Thursday, May 22, 2008

COFFEE WITH THE DIRECTORS MAY 21st, 2008

There were many who thought this meeting was going to be some heated debate over the manager’s evaluation or this absurd petition. To their surprise neither came about. There were over twenty submissions in the suggestion box with a handful not read forwarded to the evaluation committee. I recall it was not the first time that a group of Village suggestions with similar context was not read at a coffee meeting. Approximately a year and a half ago, after reading one of over a dozen owner complaints concerning our management not maintaining our pool facilities, the then Vice President Pelletier past them on to Mr. Demalade.

I will give a brief narrative of the suggestion box comments that were read at this meeting.

Lot I. Gloria Fish asked why we have spent money to replace the pools facility’s seemingly undamaged blue shower wall tiles when this facility is in need of more important items. She also suggested installing handicap user friendly steps during the bottom repair of the outdoor pool.

Lot 558 asked how many signatures are required to sign a legal contract obligating our Village. Director Burke said one after a passed motion from the board.

Lot 597 said thanks to management for their great job on repairing her sprinklers and added the pool has too much chlorine.

Lot 229 the director read this was from Rita Priest. This comment says she doesn’t dare leave the park in fear of these directors. She wrote they were underhanded, can’t be trusted and not fair-minded.

Richard Kolu requested the golf course be named after Jim Peterson with a certificate of appreciation.

Lot 678, Bud Sherry asked about Director McBride having an illegal meeting with the Cowen Group at a bar/restaurant called the Icehouse. The board response was they (Director McBride and President Sullivan) met at the Icehouse location to pick up some paperwork from the Cowen Group. The Cowen Group office was located right across the street of this place and both board members thought this was a convenient way for all since the Icehouse was on the way back from a round of golf played in Brownsville. It was no meeting.

Some owners asked some general questions about the Cowen Group issue which is currently in its infancy.

Lot 339, Rick Cole made a comment about Time Warner Cable bid. This started an hour and twenty minute long discussion on what the bids were and what they contained. These are still not firm so I will not provide that info yet.

Lot 143 had a complaint about the cleanliness of the indoor pool. That person also wrote it could use a power wash.

Lot 251 made the comment people should go through the chain of command in solving their problems.

Lot 440 suggested all lots be numbered plus the indoor common ground facilities should be monitored for A/C temperature settings. An owner from the crowd responded to this comment by saying this week the arts and crafts room was freezing when she and others entered for their schedule activity.

Lot 249 said the board should read Jim Paul’s book about the history of our Village.

Lot 835 had a complaint. After following the building rules to the letter and being flat turned down when they asked for management’s permission to attach a stone like bottom trim to her unit, is now seeing numerous such trims being allowed and wants to know why. It is being addressed.


DIRECTOR’S WORKSHOP

There was a long discussion about set back rules for a south end sea cottage that wants to build a storage room on their lower deck. Director Mulch said this subject has been brought up four times previously and voted down each time. It was said to approve this would require a rule change instead of a variance.

There was a brief discussion on the managing of keys for the dock gate.

Director Dodson brought up the need to review our security situation. She mentioned many of the concerns which were covered in earlier articles dated 3/09/ 2008 and 4/09/2008 in this blog. Director Burke, whose instrumental insert in our LIV newsletter and helped solidify awarding Aramark our gatekeeper’s contract, repeatedly said our Village can’t break the security contract without a valid reason due to possible litigation. Director Burke and Director Dodson threw jabs back and forth on this issue. It woke everyone up.
Larry DeMalade jumped into this issue by saying the board came to him and asked him if he would manage security. As before he restated the only reason Aramark decline getting the security license was because the State of Texas was charging Aramark a $20,000 fee by being an out of State Corporation. He said Aramark was profiting only $6000 and it would not be practical for Aramark to pay an additional $20,000 and lose money. I raised my hand and asked Mr. DeMalade to clarify this $20,000 charge. Director Burke immediately spoke for him saying it was a franchise tax. I asked why this franchise tax, which past in 2006 and effective 2008, took Aramark over ten months later to realize its effect. I got no response. I then asked why this franchise tax that charges 1% on generated security revenues of $187,660 came up to be $20,000. I received no intelligible answer. I finally asked would not Aramark be charged this same franchise tax with or without a security license when receiving this $187,660 revenue for managing our gate keepers. I received still no lucid answer. Mr. DeMalade at last said in Aramark’s letter that he received there were actually two reasons for not obtaining this security license. One was this $20,000 charge. The second reason was the Aramark VIP in charge would not sign personally for the security license contract. Mr. DeMalade stated the liability risk to him for this $6000 profit was not worth it. Director Dodson said continued effort will be done towards this issue.

Discussion about the swing bridge fence was briefly discussed.

Mr. Pelletier talked about his drafting ideas for our three bathhouses that seem very practical on the surface. It seems to have put a lot of work into this. The board will review it further.

Director McBride discussed the servicing of our fire hydrants.

Director Peterson talked on the subject of modular homes that was tabled last month and received some intense opposition from a couple. It appears there is some fear of possible subsidized housing entering our park because these homes are wind rated by HUD. Director Dodson said she had research and found that if every owner is being charge a condominium fee that covers our amenities, such an owner would not qualify for that subsidy. He also brought up the need and cost of two used pieces of golf equipment for ground maintenance. Director Steffensen said these are not in the budget.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

so we can't break our security contract,another fine mess Larry and Burke got us into.as for Sherry and Priest they LOST for Gods sake ,Get Over It, Get a Life and let our NEW board get the work done that needs to be done

Anonymous said...

While Director Dodson and the BOD members are aware (or should be) of the rules from Texas Dept of Public Safety (TXDPS) Private Secuirty Bureau (form PSB-27 rev 10/06) many of you may not be. One of the most important requirements is that the person who manages/or is in charge of a LICENSED guard/security company must have TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS OF LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE EXPERIENCE in the quard company business. Neither our GM or Les(who was said to have been the manager of security) have this experience (I ask both of them in 2007).

Per TXDPS the application sent in by the GM or Les was incomplete. The TXDPS did send a letter to the GM but it was never answered. While an out of state fee and frachise tax does enter into the licensing process it is NOT the primary reason a license was never issued (despite the notice in last years newsletter "License is in the mail". I believe that was in May/June of 2007. You can't get an license unless the application is completed.

For those of you who would like to see the complete requirements from TXDPS it is on their public web site "www.txdps.state.tx.us".

I still find it hard to believe that many of the BOD in addition to the then president, Ms. Burke, did not know about the above requirements.

Meemaw said...

Jan Mulch said:

Most of us have already gone to the TXDPS to look into this matter. Whether we have a 'licensed' Security company or an unlicensed one, such as we have now, they can only call the Constable, give out warnings and report to management or board members when violations occur. A good part of the time the patrol gets the "tall man" finger just for trying to do his/her job. They can wear a badge, a uniform, but cannot be armed or use a billy club or gun. They have the ability to call for help if needed, and even unlicensed, if someone needs help or there is a fiew to fight, the patrol is there. The only difference is that we, the owners, pay through the nose. There is a long history of problems regarding "security" and it goes much further than Aramark. Just think how many companies have been here - now think about who they hired, wasn't it the same people. Didn't it cost us more money? We had "Brinks" we had "Burns" we had "Securitas."