A PLACE TO BE
Monday, July 9, 2012
Saturday, June 9, 2012
A TIDBIT
My apologies for offending anyone who feels blame has been laid upon Priest, DeMalade, and Burke. Casting blame was never the intent nor do I believe that was reflected in the two articles.
Giving opinions on Village issues are important including from these three, they are owners too, well maybe two, but I get it, everyone has the right to speak up and express themselves, but my pointing out the debasing manner in which this group of people systematically took it to a board member over an issue needed to be noted along with relevant history about the group leading up to such an event. In my mind any debasing manner, even if the Board member is guilty as hell, should not be tolerated in a Village of good hearted people.
Comments
Read more...
Giving opinions on Village issues are important including from these three, they are owners too, well maybe two, but I get it, everyone has the right to speak up and express themselves, but my pointing out the debasing manner in which this group of people systematically took it to a board member over an issue needed to be noted along with relevant history about the group leading up to such an event. In my mind any debasing manner, even if the Board member is guilty as hell, should not be tolerated in a Village of good hearted people.
Comments
Read more...
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Unblemished Hypocrisy
The Rental Office has been an issue as far back as May of 2000 when the Board debated on its existence.They ultimately decided to keep it operational as long as it didn’t cost the owners.
Six years later our Rental Office had a two year record of losing big money. A Rental Committee is formed. They concluded these losses were due to an ever increasing number of landlords violating the “exclusive rights” clause found in Article VII of the Declaration of Covenants. In trying to find a way to correct this, our Directors were surprised to find they could neither close the Rental Office because that would more than double the losses nor could they enforce the “exclusive rights” provision because of previous years of non-enforcement. So the 2006 Board threw up their hands and said “Oh well”.
Since 2004 owners have poured around $25K a year into this money pit and how many times during those eight years did owners hear from these people who showed up at the Wednesday McBride bash expressing such a concerned about the Rental Office finances? ZIP, ZERO, NADA!!! Why was that?
I agree on virtually every point Larry Schroeder delivered during the Coffee blitz. For example his opinion that no one should be vilified over a conflict of interest nor should McBride be made to step down. Add to this was his wish that the Board enforce the Declaration of Covenants and figure out a way to keep all conflicts of interest from happening which by the way a week later the Board did the latter with eliminating any possible circumstance that could cause a conflict of interest for McBride.
Since McBride’s ethics were brought up numerous times at and after that Wednesday slugfest, I have to ask where were these people having these sharpened ethic concerns during 2008, the year a director sued six other directors. Where was this moral outrage in December of 2010 when yet another director thought to sue our Village over dredging? Finally, what grade did these ethic crusaders give the director who helped support the obstruction of our 2011 Annual meeting?
It was clear to many that the COOL gang was not at the last Coffee because of ethics, rule violators, nor were they concerned about Rental Office’s financial failures. They were there for McBride and no matter how you slice it; the COOL’s axiomatic grandiloquence supports that conclusion.
Comments
Read more...
Six years later our Rental Office had a two year record of losing big money. A Rental Committee is formed. They concluded these losses were due to an ever increasing number of landlords violating the “exclusive rights” clause found in Article VII of the Declaration of Covenants. In trying to find a way to correct this, our Directors were surprised to find they could neither close the Rental Office because that would more than double the losses nor could they enforce the “exclusive rights” provision because of previous years of non-enforcement. So the 2006 Board threw up their hands and said “Oh well”.
Since 2004 owners have poured around $25K a year into this money pit and how many times during those eight years did owners hear from these people who showed up at the Wednesday McBride bash expressing such a concerned about the Rental Office finances? ZIP, ZERO, NADA!!! Why was that?
I agree on virtually every point Larry Schroeder delivered during the Coffee blitz. For example his opinion that no one should be vilified over a conflict of interest nor should McBride be made to step down. Add to this was his wish that the Board enforce the Declaration of Covenants and figure out a way to keep all conflicts of interest from happening which by the way a week later the Board did the latter with eliminating any possible circumstance that could cause a conflict of interest for McBride.
