|
|
Post by Admin on May 25, 2015 15:01:09 GMT -5
Here is the group of questions delivered to D Brnd on Sunday. It represents a "compilation" of many concerns voiced by owners on the forum, to me personally and as reported to me by others. As you can see, it concerns 3 main areas:
-Owners paying assessments for KCNet's business,
-Absence of documentation to protect owners from liability to it and third parties and the
-Proposed tower at the beach site
1. Mr stab stated at the Internet Proposal Meeting in Dec 2014 that "Contracts and Agreements are a big waste of time and money." However, Polk County requires a lease, contract or affidavit specifying the terms of agreement between the Applicant -SLohA-and the Telecom Provider -Kay c Ntwerk- prior to issuing a permit for the Towers. Is SLohA prepared to submit a lease or contract? If not, will it submit an affidavit that a lease or contract exists?
2. Has SLohA invested any owner funds since 2009 for the capitalization of internet service in SLR?
3. Have any past or present Board Directors invested money in KCNetwork during their term of service as Directors?
4. It appears that SLohA has spent Owner funds of $3200 for Engineering, $5000 for labor and materials for support structure, $1800 for application fee for County Land Use Review—a total of $10,000 since August 2014. What is the total amount SLohA spent on building new towers, tower maintenance equipment, materials and SLohA employee labor, getting FCC permits to erect antennas on towers, maintain the equipment and support structures, and current engineering and belated County compliance expenses including fines and penalties?
5. Has SLohA paid legal expenses related to the mediation last year with owner's attorney, with the County citations, or associated review of leases with third parties?
6. SLohA has been requested to disclose all agreements in existence between SLohA and KCNetwork on several occasions since 2011. Does SLohA continue to assert that no contracts or agreements are in existence?
7. Members have been advised that Polk County Fire Dept and Verizon currently have antennas mounted on towers on SLohA property. Members desire to know the terms and compensation of these leases. Beside the above providers, who are the additional service providers that currently have antennas on these towers and who is in possession of the Lease Agreements?
8. Is it the intention of SLohA to pay KCNetworks costs to acquire belated permits for building including the mitigation costs such as multiple site surveys, engineering studies and certifications, additional support structures, additional power equipment, access equipment for taller towers and associated maintenance labor costs, fencing, landscaping and other buffering structures, licenses and vehicular access including purchase and removal of residential structures impeding the permit requirements?
9. The Land Use application provides for a proposed additional towers at the beach and has indicated its location relative to the existing fire hydrant. Exactly where is that tower proposed to be built and does it require alteration or removal of existing structures or amenities?
10. Mr stab stated his intention—due to poor health—to “cap” the service area to 3000 subscribers and was virtually at that target subscription a year ago. Why is SLohA/ stab now proposing doubling the height of existing towers and adding an additional tower at the Beach? And why have Members been excluded from the process of input into these plans?
11. Has KCNetwork indemnified SLohA against all liability related to the towers on SLohA land? If not, is SLohA sufficiently insured for this special risk or is SLohA relying on general umbrella coverage? Has Tower Hill been notified specifically of the equipment on the insured property that is business-related?
I will address these in related groupings and, rather than "transcribe" the audio, simply summarize these questions and a few others that were asked that were not on this list. I will separate these posts for "readability".
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 25, 2015 15:09:11 GMT -5
D Brnd was quick to declare that this Q & A meeting had been "in the planning for weeks" and mentioned something about Stmbug Ixx moving their office (that was in mid April before the Hearing notices were posted!) and there being a holiday and I guess we were supposed to think that those things were responsible for the last-minute meeting notice. I say "D, regardless of what motivated you to call a last minute meeting, 'Its about time' the board started a two-way civil conversation with the people they serve!"
Mr. D was generous with his appreciation about having this group of questions provided prior to the meeting in order to better prepare. All that advance planning resulted in two other directors in attendance and one of them was not neither of them were introduced or acknowledged. Chap did not bother to attend; no explanation offered. It was another Bb St aib Production... The most active participant was Dik Dane chasing down questioners with the microphone. Although I did not know what to expect, I anticipated some kind of "presentation" by the Board to summarize the situation and the purpose of the hearing. That did not happen. The compiled questions delivered the day before served as the basis for the Q & A.
D Brnd was also careful to explain that "everything that happened in the past was a past board and none of the current directors was responsible". I guess that was intended as a disclaimer of sorts but most people are smart enough to know that "to continue past unlawful actions in the present is consent".
