|
Post by Admin on Mar 10, 2017 12:47:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 16, 2017 10:50:00 GMT -5
Correspondence Report Attachment DeletedAttachment DeletedSorry about poor quality of above; it is clear on the pdf file. The conversion to Word produced a poor image. In a nutshell, concerns were Board reports, new generator and pump at lift stations, hot dog sales and desire to change voting requirement for Covenants.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 16, 2017 12:12:33 GMT -5
What is going on with this Board? There is STILL no ratification of the corrupt lease between leery listerine and KCNet who purports to act with the authority of SLohA. This contract is Official SLohA business and must, by law, be ratified by the Board. leery listerine does not have the authority to BIND SLohA with KCNet absent the approval of the board:
The corrupt lease was signed by leery listerine in Dec 8 2016. The contract should have been on the Dec BOD Meeting Agenda and brought up for ratification. It didn't happen in Dec 2016. It didn't happen in Jan 2017. It didn't happen in Feb 2017. It didn't' happen in Mar 2017.
I am not going to forget about this and will continue to remind all owners about the corruption taking place with this board and the illegal Lease.
My guess is that two thirds of the directors refuse to ratify the contract. To do so would put them each, individually, in legal jeopardy. IMO you would have to be a Fool to vote for this one-sided, unfair contract.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 16, 2017 12:48:05 GMT -5
RE: Changing the voting requirements for Amendments
Two things to comment on. Back in November 2015, I was probably one of the first people to volunteer to serve on the Governing Documents Committee. I feel quite confident when I say there is no one in S-bag more qualified to serve on this committee. I was contact a month or so later by leery listerine who said that the Committee formation was delayed. Per correspondence, it appears the Committee has been formed and the Committee is recommending a change in the voting percentage to amend the Covenants.
So, I would like to publicly acknowledge the snub of the Board and its committee. Whatever its problem with ME and the past troubles that it brought on itself by laughing at the law, there was no reason to believe I would not have performed in a civil and productive manner on the committee.
On to the revision: if you accept the 1986 Amendment as valid (which I do not due to the failure of passage as evidenced by the 1986 Minutes), then the amendment percentage is 75%. Had SLohA not included this bogus amendment in its revite application, it would have been allowed to have a 66% voting privilege by statute. Their inclusion of this bogus amendment, of course, was needed to support the subsequent "55+ amendment" in 1989.
Regardless of the history, there is still an appellate appeal of the DEO approval of the revitalization which should be coming to a conclusion within the next 9-10 months or so and, before the next ballot in Feb 2018. If I were on the Governing Documents Committee, I would not be spending too much time on this voting percentage change.
|
|
Expose
Pilgrim
"Always Seek The Truth"
Posts: 43
|
Post by Expose on Mar 16, 2017 20:57:21 GMT -5
leery listerine is really out on a limb by himself with this Lease Agreement with Kay c Ntwerk (Robber B. stab, Virginia stab). If you think the present Legal Fees to date of $103,000 plus is over the top. Just wait until this Lease Agreement Crap hits the fan, legal fees of $103,000 will be chump change.
This corruption runs deep in SLohA. and the Lease Agreement is only the tip of the tangled web. The players, deceit and lies will all be exposed in time.
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Mar 17, 2017 10:47:41 GMT -5
Why are we owners not seeing the approval of the last Privileged Board meeting the SLohA Board had with their attorneys and why are the legal fees already at $103,000.00 this year? Add that to the last fiscal year's spending on legal fees, plus the much higher Insurance rates and I would estimate that we owners just threw away 1/4 million dollars on bad decisions that the management company spearheaded and our Board eagerly approved.
Awaiting an adjustment on our quarterly assessments to go up.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 17, 2017 12:32:28 GMT -5
pestcontrol posted:
We owners have still not seen the Nov 2016 "Privileged" board meeting minutes either. I think they are doing this in childish opposition to members in a fit of temper to show 'em who's boss. There is absolutely no reason to withhold publishing these minutes except as a statement of "Nyah Nyah". That is why I leave an entire thread open under the Minutes Board--so that people will remember that the Board is withholding something from members for absolutely no reason other than "they can".
The money spent on legal costs is obscene. And, it is not over yet. There are currently two legal contests on the table; though one of them should not cost much because it is simply an appeal and requires very little "service" from the attorneys. The other one will probably be settled, but the settlement could be significant--not to mention the legal costs if the prevailing party is the Plaintiff (SLohA is defendant). For the life of me, I don't know why SLohA failed to do what they have always done in the past when someone was hurt on the property--just pay their expenses!!!! Don't escalate a situation to a conflict that might cost $300K when it could have been paid direct for $50K!
If the management company gets 10% of this $103,000 spent in 10 months for courtesy referral, that is over $10,000 in Stmbug Ixx's pocket, in addition to their management fee and growing cost reimbursements. (10% would be on the low end of a typical referral fee.)