Since McBride’s ethics were brought up numerous times at and after that Wednesday slugfest, I have to ask where were these people having these sharpened ethic concerns during 2008, the year a director sued six other directors. Where was this moral outrage in December of 2010 when yet another director thought to sue our Village over dredging? Finally, what grade did these ethic crusaders give the director who helped support the obstruction of our 2011 Annual meeting?
It was clear to many that the COOL gang was not at the last Coffee because of ethics, rule violators, nor were they concerned about Rental Office’s financial failures. They were there for McBride and no matter how you slice it; the COOL’s axiomatic grandiloquence supports that conclusion.
Comments
Read more...
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
They’re Baaack!
Reta Priest, Pat Burke, and Catherine DeMalade have spewed COOL gang rhetoric as far back as 2008. They along their cronies supported a Reta Priest lawsuit that stopped Ed McBride and five other Directors from replacing Catherine DeMalade’s husband who at that time was GM. Apparent results from this lawsuit to Village owners, a lost of tens of thousands of dollars and years of acrimony, why, so Catherine DeMalade’s husband could abruptly retire months later.
At May’s Coffee the COOL gang seemed to once again take aim at Director McBride and orchestrated an unbelievable polemic show that started with a “Suggestion Box “comment that read there's a person (unnamed) in our Park illegally operating a rental business.
The next comment spoke on hearsay and wanted action against Director McBride. As if scripted the COOL seemed to sequentially vilified Director McBride and his wife with a great deal of innuendoes, half-truths, and hearsay.
Catherine DeMalade accused him of rental solicitation and providing his wife with LIV’s rental pool records. She demanded he immediately step down and counseled any on the Board who side with him to do the same.
Reta Priest must have forgot about her 2008 lawsuit when writing her comment accusing the McBride’s of putting a financial burden on the Village. She even found room to say our recent condo fee increases were the McBride’s fault.
Ms. Burke piped in some legal jargon.
After the onslaught subsided Director McBride said it was no secret when elected he was helping his wife with her rental business and considered this nothing more than a personal vendetta.
In response Catherine DeMalade told McBride that after your re-election my husband and I gave you a fresh start and have nothing personal against you. This drew laughs from the audience which seemed to upset DeMalade’s husband because he turned around and took issue with the person sitting next to me that was laughing.
One week later
We have learned that the Realtor who originally questioned the legitimacy of Mrs. McBride's business has contacted the officials who oversee such so we will know later how much water these concerns hold.
Our Board displayed at the May’s Regular meeting they were not captive by the gang’s methodology. President Chapa made it clear this McBride issue was not a board issue and as for a possible conflict of interest Director McBride will be kept from being involved with any conversation, committee, or vote pertaining to rental policy issues.
Comments?
Read more...
At May’s Coffee the COOL gang seemed to once again take aim at Director McBride and orchestrated an unbelievable polemic show that started with a “Suggestion Box “comment that read there's a person (unnamed) in our Park illegally operating a rental business.
The next comment spoke on hearsay and wanted action against Director McBride. As if scripted the COOL seemed to sequentially vilified Director McBride and his wife with a great deal of innuendoes, half-truths, and hearsay.
Catherine DeMalade accused him of rental solicitation and providing his wife with LIV’s rental pool records. She demanded he immediately step down and counseled any on the Board who side with him to do the same.
Reta Priest must have forgot about her 2008 lawsuit when writing her comment accusing the McBride’s of putting a financial burden on the Village. She even found room to say our recent condo fee increases were the McBride’s fault.
Ms. Burke piped in some legal jargon.
After the onslaught subsided Director McBride said it was no secret when elected he was helping his wife with her rental business and considered this nothing more than a personal vendetta.
In response Catherine DeMalade told McBride that after your re-election my husband and I gave you a fresh start and have nothing personal against you. This drew laughs from the audience which seemed to upset DeMalade’s husband because he turned around and took issue with the person sitting next to me that was laughing.
One week later
We have learned that the Realtor who originally questioned the legitimacy of Mrs. McBride's business has contacted the officials who oversee such so we will know later how much water these concerns hold.
