Our Village

Wednesday’s Coffee Meeting was pretty interesting. This is the first of a three part short article series about that meeting called “THE GOOD, THE BAD, and THE UGLY”.

PART ONE, “THE GOOD”

Treasurer Steffensen said there would be no increase in condominium fees for 2015. This was due to an exceptional effort by Treasurer Steffensen and the owners on the Finance Committee.
The particulars on how this was achieved will be explained at tomorrow’s December 12, 2014 Special Meeting.

This forum will be a Board workshop on the Finance Committee’s 2015 recommendations and will have limited owner participation so I would recommend that owners should attend this and bring their ideas on how we as a village can improve revenues and reduce costs.

It was said a new long term 5 year plan will also be introduced. There will be a follow-up on tomorrow’s meeting that will be added to this article and the BAD and UGLY articles will follow individually next week.

PART 2 "THE GOOD"
Supposedly starting December 15^th owners were able to use credit cards towards their condo fees at a 3% convenience fee.   In December’s Meeting we had for the first time the Executive Meeting disclosed each personnel item and contract issue to be discussed prior to its session as required by the Condominium Act Section 82, but it is not clear if Minutes were taken.

"THE BAD"

All but three on the Board approved pay raises to each and every hourly and salary Aramark employee while the thinking on the Swing Bridge employee’s pay increase seems to be the opposite.

"AND THE UGLY"

It appears there’s been seven times an owner has asked the Board for action at removing a supposedly dangerous wall structure that was built without a building permit. He described several hazardous events because this structure is at the road’s edge, including his own wife’s personal injury. The President’s excuse was the attorney has unsuccessfully been able to deliver a letter to that owner. The President also said the Board would bring the issue up at a Workshop that followed this Coffee meeting. That didn’t happen.

Only after the Board was asked to review the Executive Minutes for the verification that they didn't violate certain Executive Meeting protocols did we learn that LIV’s attorney supposedly advise our Board President not to record or keep Executive Minutes. This would seem to be in direct conflict with Article V, Section 7 of the Bylaws and increase the view of some that these Executive Sessions are nothing more than secret and unlawful meetings.

Comments


Read more...

