VILLAGE UPDATE ON NEW FIVE DIGIT ADDRESSES

Director McBride gave Villagers some good news. The five digit address change will only affect the welcome center and restaurant (because of their liquor license). Your address will remain as before with no changes.

Read more on this article...

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. Read more on this article...

BRIDGE BOARD MEETING 5/19/2008

After the pledge of allegiance, the minutes for last April’s meeting were approved. This was a little different board meeting in so far as having John R. Freeland and a quorum of board members in attendance.
Tom Cain who runs these meetings does a very job. He’s informative and to the point. The first item discussed was Essex insurance company dropping the bridge’s insurance coverage due to the two lawsuits initiated by two Village owners. One lawsuit had a jury ruled in our favor and the other is pending. It’s odd that the same attorney is representing both plaintiffs. This lawyer is currently appealing that jury verdict. It will be known soon if he’s successful.
Tom Cain said it was very difficult to find an insurance carrier that was willing to insure our bridge. Scottsdale Insurance Company has graced us with their acceptance, but it comes with a price. Before the lawsuits the bridge paid around $8000 a month. Now the new premium is a little over $12,000 a month. That figures about $40 a month out of each lot owner’s pocket. This seems not bad considering our bridge rating and two recent lawsuits by two Village owners.

Here’s a little background I found.
Scottsdale Insurance Company Description
Scottsdale Insurance Company insures the riskier parts of life, the universe, and everything. The property/casualty insurer specializes in excess and surplus insurance lines (E&S) -- insurance coverage for higher-risk individuals and businesses including alarm contractors, bars, exterminators, and tree trimmers. The company also offers such niche products as pet insurance, professional liability, and products for public entities (cities, towns, counties). E&S providers are not allowed to advertise directly to consumers, so Scottsdale Insurance relies upon wholesale general agents, brokers, and managers sell its products through local agents. The company is a subsidiary of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company.
nce company.

It was said if there comes a time insurance coverage is not obtainable, the bridge will be closed.
The board’s next topic was the perimeter fence on the south end of the bridge. Our new insurance carrier had recommended we do it. There was a small debate about upset Village owners not being able to fish near the bridge as they have in previous years. On the other hand it was said when South Point fenced their area for liability reasons, the people came here to fish.
It was also pointed out that in recent evenings this area seemed to take on an almost carnival like atmosphere due to the large number of non-village parents who fish while letting their children play. There were even at times tents put up to sleep overnight.
The cost of the fence is $7100. This fence would run to the end of our bridge’s property lines, which is approximately 200’ west and 300’ east. It will be 8’ tall. We will have one 20’ dock access gate on the west side along with a 5’east side gate. Those will cost $2100.
There were numerous items addressed that could save on expenditures. An example was lowering the commercial electric kilowatt per hour from 23 cents to 15 cents and changing peak hour costs with a new electricity provider. Another example was to attempt to become tax exempt.
Mr. Freeland’s appearance seemed to focus on the intercostals channel turn and the barges we let through our bridge. There was a recent photo taken of a three wide barge barely squeezing through our swing bridge. Apparently the rules state the barges must be single wide. The picture will be used as a means to hopefully make them obey the rules or the bridge board may ask the coast guard for their enforcement assistance. Interesting to note that in 2005, 48% of all barges that passed through our swing bridge were carrying a flammable liquid cargo. Since then there has been a pipeline built to ease that percentage somewhat.
The next bridge board meeting will be in September. The outcome of how the insurance increase will be budgeted and the results of the lawsuit appeal will be published as soon as I find out. Read more on this article...

Buried in the sand ( just my opinion)

If you and your friends wish to be rude, scream, and verbally attack certain directors at our board meetings, you may do so. Afterwards if you yearn to create your own petition containing eleven invalid reasons to impeach certain directors, feel free. If you desire to thrust this petition out and make it appear a legitimate Village emergency so an owner feels compelled to vote, have it your own way. If you hanker to sway an owner’s vote by only giving them your worthless reasons on such a petition, go for it. If you crave to have all your solicited votes from this petition be sent to no name addresses so you can pick and choose which ones suit you the best, no problem. If you even have a yen to get the Village’s Channel 2 telecast to gladly participate with your petition as to make it appear even more Village and management sponsored, please, be our guest.

If you have the hunger to do any of these above, you’ll have competition. There’s a small group that has already put this charade to work. Since this group is well connected with a board member and the general manager, nobody is speaking out about it for fear of reprisals. Does everyone from this petition group think that every Village owner will keep their heads buried in the sand, swallow their gobble-lee-gook hook, line, and sinker, and say nothing? Once again it shows that a certain few in our Village feel they can do as they please with impunity.

Read more on this article...

THE EVALUATION CONTINUES

There seems to be a change in the Board’s 90 day evaluation of our general manager. The mindset now is to also fill out a 2007 evaluation that could have some old board members participate in the answers, plus include the general manager’s old evaluations which have been found for 2004, 2005, and 2006.