Our Board displayed at the May’s Regular meeting they were not captive by the gang’s methodology. President Chapa made it clear this McBride issue was not a board issue and as for a possible conflict of interest Director McBride will be kept from being involved with any conversation, committee, or vote pertaining to rental policy issues.
Comments?
Read more...
Short Board Update for May
Our fire protection code at the Park is a 6 and not a 10.
Any owners who saw an increase in their homeowners insurance need to call and
see if that was the reason for an increase. Copies of this information will be
available at the Welcome Center.
Dredging is waiting on a site to dump the material. Original site was turned down and two new sites are pending.
Maintenance is waiting for the Board to approve one of
the three bids (around $14K) for two new A/C units for the Rec. Hall.
There will be a June 23rd fishing event.
New Pro Shop hours Sat. and Sunday 8-5, Thurs. 3-7
Last year’s sun shades will be used this year.
Swing Bridge bought a new fork lift.
New website bids are coming.
New wireless providers will be researched.
Will begin measures to simplify the Minutes
There was a lot of Rental Office suggestions discussed.
Read more...
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
April 25th Board Meeting
Owners Speaking
Lot #145 gave some cost saving tips and reminded everyone that this year’s budget has close to $200,000 in revenue center losses.
SC 101 gave her reasons why with keeping things as they are instead of moving finances in-house will serve our Village the best.
Manager Report (Horner) recorded 78 work orders, currently replacing the Rec. Hall A/C, a $211 condo fee delinquency difference, number five water retaining wall almost completed, and the indoor pool is now operating under a saline disinfecting system.
Minutes (month?) were approved.
March Revenue Centers
Golf (loser) $4474 Grill (loser) $23,364, Rental Office (loser) $7432, Laundry $1167 winner, Newsletter $1303 winner.
Committee Reports
Golf (Sandberg) said maintenance is finishing the retaining walls on holes 3, 4, and 5.
Pool (Gunderson) mentioned the Village needs an evening pool monitor but can’t afford it.
Finance Committee (Sandberg) was told by Director Guerra to bring all info to the table in order to let the owners information found by the committee.
Building Committee (Kelmis) asked for volunteers and talked about possible future phasing out of Park Models.
Bridge Board Report (Chapa) had no progress in current lawsuit and discussed buying or renting a generator.
Unfinished Business
(Kelmis) motion approved starting watering ban June 1st that authorizes only Tues. and Sat for car and property washings.
(Chapa) Motion passed to reschedule the auction on foreclosed lots 7, 125, and hopefully 706 to May 19th at 10am.
(Horner) said from now on there will be a manager working in the Village seven days a week.
Break in the Meeting
New Business
(McBride) said a new safety bulletin board will soon be installed.
(McBride) clarified poolside’s grill hours will be 12-8 Sat-Sun. (holidays) will add a Monday.
Liquor Law Questions (Sandberg) after being quizzical as to why Aramark holds the liquor license she received negative responses from directors including our President. Sandberg questioned past excuses that Aramark insurance coverage is necessary then questioned current Aramark liquor revenue reimbursements. (Guerra) wanted to table this until Sandberg could bring in our attorney, our auditor, and a representative from TABC to validate her claims in front of the owners. (Chapa) said this is making a mountain out of a molehill and maintained keeping with the status quo. (Sandberg) stood her ground and implied that LIV’s pecking order seems to have changed because instead of an elected Board dictating to Aramark what course of action to take, Aramark seems to be telling the Board. After some debate, (Chapa) gave his opinion as to why the liquor license should stay in Aramark’s name and felt this should be put to rest. (Sandberg) said she was voted into office to look after LIV’s finances and will agree to bring in the people you requested to validate my assertions, but just because you want to put this to bed doesn’t mean it will go to bed. It seemed odd that those who approved a responding motion leaving the liquor license in Aramark’s name turned right around and said it needed further investigation.