The Minutes show from 2001 to present-day that owners of Long Island Village have coughed-up over 38 million hard earned dollars to operate and maintain their Park. Most of this money was contributed through condominium fees. In the year 2000 Villagers were contributing $1.8 million whereas today they find giving $3.1 million in condominium fee contributions are now not enough. Yes, even after five annual condo fee increases of $307,200 in 2001, $184,320 in 2004, $245,760 in 2007, $245,760 in 2010, and $245,760 in 2012, Villagers hear a sixth $245,760 increase is now on the table because their unprecedented $3.1 million is not enough cash to pay the 2015 bills.
At a testy November Meeting, Treasurer Steffensen outlined this 2015 monetary problem with the recommendation a condo fee increase is the fix. The Treasurer cited three spending categories as the specific causes for these financial woes and those will be appraised individually with appropriate pushback on anything ambiguous or outright incorrect?
Major Improvement Fund is one spending category that was purportedly “trimmed to the max” but still saddled with a $127,950 repair list. The list includes upgrading three water meters (cost $42,000), two lift station repair completions (cost $26,000), repair Activity Center roof (cost $50,000), repair pro shop roof leaks, patch canal H sea wall cap, and complete letter lots drainage ditch (cost $9,950?).
Pushback When focusing on the MIF by itself, we see every year our Board painfully prioritizes and schedules improvements like those mentioned above and every year our condo fees provide the MIF somewhere around $13,000 a month ($156,000+ annually).
So is it wrong to say the Major Improvement Fund will be doing just fine in 2015 so long as the repair needs don’t exceed $150,000? 
As to this MIF repair list, does anyone other than Director Waller think $42,000 is a high figure for three water meters?
How can the Board seriously use a $50,000 roof repair guesstimate? Don’t owners deserve valid figures from several roof contractor bids, especially when figures like these are being used to help validate a condo fee increase and the fact that the Minutes show this Activity Center roof was part of a repaired/replaced expenditure just six short years ago thanks to Hurricane Dolly?
Infrastructure Fund, the second spending category supposedly stricken by what was described as a “chunk of repairs” costing $148,000.
Pushback This is nebulous at best. No list, just a chunk of whatever? It can’t be the Welcome Center parking lot, road patching, Activity Center east windows, or lift stations #1and #4 because they’ve all been completed and paid for.
These chunks can’t be the non-priority or cancelled items like the pool area solar panels, (3) street lights, or the letter lot fence?
We see owners are currently being assessed for the swing bridge repair, no chunks there. Owners were told the Infrastructure Fund has $44,000 more than it needs to pay for the Rec. Hall parking lot, so no chunks here either. Owners were told they would be assessed for the dredging and the infrastructure fund would help where it could? Chunk-less!!!!
Yes we do have a new fire hydrant plumbing problem, but that shouldn’t have hit the chunk list yet because nobody has a clue to its exact cost.
So what are these “chunks of repairs”? There’s a definite need for clarity here.
“More or Less Fixed Increases” amounting to $138,345 is the last category. This seems to involve areas of the 2015 payroll and operating expenses. Included are the swing bridge (4%-$21,505 wage increase, no reason given), cable (5%-$8,259.88 annual contract max increase), legal fees (Doubled-$25,000, appeals, attorney failures), flood insurance (25%-$6,378.75, FEMA allowed premium increases), common area insurance (15%-$17,403.68, wind and liability increases), security (9.2%-$20,030.40, Obamacare), Aramark salary and wages (2.5%-$24,776.13, it’s that time), and Aramark management fee/other (2.3%-$20,094.00 per quarter, LIV increased revenues).
Pushback Though this category may be where our true woes exist, when does a “margin of revenue” solely justify giving Aramark $80,376 more in management fees per year? What really does this margin of revenue increase even mean? Is it that Aramark will have to print larger amounts on their checks to pay the Village’s bills?
This Board needs to answer the question Director Waller recently asked, what is Aramark giving LIV for management fees costing $184,000 a year? 
This 2.5% employee wage hike is in dire need of some solid explanations also, because saying “it’s just that time” to me is unacceptable. We see our employees working less due to the fewer days the restaurant is open, eliminating them from bartending at special events, and the weekly chicken nights have now becoming every other week.
Is there a good reason why we should ignore why virtually every business in the private sector has frozen or cut their employee wages and hours since 2009? When was the last comparison involving LIV’s manager salaries and LIV’s hourly workers to their Valley counterparts? 
When was the last time we’ve had real in-depth review where management could cut hours, wages, or positions? After all, in 1996 Aramark found no problem with cutting six employees to cover their $72,000 management fee so as to get a foothold in LIV.
Speaking of Aramark, when was the last time our Board seriously explored a life without them? Entertaining two quotes from supposed Aramark competitors in 2010 was ludicrous because most owners knew the majority on the board had already decided to keep Aramark. 
The Board seriously needs to immediately cut this 2015 financial increase by half with not accepting these management fee and wage increases. Then work on the insurance agent to provide intelligent alternatives to minimizes this $24,000 insurance increase which then might make the 2015 problems become somewhat manageable or at the very least, sensible.
Our Board needs to approach this thing more as a spending problem instead of a revenue problem. In the last 14 years owners have spent $11.5 million more from five revenue increases, isn’t time to look at a spending decrease?
Comment
Read more...

