|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 15, 2014 11:00:56 GMT -5
(Editor: Revision) This ballot item got a majority of votes of the two proposals. The results are a mess and it did not get the needed majority to pass.
The BOD desparately rushed this 2nd proposal despite SLohA's own attorney advising that this ballot item is not permitted by our governing documents or Florida statutes. More later...
Now we have NO budget ratified.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous on Feb 15, 2014 11:10:17 GMT -5
does anyone know if the HOA dues increase passed? (that's the $25/qtr. increase) thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 15, 2014 12:07:39 GMT -5
Yes, the internet passed with the budget increase. This dual ballot results in a $70/Q dues increase. This is reportedly going to be legally cH allenged. SLohA's attorney stated in writing that the "complex dual ballot" was not permitted and the budget needed to be resubmitted for ratification.
This budget cannot be enforced unless owners fail to do anything to stop a Board that has spun out of control to the point of ignoring their own attorney's advice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 16, 2014 11:12:55 GMT -5
Those who voted for it should not be surprised that SLohA will now be assuming the costs for maintaining K C's equipment. This is the K C bucket truck in our Maintenance Yard being worked on by SLohA employees who are no doubt using materials and equipment purchased with...yupp--SLohA assessment monies! Actually, my guess is that SLohA has been paying all along... Attachment Deleted |
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Feb 16, 2014 13:59:35 GMT -5
This board is ignorant of our CC & R's, Florida Statutes pertaining to HOA's, as well as just plain ignorant, and say ridiculous things like "let the chips fall," which is in essence saying: "Let's see if we can get away with this, because we KNOW we can; they have the mentality that rules don't apply to them or whatever it is they want or want to get away with.
These are a couple key reasons as to why this board could get the crap sued out of them as well as cause more law suits than just the one or two going on now.
|
|
|
|
Post by vpeugh on Feb 17, 2014 10:31:46 GMT -5
We were told by a BOD member that the bucket truck is ours to use. A utility company wanted to park it on our property and we could use it whenever we wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 17, 2014 10:48:22 GMT -5
So we are housing someone else's property and if it is damaged or destroyed, SLohA will pay. We'll also pay to work on another person's truck. Doesn't sound kosher to me.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Feb 17, 2014 11:35:28 GMT -5
We were told by a BOD member that the bucket truck is ours to use. A utility company wanted to park it on our property and we could use it whenever we wanted. well, vpeugh, WHAT UTILITY COMPANY are we talking about--specifically, what is the NAME of this "utility company" could it be "kay cee Net ? |
|
|
|
Post by Random Owner on Feb 17, 2014 12:33:02 GMT -5
Those who voted for it should not be surprised that SLohA will now be assuming the costs for maintaining K C's equipment. This is the K C bucket truck in our Maintenance Yard being worked on by SLohA employees who are no doubt using materials and equipment purchased with...yupp--SLohA assessment monies! Actually, my guess is that SLohA has been paying all along... Good Question: Who owns this truck? Why is this board member so vague when giving information?
If this truck is owned by a utility company, then where is the company's name on the door?
Where's their commercial contractor license number? (contractor of this type should be licensed/bonded.)
How come there is no commercial license plate on this vehicle? (a utility company is a commercial business.)
Why is this utility company allowing US to use this truck and at what costs?
How about some honest answers to these questions, or do we have to call the county and have them look up the license number?
|
|
|
|
Post by Anon. Owner on Feb 17, 2014 15:36:20 GMT -5
why would ANY utility company want to park their equipment on our property?
and, if they "had to" park it here, why would they give us permission to use it?
Why would they just say: "use it" and not worry if it got damaged
This is a really hokey explanation.
There's so much more to this hokey story than this board member told this resident, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Confused on Feb 17, 2014 15:43:23 GMT -5
ok, so which is it now? I've heard that everything passed, then I heard nothing passed except the carport issue?
So, which is it? I've heard too many conflicting outcomes of this election.
Have they posted anything yet at the display case at the post office?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 17, 2014 16:20:30 GMT -5
Several different items:
NO Covenants Passed
NO Budget Passed
ALL Rules Passed
Capital Expenditure/Replacement Fund Passed
Reason for confusion is that BOD pronounced that the Budget with Internet passed. That was accepted on face value and reported. When independent validation of the vote was done, it was discovered that the numbers were not sufficient to pass any proposed budget. The Budget is the only ballot item where results are "confused". Everything else was clear.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Feb 17, 2014 16:29:43 GMT -5
(Editor: Revision) This ballot item got a majority of votes of the two proposals. The results are a mess and it did not get the needed majority to pass. The BOD desparately rushed this 2nd proposal despite SLohA's own attorney advising that this ballot item is not permitted by our governing documents or Florida statutes. More later... Now we have NO budget ratified. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there's no new budget that was ratified by the owners for the subsequent fiscal year, then doesn't that mean that the board has to use the budget from the previous year until a new one is ratified by owners? And, Doesn't that also mean that there will be NO increase(s) to our dues and they would remain the same at $475/qtr.?
|
|
Product Liabilityt Question
Guest
|
Post by Product Liabilityt Question on Feb 17, 2014 18:17:16 GMT -5
A thought just occurred to me with respect to the internet regarding product liability. If the Association chooses the internet vendor for our community rather than the individuals, then wouldn't the Association be legally liable for any service outages? Also, wouldn't the Association be responsible for purchasing and installing those rooftop antennas rather than individual owners? Seems to me that it would be just like a hypothetical case where someone is injured at the community center as a result of inferior workmanship by a mechanical contractor hired by the Manager or Board of Directors. The injured party doesn't S u e the contractor; he sues the Association.