Rental Gross Revenue Losses (Chapa) said our Village in 2010 collected ($72,435) less gross rental revenues and ($8315) less in 2011.(Chapa) blamed these reductions as reasons why condo fees had to be increased. One should point out there was an Insurance check (Hurricane Dolly) in the amount of $38,712 added to the 2009 rental revenues and the 2010 Board budgeted a $31,836 rental loss that ended up being a little over $35,000. (Chapa) also said the rental contract language is losing rental business and wanted the Board to consider a revised contract that a sixth grader can understand. Board Credit Card/Cell Phone Usage (Sandberg) questioned company credit card purchases from an employee on disability leave. (Chapa) explained his thoughts of no wrong doing and Guerra wanted this person in question to be present in order to defend himself.
Outsourcing of Lawn Service (Sandberg) for the purpose of seeing what savings if any there may be to present to the Board for discussion she was in the process of getting a few lawn care bids. (Guerra) immediately asked if she had acquired Board approval to obtain these bids and pointed out procedural transparency. (Sandberg) explained of her effort to notify members about this by email and agreed to the need for transparency which brings her to ask why she was denied Aramark financial information by Chapa and Polo. She received no answer but (Gagan) said he was for getting these lawn care bids while (Guerra) insisted the Board approve getting these bids. Moving Finances In-house (Sandberg) went nowhere.
Other (Sandberg) the Board needs to decide what updates are needed for LIV’s website.
Which irrelevant Board question wins this month’s award? Director Guerra asking where three guys in a golf cart were going with a cooler or if a pile of dirt could be made to look better.
Comments?
Read more...
Lot #145 gave some cost saving tips and reminded everyone that this year’s budget has close to $200,000 in revenue center losses.
SC 101 gave her reasons why with keeping things as they are instead of moving finances in-house will serve our Village the best.
Manager Report (Horner) recorded 78 work orders, currently replacing the Rec. Hall A/C, a $211 condo fee delinquency difference, number five water retaining wall almost completed, and the indoor pool is now operating under a saline disinfecting system.
Minutes (month?) were approved.
March Revenue Centers
Golf (loser) $4474 Grill (loser) $23,364, Rental Office (loser) $7432, Laundry $1167 winner, Newsletter $1303 winner.
Committee Reports
Golf (Sandberg) said maintenance is finishing the retaining walls on holes 3, 4, and 5.
Pool (Gunderson) mentioned the Village needs an evening pool monitor but can’t afford it.
Finance Committee (Sandberg) was told by Director Guerra to bring all info to the table in order to let the owners information found by the committee.
Building Committee (Kelmis) asked for volunteers and talked about possible future phasing out of Park Models.
Bridge Board Report (Chapa) had no progress in current lawsuit and discussed buying or renting a generator.
Unfinished Business
(Kelmis) motion approved starting watering ban June 1st that authorizes only Tues. and Sat for car and property washings.
(Chapa) Motion passed to reschedule the auction on foreclosed lots 7, 125, and hopefully 706 to May 19th at 10am.
(Horner) said from now on there will be a manager working in the Village seven days a week.
Break in the Meeting
New Business
(McBride) said a new safety bulletin board will soon be installed.
(McBride) clarified poolside’s grill hours will be 12-8 Sat-Sun. (holidays) will add a Monday.
Liquor Law Questions (Sandberg) after being quizzical as to why Aramark holds the liquor license she received negative responses from directors including our President. Sandberg questioned past excuses that Aramark insurance coverage is necessary then questioned current Aramark liquor revenue reimbursements. (Guerra) wanted to table this until Sandberg could bring in our attorney, our auditor, and a representative from TABC to validate her claims in front of the owners. (Chapa) said this is making a mountain out of a molehill and maintained keeping with the status quo. (Sandberg) stood her ground and implied that LIV’s pecking order seems to have changed because instead of an elected Board dictating to Aramark what course of action to take, Aramark seems to be telling the Board. After some debate, (Chapa) gave his opinion as to why the liquor license should stay in Aramark’s name and felt this should be put to rest. (Sandberg) said she was voted into office to look after LIV’s finances and will agree to bring in the people you requested to validate my assertions, but just because you want to put this to bed doesn’t mean it will go to bed. It seemed odd that those who approved a responding motion leaving the liquor license in Aramark’s name turned right around and said it needed further investigation.