At our last Regular Meeting we had Directors Gunderson, Pelletier, and Steffensen vote “YES” on a motion to correct the misuse of Executive Meetings. While the motion was in discussion, President Guerra freely admitted that there were inappropriate discussions during Executive Sessions and yet he voted “NO” with Directors Smetter, Vasquez, and Waller on rules that would correct this misuse. One Director even said if this passed it would tie our hands.
Using the Regular Meeting Minutes I did some research that owners might find interesting. In an eight year summary from March 2002 thru April 2011, the Executive Meeting average was one out of every three Regular meetings. Then on May 30, 2011, the Texas State Legislature revised Property Codes of the Texas Uniform Condominium Act Chapter 82 which led to retroactively adding on January 1, 2012 thirteen new provisional laws to the Condominium Act Chapter 81.
Since our Declaration of Covenants states that Chapter 81 shall be in full force, one of the retroactive Provisions that improve owner rights is what I believe Directors Gunderson, Pelletier, and Steffensen wanted our Directors to now obey.
That Provision is 82.108 section “B” which states, “meetings of the association and board must be open to unit owners, subject to the right of the board to adjourn a meeting of the board and reconvene in closed executive session to consider actions involving personnel, pending litigation, contract negotiations, enforcement actions, matters involving the invasion of privacy of individual unit owners, or matters that are to remain confidential by request of the affected parties and agreement of the board. The general nature of any business to be considered in executive session must first be announced at the open meeting.”
Am I wrong to believe our Board has neglected the Provision’s entirety? For example, before retreating into Executive Session, does this Provision’s last sentence towards what’s being discussed just ask a board to disclose the general nature of business like pending litigation or the general nature of “any” business which would need to be each lawsuit that’s in pending litigation? To this day our Board has been doing the former. A second example, while a Board is in Executive Session, does this Provision state a board may discuss pending litigation or any subject that can remotely touch on a legal matter, past, present, or future? To this day our Board has been doing the latter.
One might also be surprised to learn there’s been an Executive Meeting in each and every Regular Meeting since May of 2011. Yes, each and every meeting, a 300% increase from the previous eight years. In addition, it’s odd that since February 2013, the Minutes have not recorded what the Board was to discuss in their Executive Sessions? Technically that means either these Minutes are incorrect or our Board is not complying with Statue 82.108 section “B”.
In September’s meeting we heard certain Directors argued for examples of what issues they may have discussed other than pending litigation and personnel. So let’s go there.
First off, are these directors wanting owners to believe that while they were in their last 18 Executive Sessions that totaled 1145 minutes, they only talked about three pending lawsuits or about someone who works here? Really! Especially when there’s been little happening in these lawsuits the last 18 months and no one seems to have been reprimanded or fired in personnel.
Secondly, do these directors wanting examples need any more proof than their own Board President freely admitting he let inappropriate discussions take place? What, did he somehow misspeak in the last meeting?
If more than this is needed, we have what was recorded in the Minutes on what the Directors described as discussion topics or the Motions they immediately passed after each Executive Session......
Absences, resignations and vacancies of Directors.....Ramona’s orientation.....Security expectations on issuing passes.....Sending of a Healthcare Letter to Aramark.....The employees use of amenities.....Changing the manager’s office.....Review of manger’s credit card usage.....Seeking of new legal services specializing in real estate and litigation capabilities.....Getting a second legal opinion concerning the contract with Mr. Freeland.....Adding of “LIV manage rental property only” to a motion regarding visitors viewing rental property.....The sending of letters to the owners of lots 671 and 384 requesting that they appear before the board.....Sending letters to an individual and to Aramark because certain procedures are not being followed.....The sending of a “request for qualifications” to law firms that handle real estate and litigations......The asking of attorney Garcia to set up a town hall meeting......To award $800 net to LIV’s business manager.
Want more? OK.
President Guerra announced a Management Contract Committee and a Management Evaluation Committee had been formed while in Executive Session.
Apparent discussions to hold a future dredging meeting with Freeland.
To hire a certified peace officer.
To reallocate $120,000 from the infrastructure fund towards the purchase of a new CD and secure $120,000 from the Edward Jones account in order purchase a new $100,000 CD and transfer $20,000 into LIV’s Operative Fund.
There’s a lot more but I feel the points been made.
Comments
Read more...