The members receive no benefit from this expense; indeed, members have been irreparably damaged. This partnership among the Management, its attorneys with the passive assent of our representatives, has fractured our once peaceful and friendly community and may someday bring our financial stability to its knees.
|
|
GTO
Addict
Life is Tough ! It's even tougher when you're stupid ! Jhn Wayne J ohn Wayne
Posts: 198
|
Post by GTO on Mar 17, 2017 23:25:34 GMT -5
What is this Fee of $100 Stmbug Ixx charges when you go to settlement on your property sale in SLR? I was told by a owner they had to pay Stmbug Ixx a $100 at settlement on their recent home sale. Is this $100 fee something new? What is it reason for such a fee?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 18, 2017 10:46:13 GMT -5
GTO posted:
This is another way for Stmbug Ixx to make money off the backs of S-bag owners.
Here is the law:
Management company has worked in conjuction with outside service providers such as a settlement title company in the past to attempt to collect fees related to the sale of owner property turned back to a bank. I am certain that this kind of thing is not in their Management Contract.
According to the above, Stmbug Ixx can only collect estoppel fees up to $100 IF it is specifically permitted in its Management Agreement with SLohA OR if the Board has duly adopted a written resolution permitting it to collect fees. In such cases, the Board should require that a goodly portion of the estoppel fee come back to the SLohA members. However, from contracts of the past, where members have been royally screwed by the board ie the KCNetwork Non-Lease, it is unlikely that members will see any benefit from the estoppel fees collection from Stmbug Ixx.
At the very least, the member who is being "charged" an estoppel fee should demand to see the authority for it being charged. It must be one of the two authorities listed above, per statute.
Watch the Management company; they will be trying to recover every single service provided to S-bag, including meeting fees and collection letters. Like any parasite, it will feed off the host until there is nothing left to consume.
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Mar 18, 2017 12:47:35 GMT -5
The Management Company is not your friend...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 23, 2017 9:56:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 23, 2017 11:03:08 GMT -5
From March 2017 Minutes:
I will voice opposition.
First of all, the surplus should be specifically identified--as on the financial statement and a board statement.
Toneesha should oppose as well. It is Toneesha who stated at a board meeting in 2010 with Bd Stmbug Ixx present that budget surpluses cannot be "rolled over". The balance sheet must be ZERO at the end of the fiscal year for tax purposes.
If SLohA is overcollecting for maintenance and not spending it all--and there is extra--that is concerning because it means that Management is incompetently estimating operating costs and/or they are assessing members too much. Based on past budgets where empty spending categories have been funded, my inclination is to suspect that Management is funding line items that have no current or historical expenditures-- resulting in a surplus.
Notwithstanding the reasons for surplus, surplus must be disclosed and transferred to Reserves. Surplus is required, by our Bylaws, to be deposited into the Reserve account and held for the benefit of Members. It cannot be "redistributed" either by cash payments, assessment offsets or increasing operating funds.
Pretty clear--the funds must be HELD. As in Reserves.
There is another problem with adding surplus money to Operating. It will be spent. And what happens at budget preparation time next year? Management will base the new budget on the current budget--which will have been inflated by the addition of surplus funds. And, if the surplus is not disclosed and Management does this anyway, owners will have no idea what the true operating costs are. THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED! TWICE! 2012 and 2016.
Owners may wake up one day when they hear their Buyer say "Wow--your assessments in here are really high for what you get!" and start looking elsewhere for a better housing bargain.
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Mar 23, 2017 13:03:23 GMT -5
Just More Deceit by Our Leaders !
16RC
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Mar 24, 2017 3:12:25 GMT -5
If memory serves me right, this action by the Board means that SLohA technically constitutes an operating deficit, which will result in a qualified opinion from the auditor on the 2017 year-end financial statements. A qualified opinion is a red flag to any lending institution reviewing a loan application. As such, the Board may have seriously jeopardized SLohA's ability to obtain financing for a future capital improvement project.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 24, 2017 12:16:28 GMT -5
From the March 2017 Minutes:
First of all, what is a tax certificate? So, presumably, SLohA is getting into the business of purchasing tax certificates in S-bag in anticipation of purchasing the properties at the subsequent auction.
Owners should be totally aware of the cost and potential cost of this business activity. IF SLohA wants to purchase property, it must FIRST get the written consent of owners to be burdened with an acquired asset whose value is in excesss of $25,000. This is per the Bylaws:
S-bag must have a special meeting with a ballot of Owner Ratification to buy an asset worth in excess of $25,000.
SLohA can buy the tax certificates without owner consent; however, the next question why is the corporation engaging in investment activities? We are a not-for-profit corporation and our business is managing common property. Purchasing tax certificates is an investment activity which earns interest at the time the property is auctioned and purchased. SLohA wants owners to buy tax certificates which includes all the investor costs plus interest. The SLohA investor thereby earns a Sm all return on the investment. I see nowhere in our documents where this is a legitimate activity of a not-for-profit corporation. Such activity could, theoretically, put SLohA into a taxable income bracket and it could lose the advantage of filing its tax returns as a homeowner association (which affords favorable tax treatment).