Rental Gross Revenue Losses (Chapa) said our Village in 2010 collected ($72,435) less gross rental revenues and ($8315) less in 2011.(Chapa) blamed these reductions as reasons why condo fees had to be increased. One should point out there was an Insurance check (Hurricane Dolly) in the amount of $38,712 added to the 2009 rental revenues and the 2010 Board budgeted a $31,836 rental loss that ended up being a little over $35,000. (Chapa) also said the rental contract language is losing rental business and wanted the Board to consider a revised contract that a sixth grader can understand. Board Credit Card/Cell Phone Usage (Sandberg) questioned company credit card purchases from an employee on disability leave. (Chapa) explained his thoughts of no wrong doing and Guerra wanted this person in question to be present in order to defend himself.
Outsourcing of Lawn Service (Sandberg) for the purpose of seeing what savings if any there may be to present to the Board for discussion she was in the process of getting a few lawn care bids. (Guerra) immediately asked if she had acquired Board approval to obtain these bids and pointed out procedural transparency. (Sandberg) explained of her effort to notify members about this by email and agreed to the need for transparency which brings her to ask why she was denied Aramark financial information by Chapa and Polo. She received no answer but (Gagan) said he was for getting these lawn care bids while (Guerra) insisted the Board approve getting these bids. Moving Finances In-house (Sandberg) went nowhere.
Other (Sandberg) the Board needs to decide what updates are needed for LIV’s website.
Which irrelevant Board question wins this month’s award? Director Guerra asking where three guys in a golf cart were going with a cooler or if a pile of dirt could be made to look better.
Comments?
Read more...
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
MARCH 28, 2012 BOARD MEETING
After the Pledge of Allegiance, Lot 145 owner said that
TABC is incorrectly being described as the reason why our Board prohibits
owners from bringing in their own alcohol during events.
We were told most of the recently laid sod was paid for
by the Golf Committee. Management has started an inventory list on items valued
at over $25.
There has been a location finally agreed upon on where to
put dredging spoils and are waiting for a letter of confirmation from Mr.
Freeland.
The Profit Centers showed in the first two months of this
year the restaurant ($13,345 loser), golf course ($15 big winner), rentals
($3995 loser), laundry ($1,291 winner), and the newsletter ($712 winner).
The Minutes were approved but it was not stated as to
which month.
VP White said D.E. will purchase additional card and
round tables for the Rec. Hall along with new curtains for the restaurant.
Treasurer Sandberg said the Golf Committee will have the rest of the water area
retaining walls completed soon.
Bridge Board Annual meeting will be held April 7th.
The Board unanimously elected owner Steve Fowler to the Bridge Board.
With Berry Pools contract being up April fool’s day, the
Board passed a motion to change all pools and spas to a saline system.
The Board cut short debating on paying for outside
sources to monthly update LIV’s website rental info when it was learned the
rental office had only five units currently rented.
The 2012 Budget was approved along with implementing
measures to assure the 2013 budget will be ready by January 2013.
The condo fee increase of $20 a month will begin on July
1st.
Motion passed to have LIV auditors do quarterly
assessments.
Motion passed to purchase the bank note for foreclosed
Lot 706.
Motion passed to prioritize the dredging of Canal “A”
five feet six inches deep and to award the plaintiff that sued our Village over
dredging, up to ten grand in attorney fees.
Motion was passed to provide the same schedule as
provided last year for additional security between Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Motion passed to approve the 2012 schedule and have no
meetings in August.
Treasurer Sandberg wants to change the use management’s
use of company credit cards, revise cell phone use, and get rid of
non-essential computer usage. She also feels the GM should provide the Board management
goals.
VP White told the Board the renewal of the music contract
fee needs to be reviewed.
The water restrictions introduced by Director Kelmis were
tabled.
One final note, at 10:30 the Board had a two hour long
executive meeting with LIV’s attorney over numerous subjects.
Comments?
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)