There seems to be a course correction on our swing bridge assessment. LIV board members not on the Bridge Board pushed and apparently received legal backing that the September 2ND Bridge Board’s motion to assess each of the 1024 LIV owners and 27 outside property owners $300 was not valid, so the Bridge Board on September 15th rescinded their motion. It is now pending further review.
Read more...

 


Read more...

During a special September 2nd meeting, the Bridge Board voted unanimously to accept the swing bridge foam bid from Brazos Urethane of Texas City at the cost of $387,317 plus tax, thus making the total $419,270.65. Prior to the vote there were these questions and statements. Director Vasquez asked if this would have an affect the on the bridge insurance and the Board President said he didn’t see how it could since it was an improvement.
Director Steffensen was in the audience and later asked since it appears an improvement, might it not be wise to inquire if may lower the bridge’s insurance costs and the response was we will find out.
Pat Burke asked if the added weight of the foam will affect either the performance or the level of the bridge. The Board's response was by adding 90,000 pounds of foam, the level of the barge will lower approximately 5 inches and the performance should be nil, but it might influence cable wear. Ms. Burke asked how long will the foam additions last and the response, "indefinitely".
The President said work is expected to start in January or February after the assessments are collected at the end of this year and while Brazos Urethane uses two weeks to fill each of the barge’s sixteen internal compartments, the bridge will not be closed. The worse that may happen is that one lane on the bridge might be closed.
It was asked how much a new bridge would cost and the best answers were  twenty-five years ago it was one million and nineteen years ago it was five million.
The Bridge Board voted unanimously to assess each Island owner $300 (total $315,300) and the remaining $103,970.65 will be paid out of the Bridge Board’s emergency fund. Prior to the vote there were these questions and statements.
It was disclosed that there were 1051 property owners on Long Island, twenty-seven of which who own property outside of LIV. Ms. Burke said that the Declaration and Bylaws state that all assessments are to be done using tax appraised values of the properties. To note after looking through the Declaration and the Bylaws I found tax appraised values are to be used towards voting power, but nothing pointed towards assessments.
Below are the sites of the contractor who will do the foam procedure.
http://brazosurethane.com/contact.html
http://www.brazosurethane.com/

Read more...

Let me make a few things very clear. One , there has been specific Executive Meetings rules being consistently ignored by our Board. Second, I am in no way saying that the Directors have knowingly seek to break these rules, but
documentation has shown that the Board has discussed various issues under the guise of legal matters while a Condominium Act Statute, a Texas law, clearly states that only pending litigations are allowed discussions.
The Board seems oblivious to the fact that
the same Condominium Act Statute demands they must announce the general nature of business of what they will be discussing within their Executive Session. These Executive Meetings procedures are found in the Declaration, the Bylaws, and in the Statues of the Texas Condominium Act. They are quite unambiguous.
So let's go right down the line. First off, LIV’s DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, ARTICLE XIII Section L states that the Condominium Act of the State of Texas shall be in full force and effect.
Second, Statue 82.108 Section (b) of the Condominium Act specifically explains the six categories that are allowed discussion within an Executive Meeting and I read that pending litigation as the lone legal category expressed. So, can someone make the argument that legal matters are to be found in the five other categories which are personnel, contract negotiations, enforcement actions, matters involving the invasion of privacy of individual unit owners, or matters that are to remain confidential by request of the affected parties? The answer is "yes", but this same Statute clearly demands that the general nature of business of all discussions within these allowable categories must first be announced in an open meeting. That means that if the category is a legal matter regarding contract negotiations, the owners have the legal right to know that the Board will be discussing within that Executive Meeting a category of contract negotiations and that the general nature of business is legal matters and this is not being done. Instead owners get what, legal matters (discussion and action), which basically keeps the category and the nature of business being discussed a secret.
It also seems that the Roberts Rules have added some confusion among some owners on procedure, so here’s a bit more clarity.
BYLAW ARTICLE XV (PARLIAMENTARY RULES) and I quote, “Roberts Rules of Order (latest edition) shall govern the conduct of the Association meetings “when not in conflict” with the Condominium Act, March 2005 Restated Declaration or these March 2005 Restated Bylaws”. 
I am an owner here and a member of this Association and agree with other owners that the Board of Directors should set the example at obeying the rules. If I am wrong on any of the above, please let me know and I will apologize, but back your feedback with verifiable facts.
Comments
.
Read more...

