
Activities are as follows, Nov. 28 Thanksgiving pot luck feast, Dec. 2 golf cart parade with chili dump afterward, Dec.7 trash and treasure, Dec.13 employee Christmas party, Dec. 15 Christmas choir, Dec 18 judging on who has the best lighted lot, and Dec. 31 the New Year’s Eve party.
It was said swim ban revenues are going to be used to improve the gazebo’s serving counter, the straightening of the fence pillars and light fixtures above. The outdoor pool needs drain work in order to be regulation compliant.
None of the replacement board candidates were at the meeting so it looks like December’s meeting will determine who’s appointed. Next month there should be a motion to buy a new computer register for the restaurant and pictures of the remodeled restaurant will be taken to put on LIV’s website. Most of the exercise equipment repairs have been done.
Director Vasquez wanted any volunteers for the election committee to report to him. Director Vasquez led a motion that was approved if the expenditure is reasonable for security golf carts to have LIV labels.
New American flags have been purchased. As a way to increase LIV revenues Director Steffensen brought up the idea to farm out the rental’s cleaning personnel to owners who wish to have cleaning services.
Read more...

The attendance at the meeting was surprisingly low and had little to say about the Cowen lawsuit. After the Pledge of Allegiance we heard Vice President Pelletier give his synopsis of Saturday’s lawsuit meeting. He emphasized the meeting was not to push any one attorney down the owner’s throats but to better inform owners of the three attorneys who were available. 
Lot 638 owner got up and expressed to the audience not to panic and each director one by one regurgitated the same.
The lone suggestion in the suggestion box came from Lot 427 who wants action towards owners who don’t obey stop signs.
Lot 768 added saying the Village’s non enforcement of running these stop signs might come back to bite us.
Lot 617 asked permission review LIV’s insurance contract to see if there might be any legal jargon about coverage on owners pertaining to this Cowen lawsuit. VP Pelletier said to put that in writing and submit it.
Lot 627 thanked the board for Saturday’s meeting and asked if LIV’s lawyer implied at Saturday’s meeting free gratis consultation? VP Pelletier laughingly said no and added this lawyer was uninvited.
Lot 712 asked then why was this attorney allowed to even attend the meeting and VP Pelletier stated that it was out of courtesy.
Lot 638 asked why the Association is spending money remodeling a restaurant that keeps losing money each year and VP Pelletier’s answer, to keep it upgraded in the hopes that people will use it more. We later heard the Grill will have a reduced menu and a new register system is still being reviewed, both in hopes towards saving money.
Lot 288 was pleasingly surprised on how happy and excited the new restaurant manager was. 
Lot 617 talked about Judy Voss’s memorial service.
Security supervisor Lopez told the board she just received the info they requested for a new system that integrates office/security visitor information.
VP Pelletier poked distasteful fun towards some old owner about his driving skills and others laughed and piled on. It should be noted that this poor guy is in the process of selling and moving to a homecare facility.
SC 42 said there are still vehicles dangerously sticking out into the street when parked. Lot 228 asked for the update on this forever ongoing illegal curb issue and VP Pelletier said the survey was taken followed by a letter being sent out giving the owner who put in the curb a number of days to remove it.
An owner lot not stated wanted an update on the Laguna Madre Water District’s “pink water “for LIV’s golf course. Director Ramirez who’s been on top of this said the board is waiting for the acceptance of conditions and or any optional proposals, plus LMWD is receiving contractor bids for getting the water to us. Director Ramirez added it’s going forward very quickly and should save our Park near sixty percent in golf course water expense.
Lot 53 announced that any owner who wishes to sing Christmas carols sign up because practice starts soon.
Lot 617 reminded everyone about the employee Christmas donations.
Read more...

By now most Villagers find themselves in a position of fending for themselves on attorney fees over this Cowen lawsuit. Many still wonder how could this happen to me when I was not involved with the decision making.
LIVOA’s insurance attorney said during Saturday’s meeting that board members get free representation and Bylaw Article XII backs that up with saying the Corporation shall indemnify every Director against all loss, cost and expenses incurred in connection with any action, suit or proceeding to which said Director may be a party.
Does it seem right that directors involved going back to 2008 may be financially immune to this lawsuit while the rest of the membership who had no say in the issue are left paying an unknown amount to defend themselves?
At Saturday’s meeting the insurance lawyer said the primary reason innocent Villagers are being targeted is due to them holding a 1024th common element interest in Sea Shell Blvd. along with having to vote for or against Cowen’s use of this common element. 
How true is that?
While it’s true Article II of the Declaration does say members have this 1024th interest, it’s also true that Article II doesn’t say a member has the input as to the usage of those interests.
Bylaw Article IV, Section 10, subsection D does make it very clear the Board has that power over common element usage. It describes the directors as having the power to make and amend regulations respecting the operation and "USE" of the Common Elements. To me that means the Board has the power and not the members to decide Cowen usage of Sea Shell Blvd.
In Saturday’s meeting the Insurance lawyer also added that three fourths of the membership has to vote on amending our declaration towards the “Cowen’s usage” of Sea Shell Blvd. due to it being a material alteration, but didn't the board president previously state it’s due to being a substantial addition. Which is it? It’s neither and saying so is just plain balderdash?
Ratification of substantial additions and material alterations to common elements are found in Article X of our Declaration and in Article XII of our Bylaws. This is what both these guys are talking about and neither address the number of people who shall have access to our Park’s common elements like restrooms, pools, golf course, restaurant, tennis court, or roadways. What does address this deed are policy rules passed by the board.
Article X and Article VII in essence speaks toward substantial (material) additions and or (material) alterations to our common grounds and here's an example. If the board approves the substantial addition to expand Sea Shell Blvd. into four lanes, it needs to be voted on (ratified) by three fourths of the members who are present at a called ratification meeting. However any rules on the usage of these four lanes such as speed limits, stop signs, size/weight of vehicles, and or the number of people who may be allowed to drive on it is decided by the board through policy. Usage of Sea Shell Blvd. is a board policy issue.
To me it is clearly unfair that Villagers have to bear this possible unknown legal burden while board members who are making the decisions get off scot-free. It's only right that board members pass a motion covering a member automatically by the LIVOA’s insurance attorney if individually sued by Cowen. By doing so this should also create the ownership solidarity the board feels is necessary to defeat Cowen's lawsuit.
  
TIBIT EXTRA
Is the insurance attorney and the board's interpretation about ratification correct? The way I read it, ratification doesn’t need the approval by three fourths of the total membership. Ratification for substantial additions or material alterations need only the majority of three fourths of the members who are "PRESENT" at a called ratification meeting. Article X of the Declaration and Article VII of the bylaws stand alone using the phrase “three fourths of the total members "PRESENT" at a called meeting” while voting for amending the Declaration and or any Bylaw uses the phrase “three fourths of the "TOTAL" membership”.
Opinion?
 


Read more...