My reservations are the same as always on this particular internet issue; i.e. the board continues to hide behind KCNet and avoid "going on record". This happened at the pre-mediation meeting, the formal mediation and the Big Internet Proposal of 2014. Bb St aib did about 95% of the talking and strays into "off topic" areas frequently. Many people, obviously weary of that same ole history and "I'm a good S-bag citizen" line of defense, got up and left the meeting early. Also, certain persons want to blame "messengers" for SLohA incurring costs. More on that later.
It is a start, however, and an improvement from the past recent history of shutting down Workshops, selectively reading correspondence written to the board, increasingly meager financial reports (they're almost gone!) and adjourning business meetings and getting up and leaving while owners make comments.
Interestingly, before the Q & A began, a Member announced an intention to form a new club; a discussion group of owners to share information and concerns about things in the park. Even more interestingly, D offered to conduct weekly post-KK open discussions with members and board. Trending toward more inclusive participation--a positive statement of intent. (The President also said at the April board meeting that they planned to post check registers on CHUG in the future, remember? Uh...when?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 25, 2015 17:09:05 GMT -5
Question:
1. Mr St aib stated at the Internet Proposal Meeting in Dec 2014 that "Contracts and Agreements are a big waste of time and money." However, Polk County requires a lease, contract or affidavit specifying the terms of agreement between the Applicant -SLohA-and the Telecom Provider -Kay c Ntwerk- prior to issuing a permit for the Towers. Is SLohA prepared to submit a lease or contract? If not, will it submit an affidavit that a lease or contract exists?
Mr. stab denied saying this but it is an audio record and he said that he was advised by his attorney to adopt this philosophy: here is the loose transcription of the Jan 7, 2014 meeting (not Dec 2014)
Notwithstanding that, Polk County does require a lease, contract or affidavit prior to issuing a permit and it appears that Kay c Net/SLohA cannot fulfill this requirement. The answer to this question was "As of now, no such document exists."
Mr. stab went on to recount his recalled verbal agreement "with the board" that he wanted permission to build the towers and would "turn it over" to SLohA and would maintain the towers and hardware.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 25, 2015 17:56:38 GMT -5
Questions 2 & 3
D Brnd answered emphatically NO without further comment to both questions. Bb St aib added that neither has any monies flowed back TO the Directors from KCNet.
St aib added that the only exception was that, before it started, a couple people offered to help to defray capital costs and he refused because he did not know how much it was going to cost. St aib states he has put 8 million dollars into this business.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 25, 2015 18:24:36 GMT -5
Question 4
The "discussion" of the question flew off in unrelated directions like cell phone costs and the costs of cameras.
When each expense was eventually considered, there seemed to be an "excuse" ie the $3200 was "incurred because an owner complained to Polk County", St aib "thought" the $5000 was a accrual and not a cost and was not sure what the application fee was. Finally, we started landing some of these costs. I reminded certain persons who wanted to blame the reporting owner that the Owner thought the tower did not appear to be properly anchored and appealed to Polk County to see if it met engineering requirements for a permit. Of course, it did not. The Owner was concerned about its stability and safety hazard to owners and guests, especially children. Remember-- it was originally tethered into the ground for people to trip over and, after that, a yellow foam "noodle" was wrapped around the guy wire so at least people could see what they were tripping over. Finally, it was tethered to the top of a 3" upright yellow pole. The yellow pole was obviously inadequate and was even leaned to one side. People should be grateful to the Owner who took the initiative to correct a potential safety hazard, but certain ex board members wanted to villify the Owner for causing SLohA to spend the $ to fix KCNet's tower plan--a fix that was never authorized by the Members.
St aib said that his plans originally called for an 8" upright pole and upgraded gauge guy wire but it was installed with a 3'' pole and weeny wire. The question remains: why is this an SLohA expense?
Attachment DeletedIt is AFTER the County received the inquiry and inspected the tower and support structures that a permit violation was issued and Bb St aib decided to reinforce the uprights and upgrade the guy wires to the tune of $5000--coming from the Grounds line item in the budget and paid for by....OWNERS. St aib thought this $5000 was an accrual (not an actual cost) due to the funding of the Reserves of $4000 which Members voted FOR in the last budget; that is $1000 per year to maintain and replace the existing 4 towers.
Members, by voting for the budget, "adopted" the towers which are rumored to have been "given to SLohA". The Board is not authorized to accept a "gift" that carries with it an unapproved assessment burden. (NEW amenities and assessment burdens require 100% owner approval).