At July’s Regular Meeting I was the only one who signed up for the owners speaking on agenda items. I was allowed three minutes to read the following statement about the Board’s Executive Session.
To paraphrase, the Executive Meeting is again under the guise of Personnel and Legal issues. May I read a few questions and get a response? After being told you have three minutes, I continued.
First, are these legal issues addressing pending litigation? If not, wouldn’t they conflict with the state statute 82.108 of the Condominium Act?
Second, as I read this statute, it allows just six discussion categories during Executive Meetings and broad-based legal issues are not among them, only pending litigation. It also demands an announcement in open session of the general nature of business on the topics within each allowable category and I don’t see this happening?
Finally I wish to point out that although the Board is permitted to consider actions during an Executive Session, they’re not allowed to take action."
President Guerra's response was we’ll take that into "consideration.
At the end of the regular meeting the Board continued to do as they have done before. With apparent impunity they went into this scheduled Executive Meeting without disclosing to we the owners the general nature of business that was to be discussed.
Over an hour later they resumed the Regular meeting and announced that they had discussed two items under legal issues and passed motions on both. The first was to reallocate $120,000 from the infrastructure fund at IBC bank to purchase a CD at Lone Star bank in order to act as collateral for an Appeals Fund. The second  was to secure $120,000 from LIV’s investment in the Edward Jones account and deposit $100,000 of that at Lone Star bank to purchase a CD and transfer $20,000 into LIV’s Operative Fund. 
This seemed totally out of order and made me understand what kind of consideration this Board had towards me and the owners of LIV. The picture above will describe it.
Comments 
Read more...

Too bad this Island Breeze article didn’t pan out in 2008. That being said, last Monday’s Bridge Board Meeting was short, sweet, and very interesting. I have to tip my hat to those members on the Bridge Board for doing such a great job. They have for months been obtaining a plethora of accurate information for either replacing or repairing our dilapidated barge that’s essential to our bridge.
I think their best remedy has been to repair the structure for around half a million dollars. This is accomplished by doing minimal structural repairs while filling the barge with closed cell floatation foam.
It’s determined that this fix should last in the neighborhood of about thirty years or more, just about the same life expectancy of a replacement barge, but at about one fourth the costs. There’s also more upside with doing this because unlike a new barge, if a vessel hits a foam filled barge, it will not sink plus we won’t have to close the bridge to install the foam.
The Board is looking to see if there is any state or federal grants available that could save our Village money so these guys are really on the ball.
One might want to attend the August 18th meeting to hear the updates. Good job guys.
This site will give you some insight on foam applications.
http://www.sprayfoam.com/npps/story.cfm?nppage=1521

Read more...

We’ve been witnessing a record number of highly lengthy Executive Meetings in which by rule owners may not attend. Why so many? Consistently each month we have personnel and legal issues as the nature of business being discussed even though Statute 82.108 of the Condominium Act does not list one of these issues as being allowed a discussion. 
Items allowed discussion behind closed doors are personnel, pending litigation, contract negotiations, enforcement actions, matters involving the invasion of privacy of individual unit owners, or matters that is to remain confidential by request of the affected parties and agreement of the board.
I don’t read legal issues in that mix? Pending litigation yes, but this speaks of something specific and current while legal issues can be an array of subjects that’s not pending or litigation. Statute 82.108 of the Condominium Act also states that while in an open meeting prior to going into the Executive Meeting, the Board must give the general nature of any business to be considered. To me this means that each topic within a category and that is definitely not being done.
Is this just simple oversight or deliberate abuse? Who knows? We do know that each meeting in the last six months has lasted from forty-five minutes to two hours. The Board at different times tried to do business behind closed doors (i.e. decision that no owners were allowed to witness the Annual Meeting’s appointment of officers and a ruling that no owners were allowed to attend Workshop meetings).
So is it time to address this issue with our Board? “You betcha!”
Comments?