|
|
|
|
Post by Still Confused on Feb 17, 2014 19:49:59 GMT -5
Several different items: NO Covenants Passed NO Budget Passed ALL Rules Passed Capital Expenditure/Replacement Fund Passed Reason for confusion is that BOD pronounced that the Budget with Internet passed. That was accepted on face value and reported. When independent validation of the vote was done, it was discovered that the numbers were not sufficient to pass any proposed budget. The Budget is the only ballot item where results are "confused". Everything else was clear. Has the BOD recognized the fact that the numbers were not sufficient to pass? Was anything passed to the BOD that the numbers were not sufficient? What is the BOD saying anything?
|
|
|
|
Post by Doesnt Exist on Feb 17, 2014 19:51:43 GMT -5
A thought just occurred to me with respect to the internet regarding product liability. If the Association chooses the internet vendor for our community rather than the individuals, then wouldn't the Association be legally liable for any service outages? Also, wouldn't the Association be responsible for purchasing and installing those rooftop antennas rather than individual owners? Seems to me that it would be just like a hypothetical case where someone is injured at the community center as a result of inferior workmanship by a mechanical contractor hired by the Manager or Board of Directors. The injured party doesn't S the contractor; he sues the Association. I doubt SLR would be responsible for anything because Mr. S owner of Net of K C has no contract and no Boiler Plate language, he says its a waste of time and money.
When subscribers get fed up with bad internet and outages they can just quit paying . Its all on Mr. S .
Unless of course Mr. S throws anouther hissy fit and jumps up and down and the board caves into his childish tantrum AGAIN !
The cheap internet has FAILED to pass twice now, it would be stupid to go with Mr. S since it is clear the MAJORITY DOESNT WANT IT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Still confused on Feb 17, 2014 19:54:46 GMT -5
(Editor: Revision) This ballot item got a majority of votes of the two proposals. The results are a mess and it did not get the needed majority to pass. The BOD desparately rushed this 2nd proposal despite SLohA's own attorney advising that this ballot item is not permitted by our governing documents or Florida statutes. More later... Now we have NO budget ratified. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there's no new budget that was ratified by the owners for the subsequent fiscal year, then doesn't that mean that the board has to use the budget from the previous year until a new one is ratified by owners? And, Doesn't that also mean that there will be NO increase(s) to our dues and they would remain the same at $475/qtr.?
Great questions that need answers Anon Enviro Guest!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 17, 2014 20:26:24 GMT -5
AS I see it, BOD has three choices. Since NO budget was ratified and there is no budget to enforce, it can simply keep the current budget and the assessment which now exists and live with it for the next year. BOD says we are 39K UNDER budget now with only another couple months in this fiscal year so it seems this is not such a bad path. And, there are many who think spending is out of control with the anyway and will reject any increase in a budget proposal. Keep the current assessment fee at $475 and live with the same budget. Easy choice without much downside. SLohA has to meet its financial obligations regardless of the budget.
Another option is to re-ballot a new proposed budget; i.e. the budget "polled" with a slight lead WITH the internet assessment fee. If they re-ballot the internet assessment fee and it does not pass, we will still have no ratified budget and BOD will look like clowns. If they re-ballot and the internet assessment fee passes, they will be faced with a certain legal cH allenge and perhaps a court injunction against a levy or a court-ordered payment of the disputed fee into a court registry. Considering there were less than 40 YES votes difference and 150-200 Abstainers, this is a very risky direction.
The 3rd choice would be to re-ballot and attempt to ratify the proposed new budget without the internet and it will probably pass, increasing the assessment fee to $500/Q. There were only 130 "NO's" on the straight proposed budget out of 692 voters. This would be the rational thing to do and put this disastrous chapter in SLohA history in the rear view mirror.
If there is a second defeated ballot, the impact on BOD credibility would be disastrous. Also, BOD is now aware of the anticipated litigation against SLohA for their failure to enforce our covenants against K C N. A passed internet assessment fee would serve only to complicate the legal issues, provoke another lawsuit and cost members a LOT more in legal fees.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Feb 17, 2014 20:52:40 GMT -5
In response to the question: "Has the BOD recognized the fact that the numbers were not sufficient to pass?"
Sure they know, they just want to keep lying to the community. ! One board member--an officer--told another owner today that the internet did pass and he will have to pay the $15/mo. for it whether or not he wants it! Of course, this was an outright lie.
"Was anything passed to the BOD that the numbers were not sufficient?"
The election committee gives their results to the board; they have the numbers; and, if they do the math, they'll realize just like everyone else that crunches those same numbers and comes up with the same results, and that is that NO, they did not get enough votes for the internet or the budget increases to become reality.
As far as "What is the BOD saying anything?"
Well, if you want to know what the BOD is saying, why don't you go and ask (one of) them, then come back here and let everyone know what they said, if they said the internet and the budget increase both passed, then they lied to you.
Also, the next board meeting is on 2/19/14--this Wednesday. Just for shits and giggles, go to that meeting and stand up and ask them point blank what they have to say about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Feb 17, 2014 21:12:29 GMT -5
I'm having trouble expressing myself on this product liability question, but what I'm trying to get at is what happens when internet service begins to deteriorate as I'm convinced it will. Assuming that we do end up with KCNET as our community-wide provider I believe that, as more and more S-bag residents take advantage of the "free" internet, either KCNET will have to purchase more bandwidth from Century Tel or service interruptions will become more frequent. If the latter happens, the question becomes whether SLohA is legally responsible. As I see it, the individual owners would no longer be customers of KCNET but rather it would be the Association (in the same sense that our refuse hauler is hired by the Association rather by the individual owners). Therefore it would be the BOD's and the Manager's responsibility to assure a proper level of service. And if those entities fail to enforce the terms of a contract with a vendor, don't the owners have legal recourse to withhold a portion of our HOA "dues".
I'm just sayin'...
|
|