So, we get to the $3200 Envisors fee for the "as built" plans that must be submitted to the County with the Level 3 Land Use Review; not too many ways to fudge that one so it was "admitted". Last, the $1800 and D admitted that $1500 went to the application and $300 to Advertising. The invoice for this is posted with the Application.
So, actually, the question should have queried much higher expenses that were brought up by the discussion i.e. we are paying part of our assessment fees as a contribution to Reserves for Mr. Staib's towers. No other expenses were admitted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 25, 2015 18:41:57 GMT -5
Questions 5 & 6
So the answer to this was "I dunno". So, we can probably estimate. There was one attorney at the pre-mediation meeting and that was likely billed at 4 hours plus time and travel, and there was a formal mediation held with two attornies (general counsel and a mediator) that was likely billed at 6 hours. That's 10 times $275/hr or $2750 for SLohA and another 4 hours @ $300/hour for the mediator (split) or $600-plus the parties split the mediation service provider fee. Additionally, you can conservatively double that "flesh-time" with "prep-time"; attorneys must consult to make sure they understand the client and the "other sides" issues and read relevant documents and case law. In this case, I would estimate more like 2 hours prep for every flesh hour and think that this number exceeds $10,000 in billable hours.
Since there are no contracts, there were no contract reviews and the mediations may have been the only expense along with the Special Privileged Meetings held that did not disclose the general nature of the legal consultation. Thankfully, certain ex-board members chose not to blame the Owner for this expense.
I can see why D answered "I dunno"--but there was time to get this number from ; every case billing is separately documented and this total should have been available at the push of a button.
Since SLohA paid $68,345 during the fiscal year, it is probably safe to apportion at least $10,000 to the internet tower problem, which even SLohA attorneys advised SLohA to "do something about".
Question 6: SLohA says there are no contracts or agreements in existence as it has maintained on three previous Official Records Requests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 25, 2015 18:58:42 GMT -5
Question 7
Internet Bb stated that he has'nt paid for lease of space on our common property; he has tried to be a good citizen...
Bb Staib seemed perplexed by this but he himself claimed to be hosting an antenna for Verizon on his website and stated that the other antenna was installed at the request of Polk County. He asserts that the Verizon antenna was removed after 7 months (Why?) and that 4 Polk County Depts are served by antennas mounted on his tower. The specifics of that arrangement were not disclosed.
Personally, I do not believe that Polk County would give us antennas to mount without an Agreement, and St aib/SLohA have previously rejected any and all Agreements. Maybe Bb's attorneys don't want to draft contracts but I just don't believe that is the true for Polk County.
Also, Polk County EMS Coordinator has informed that they do not use static antennas and that, in emergencies, they only mount equipment on mobile units. Something does not add up. Members in attendance got a load of technical mumbo-jumbo with this question and despite an Owner asking additional questions, this remained a vague and confusing question.
I have my own thoughts about the real purpose of this arrangement. I think its sole purpose was to "legitimately" raise the tower another 20 feet. But, the purpose of this Q & A was not to debate; it was to ask the question and get "an answer".
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 25, 2015 19:30:38 GMT -5
Due to time constraints, I was asked to pick one of the remaining questions. I selected #11 because it addressed what I percieved as the most pressing concerns of members---liability.
The answer is NO--No indemnification.
Is SLohA sufficiently insured is another can of worms. It was confirmed that we currently have 5 million in umbrella insurance and two requests were made for proof that Tower Hill was insuring SLohA for these towers (as opposed to a verbal say-so by the bookkeeper). This is now on verbal record by D that the previous coverage has not been changed by the presence of the towers but that there is general premises coverage and there is NO RIDER.
St aib was quick to point out that this is exactly why "they" did it this way i.e. there was a separate estimate for the towers valued at $700,000 which would have required additional insurance premiums! By including the towers under the general policy, there was zero increase in premiums. Tower Hill did not write a special Rider to our insurance for the towers. Instead, our overall policy limit was effectively decreased by the newly-added liability presented by the towers. In the event of a policy claim which includes damages caused by the towers, Owners will have pay if the damages exceed the policy limit.
There is no free lunch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on May 25, 2015 22:55:23 GMT -5
Thanks for the quick post about our questions & answers at Mondays Meeting.
I just wish I could have been present.
16RC
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2015 4:51:39 GMT -5
There were several more questions, other than the pre-noticed ones, asked by people in attendance.
Some comments were surprising, especially one that "Thanked Bb St aib for 'giving' her dependable internet service for her enjoyment". A couple Clappers were in attendance and thought that was a Clap-worthy thought and ... clapped.