I erred in the previous article by saying that the evaluation form was from Aramark. The form being used was made up by a previous board of directors. I was told its original purpose was to support the board decisions for managerial pay raises.


This evaluation form (displayed in “news bulletin updates” at http://longislandvillage.com/) has 21 general manager’s functions or responsibilities for the committee to appraise via multiple choice.


One is for outstanding. Two is for satisfactory. Three is for satisfactory, but needs some improvement and four is for not satisfactory and needs improvement.


I looked at a Aramark’s foods and resort management services contract. In it they express three operational areas: Business Services, Hospitality Services, and Facility Services. In short and as accurate as possible, the general manager is in charge of the business and financial functions of the association, plus supervises the managers assigned to Hospitality and Facilities.



These assigned managers are responsible to meet Aramark requirements. They report to and are the full responsibility of the on site general manager. The general manager reports directly to the board president or to board of directors collectively. The general manager is responsible to the district manager of Aramark for ensuring that the Aramark corporate requirements are fulfilled. (The job descriptions below might have altered slightly, but changes in the responsibilities for the general manager would not have diminished. In fact, they should have increase.)


Aramark’s general manager’s job description and responsibilities are as follows.
In charge of Business Services personnel functions:
1. Accounts receivable clerk with 24 responsibilities.
2. Accounts payable clerk / acct. supervisor with 30 responsibilities.
3. Payroll clerk / administrative asst. with 25 responsibilities.


Supervision of Hospitality Services Manager on areas with specific functions and responsibilities:
1. Kitchen workers with 15 responsibilities.
2. Servers with 16 responsibilities.
3. F & B director with 16 responsibilities.
4. Office Centers-Front desk clerk with 51 responsibilities.
5. Front gate-Gate attendant with 8 responsibilities.
6. Pro Shop-Pro shop clerk with 12 responsibilities.


Supervision of Facility Services Manager on areas with specific functions and responsibilities:
1. House keeping with 32 responsibilities
2. General maintenance with 8 responsibilities.
3. Pool & spa cleaning/maintenance with 15 responsibilities.
4. Miniature golf with 2 responsibilities.
5. Tennis courts with 5 responsibilities.
6. Shuffleboard court / basketball court with 4 responsibilities.
7. Repair and renovation of common areas with 6 responsibilities.
8. Heat, A/C, and minor electrical have 2 responsibilities.
9. Water and sewer systems with 2 responsibilities.
10. Common grounds and areas with 14 responsibilities.
11. Golf course with 23 responsibilities.
12. Private yards with 3 responsibilities.
13. Roads with 3 responsibilities.


Our current general manager is responsible for over 300 of these specific functions that are spelled out contractually in running our Village.

A previous board felt these were important enough to individually be on the contract so as to be enforceable.

Should not these same numerous responsibilities be little more relevant to his performance than evaluation form #14 ( issuing rental damage refunds and commission checks in a timely manner) . It's interesting that both would seem to hold equal weight in an evaluation.

Can one accurately evaluate our general manager's performance with this scant evaluation form. We find a few questions containing responsibility for hundreds of functions on a daily basis, while the rest have minimal responsibilities and most of those report on a weekly, monthly, annual, or when needed basis?

It even appears debatable on which multiple choice answer is a passing grade.

Should our board rethink this evaluation?

After looking at the boards evaluation form, please comment with evaluation questions you feel should be graded. Read more on this article...

Kiss and make up

Friday’s special board meeting May 2nd , 2008

Ten days after the riot meeting, the supporters of our general manager got their wish. Our board of directors mandated a committee to evaluate our general manager for the following 90 days and will then decide if he stays or gets the boot. This four person committee will be directors Mulch, Steffensen, Young, and President Sullivan.

Forgive me for saying it, but this evaluation appears more like 90 days probation. Within this three month period the committee will be using an evaluation form presumably that Aramark has provided since their inception.

I have never seen this evaluation form that Aramark provides to know what questions are on it. I am sure the management is knowledgeable of its contents.

I hope this short 90 days evaluation is not being done just to satisfy everyone that an attempt was made. This quacks like that duck so far when you add to the mix not reviewing his full tenure and of appointing an even number person committee which sounds a bit odd not to insure a majority result on the evaluation.

It won’t ruin my day if our general manager stays or goes. The pity is in letting a handful of owners and one board member who acted at times like spoiled little children, inferring whatever sounded good in the attempt to get their own way, and then end up actually getting it. They appear to have seized control of the steering wheel and throttle of our Village.

.

We owners elected our directors and gave them the power to hire or replace any employee. We must now ask ourselves if that power still remains.

.

As Our Village evolves, are we getting the best people to manage our changing needs? Have we become so crystallized that our board of directors just can’t say we need a change because we can do better and the owners of Long Island Village deserve the best to manage our park? This is not to say our current general manager isn’t the best, but is he?

Should not that be the evaluation we seek?

Read more on this article...