In addition to the tax implications above, SLohA will have to pay the following for these two properties to hold a tax certificate:
22 Pink Lady $561.03 tax this year if not paid by April 1, 2017 Current Tax Certificate $1526.59..................................$2,087.62 Assessed Value $24,697 Parcel #28-30-01-939020-039010
32 S-bag Trail North Parcel #28-30-01-939020-039170 Assessed Value $33,430 $690.12 tax this year if not paid by April 1, 2017 Current Tax Certificate $843.61 ...................................$1543.73
GRAND TOTAL $3621.35
And this is just for starters! The ancillary costs for the attorneys to get involved in this deal are unknown and probably exhorbitant. Who cares what Line Item is charged? It still comes out of the Owners' pocketbook. Owners will also pay the administrative costs with the county, a 5% commission, advertising costs and interest.
June 1 the REAL FUN STARTS when SLohA goes to auction and buys tax deeds (without owner consent?)! This means that all future taxes, property maintenance costs and assessment fees NOT paid by anyone will be the remaining owners' obligation to pay.
SLohA is already "down" 3 properties out of 790 ie 3 properties do not contribute to the budget (the one next to the office which CAP occupies and the two drainage lots on S-bag Trail). So now, owners will be burdened with FIVE (5) properties that are not paying assessments, thereby increasing the owners share from 1/787 to 1/785.
And, this is just the beginning. Does anyone think that owners' heirs will not continue to abandon these old trailers rather than pay the minimum $3000/yr to keep them as a declining "asset", be unable to sell them due to high assessments or rent them because they are just too old and worn out?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 24, 2017 16:01:35 GMT -5
As a PS to the previous post, I am advised that if SLohA takes a Tax Deed and titles the property to itself, it wipes out any chance of recovering any past due assessments from the previous owners.
It can be reasonably assumed that a parcel owner who does not pay the county property taxes is not paying SLohA assessments. Therefore, there are 3 years (at least) of unpaid assessments on one of the parcels and 2 years on the other parcel--totalling about $25,000.
If an outside entity were to take title to these parcels at auction, the new purchasers would be liable to SLohA to pay the past due assessments up to the time of taking title and SLohA would be able to recover $25,000 and start collecting future assessments from the new owners.
If SLohA takes title at auction, no recovery of past assessments is possible. This is because the association is exempt as a "previous owner" under statute FS720.3085(2b). Owners "lose" all the past assessment money and wipe out all claims, get to pay all future assessments, taxes and maintenance costs until SLohA sells them.
Now, at the time of sale, SLohA has to pay commissions to the selling broker. How many guesses is needed to figure out that the Selling Broker will be Stmbug Ixx Inc.?
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Mar 24, 2017 20:12:38 GMT -5
If our 2017-2018 is already "stressed", per our Board asking for club donations, how do we justify these added expenses? Coupled with an unclear ledger for 2016-2017 as to where the funds came from to fly in leery and Nunsee listerine this summer along with Clifford Jnsn at SLohA's expense. Why are expenses such a mystery to us owners? How can we gain better insight into our expenses?
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Mar 24, 2017 22:25:57 GMT -5
Join The Insiders, and become A Board Member, A Privileged Group Indeed !
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 25, 2017 20:28:27 GMT -5
I am posting directly from the county website because there is a misunderstanding on the part of some regarding the Tax Certificate Process. Holding a Tax Certificate does not give that person any preferential treatment with regard to purchasing the property at the auction. The Tax Certificate is simply a LIEN and the LIENHOLDER gets paid FIRST by the Owner --past or future--of the property! Buying Tax Certificates is an investment activity and the holder will get paid interest by the eventual person who redeems the property at auction. Being a Certificate holder gives NO SPECIAL TREATMENT and NO FIRST PLACE IN LINE at the auction. The above is directly from the Polk County Property website linkAside from the misinformation running around about SLohA's involvement in acquiring tax certificates for whatever reasons it is suggesting to others, IF it S-bag's intent to attempt to acquire the property at public auction, it must first have the approval of MEMBERS to acquire the real estate burden AND members need to understand that SLohA will forfeit any chance of recovering the unpaid assessments on the property. That's probably at least $25,000. And, if S-bag owns these properties, past unpaid assessments are wiped out! Additionally, the property will not generate any future assessment contributions until S-bag sells the property. In that case, the new buyer will only have to pay a negotiated sales price; they will not be responsible for past unpaid assessments! This hairbrained plan is one big fat fiscal loser for the owners! Three months ago, this board wanted to go beg money from Clubs for employee Christmas bonuses! What on earth are they thinking to entertain such a nonsensical and reckless scheme?
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Mar 25, 2017 22:19:53 GMT -5
I believe our BOD's are getting very bad advice from our management company again.
SLohA's Elder Statesman and BOD's in SLohA are so paranoid about a young couple with kids moving in to S-bag, that they will go to great lengths to delay that from happening. But in time we will have young families with children in SLR. Remember it was not to long ago we had a play ground for young people. One day the play ground will return, and it will have some very grand equipment.
The seniors may even enjoy the new type swing sets.
Just My Opinion.
|
|