Read more...

Read more...

Read more...

An owner strolled up at the last Coffee Meeting, turn and ask the audience who knew the Association lost the lawsuit to Maurice O. Berry. The Directors looked surprised and apparently nobody knew. VP Pelletier put Ex-President Chapa on the spot to comment and he reluctantly said the jury decided in Berry’s favor but he didn’t want to get into details because there is still some rulings yet to be made by the Judge.
Here are some details I understand to be true. Few owners knew this was a two part lawsuit. Pat Burke in her capacity as Board Member was individually sued for Defamation and ten jury members on February 10th deemed her innocent. Our Association lost on February 10th to the same jury who concluded that our Association shall pay Mr. Berry for damages to his physical property, the decrease in his property values, and the loss of enjoying his property, his distress and his mental anguish to the tune of $147,000. It may be more after these last few details wrapped up.
The Activity Center parking lot will cost somewhere near a quarter of a million dollars.
At our Annual Meeting our GM was asked what the approximant dredging assessment would be. I’m not sure why Director Steffensen started waving her arms frantically but the GM didn’t see her and said the cost should be somewhere close to $1000.00 per owner. He also made it clear the intercostal area and Canal H which feeds to the back canals will not be dredged.
Owners should appreciate that whether its good news or bad news, our GM always gives us straight answers when asked, something we lacked from his predecessor. I don’t know what else will be involved with the upcoming assessment, but just the above makes it a tidy sum.
Read more...

This year the Owners were scratching their heads over the election process. A surprise that switched into concern was the  pick to have Reta Priest and Leroy Mulch as Election Committee co-chairs. In 2008 these two demonstrated just how far they were willing to circumvent the electorate by pushing their influence upon six directors they just happened to disagree with. They sued them, a Board majority, in order to squelch their power to legislate and it cost our Association thousands of dollars in the process. 
Owners were clearly amazed to learn they could no longer ask a Candidate a question in front of the “Meet the Candidates” audience. Owners were allowed to do this in the past or given the opportunity to submit a written question in order to vet a candidate on the subject that concerned the owner the most. Instead owners sit and labor through softball questions the Election Committee decided were in our best interests. 
Owners said no-way when hearing the Election Committee had to pay people for the first time to work the election. In the past acquiring volunteers never was a problem so owners should ask what on earth necessitated this and does this expenditure have to be approved by our Board in an open forum?
Owners were then stunned for not being informed that this Election Committee decided to forgo years of Annual Meeting protocol by no longer allowing owners the right to nominate a candidate from the floor or be given any opportunity to write in a candidate of their choice on the ballot. 
What seem to put the icing on this proverbial election cake was Secretary Vasquez demanding a closed meeting to hold the selection of Board officers. Once again this has never been done before but after pressure Secretary Vasquez eventually relented. Why the Village Attorney who was clearly foreign to the selection process had to then be involved in the selection was anybody’s guess.
Those Elected and Terms.
Dr. Wilma Jo Smetter (3 yrs.), Richard Ramirez (3 yrs.), Ken Waller (3 yrs.), and Robert Champion (1yr.). 
Our Directors and Positions.
Joe Guerra (President), Don Pelletier (Vice President), Raul Vasquez (Secretary), Robert Champion (Asst. Secretary), Mary Steffensen (Treasurer), Dr. Wilma Jo Smetter (Asst. Treasurer) Flora Gunderson (Dir.), Richard Ramirez (Dir.), Ken Waller (Dir.).
Read more...