|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 10, 2016 14:12:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 18, 2016 8:38:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 18, 2016 8:45:14 GMT -5
No "Owner Update" or Minutes of the meeting yet, but I am advised that the Owners who wished to sell hot dogs have been denied their request by the board.
This denial despite the fact that the owners would not sell during a hot dog fund raiser AND would donate 20% of their sales to SLR clubs.
It should be noted that they can sell hot dogs without the board's permission from their own property or by invitation to another person's property.
I believe that the board is being unreasonable on this generous request which would benefit all Baggers and their guests during the season. The potential erosion of fund raising of their own Booster Hot Dogs is simply not supported by facts or common sense.
It was reported that SLohA "shopped around" and found new insurance. Wonder about that timing with the overbudget expenditure in the insurance category and the Wonder Lease Agreement with stab et al.
I have heard no update on the New Business of Accessibility on park grounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 22, 2016 21:33:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 22, 2016 21:57:54 GMT -5
I have been called out AGAIN--this time with comments of going all soft and gushy. Haha! I can assure you that is not the case but only reflects my intention not to further the burden of "ugly" in the community with cheap, easy shots.
Comments on the Minutes:
· No action was taken to approve a second request by Joe and Bb Witte, 28 S-bag Trail, to operate a hot dog cart within the resort.
This is BOD-Speak for denial. As I have said before, and as the Board itself has proclaimed to not be involved in clubs' business, the board has no business in "protectionism" of clubs turf or income-raising efforts. If someone makes a better or cheaper hot dog--so be it. Let 'em sell from common property under the same conditions as are currently tolerated and expected of the other clubs. The board has dirty hands if they want to plead "business conducted on property" as a reason for denial. THAT Kay c Net train has already left the station! Thus, the statement of "purposeful neglect" entered into the record to avoid clear responsibility for a definitive position. The board's business is to serve ALL the owners and to safeguard the common property from abuse.
· T Roof will coordinate an accessibility initiative to review areas in the resort that may limit access because of mobility issues. He’ll report back to the board with any recommendations.
Good, hopefully this important issue will be taken seriously, at long last!
· The Association has received formal notification from the Sm all Business Administration that the loan has been fully satisfied and paid in full. Pet er H all made a motion that the Wells Fargo Bank-SBA Loan account that was specifically opened to track the payments be closed. It was seconded by Jade Rite and passed unanimously.
Wow! This was on my Wish List a few days ago and like magic--we are paid off! That will free $100/unit of assessment payments for the next fiscal year's budget unless the budget gets hyperinflated with funding for invisible expenses, legal fees, administrative costs and maintenance costs. This is a good place to give Owners a breather from excessive spending. Imagine getting management Cost Containment and paying $515/Q next year!
· Because the sewage system is a vital feature of the resort and there has been ongoing expense related to the age and condition of elements of the system, leery listerine moved that the board approve a contract between SLohA and Cadencehead Environmental.
This one can join the ones done in 2007 and 2014.
· leery Allison, 10 Royal Coachman, asked about legal fees due to litigation, who pays and can the association get its costs back. Mr. Allison also asked how continued litigation has increased insurance costs in five years. Toneesha Shrodr will follow up with information in reply to the questions.
Owner is well aware that SLohA has asked for return of legal fees and it is up to the discretion of the court. He is also very aware that the high legal fees are a direct result of SLohA's attack of 66SS and subsequent retaliative behavior. He also knows that SLohA lost its "premium" insurance coverage as a direct result of their merit-less litigious positions in two lawsuits. He is well aware that SLohA is now in the "pool" of high risk coverage and will probably never again enjoy affordable insurance coverage in the future. He should know that fees, if awarded, may or may not be recoverable without further legal action and associated costs. Blood from a turnip etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Nov 22, 2016 22:50:57 GMT -5
Comments on the Minutes:
· leery Allison, 10 Royal Coachman, asked about legal fees due to litigation, who pays and can the association get its costs back. Mr. Allison also asked how continued litigation has increased insurance costs in five years. Toneesha Shrodr will follow up with information in reply to the Mr. Allison your on - going hatred towards fellow Saddlebaggers is not appreciated . Stop cloaking your hatred in "The Sky is Falling" attitude. You went out of your way to interfere with a Saddlebagger on Queen of Waters over his carport when you live no where near there, insisting Board members go to Bartow to protest which they did, only to not prevail). You protested vehemently to remove the home the home at 66 SS. Now you want blood revenge. Oh, lest us not forget how you demanded that the Witte brothers not be granted hot dog sales because it interfered with 3 days (one each month for 3 months) of shuffleboard fund raising. What about the rights and privileges of us full time residents? |
|