One question concerned the extra potential for taxation with commercial activity on the property. The answer from D "It shouldn't". In my opinion, D has not looked that far ahead; I doubt that is a concern to the group who pays all these additional expenses from owners' funds.
Another owner commented that we should all be thankful to Bb stab because Brighthouse would not come into S-bag without an investment of over a million dollars and a guarantee of 500 contract subscribers.
There was another comment that "All we hear about today is from Bb St aib "I, I, I and Me, Me, Me". Where is the concern by our board for the protection of owners?" This lament is essentially unanswerable. It is like the Bonnie Raitt song says "I can't make you love me...if you don't"--we can't make our board perform its fiduciary duty of loyalty and care that it owes to the Owners if they feel duty to other interests.
One owner said what was on many peoples' minds that was The Purpose of the Meeting was to explain the pink signs--this was about a change in the land use of our property and this was not even mentioned by D Brnd!
Another owner echoed this sentiment and complained that "we don't even know when or where the hearing is to be held". Astonishingly, D had failed to mention that very basic fact (well, he DID give the meeting to St aib!) and also was unprepared to answer the basic question. (I answered it for him as I tend to remember details of stuff like that.)
One final question was posed-an obvious one also on everyone's minds. The question was a global one asking D to explain why nothing has ever been said to the members or documented in our records--and that we were a corporation and not a mom 'n pop operation sitting around making verbal agreements behind closed doors. D replied that "everything was in the 2010 Minutes".
GobSmack!!! I and others have read ALL the 2010 Minutes that have been posted and there is NOTHING there! And, there are NO MINUTES of the illegally-closed Meeting Workshops; perhaps THAT is what Mr. D is referring to--Minutes of Workshop meetings that are not posted on CHUG. Please Mr. D--can you point to the Minutes that disclose the board's intentions to put up communications towers in our Tennis Complex, our Storage Lot, next to residential homes and wreck the beach zen someday?
All in all, this was a poorly-prepared meeting and it was inappropriate to put all the responsibility for it on Kay c Bb. It was unfair to owners to allow a focused group of questions dominate and guide the "discussion". Owners left the meeting early in disgust and were observed outside talking in Sm all angry groups.
It was "same ole, same ole" from this board--once again getting KCNet to shield it from accountability and pleading with owners to agree that "absence of internet was an emergency of apolcalyptic proportions" after Lake Wales Wireless went under. Fools rushed in with a business plan that quickly consumed Bb St aib who states he ran a $13,000 /month deficit and now is beginning to engulf Owners in excess assessments to support a privately-owned commercial business, Owners' taking on and insuring against unknown premises liability, violations against Owners by Polk County and elected representatives who are quick to say "We are not responsible" and point Owners to written records that do not exist.
Owners do not have any real gripe with Internet Bb; who constantly "threatens" that he's gonna get his lawyers after the people who make the board answer uncomfortable questions. Owners need to hear from their elected representatives as to why actions have been taken secretly--and deals made with no authority or documentation--over the last 5 years that are adverse, damaging and costly to the interest of Owners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2015 7:40:50 GMT -5
A Columbo Moment...."Just one more thing..."
In the offtopic excursions by Bb stab, we learned some new information. Importantly, Bb announced that he had retired from running the business, as of March 2015. He has hired an outside firm to run the show and he was out of the day-to-day operations.
I admit that I was too shocked by that to ask who the firm was! This is a very significant development, as presumably there is now another entity involved in some way in the KCNetwork dynasty. Perhaps an investor or a wannabe investor waiting for the smoke to clear...
Why did the board choose not to take this meeting opportunity to let Bb introduce his Successor and let that person explain plans for the future?
One wonders how long the KCN business will operate from 28 Grayhackle with Bb stab "out of it". How "out of it" is he, actually? How "IN it" is this newly-engaged managing company?
Will our beach bathhouse be converted to the New Operations Center in 2016?
Is the Proposed Beach Tower anticipating the near-term relocation of the Office Tower @28gh to what will be named the Beach Tower in the future?
Bb also explained the difference between ho-hum internet (my term) and "commercial quality" internet; commercial quality requires redundancy in the system to ensure against failure of a single feed for any reason. That means a second fiberoptic feed. Accordingly, a SECOND feed is being installed in July around the quarry off Buck Moore and a THIRD feed is being installed to Nalcrest. These feeds will hookup into Bb's existing feed and will provide 3 pathways and super-duper over-redundancy required for commercial quality internet.
This just begs the question: "Why does Internet Bb need commercial-grade internet?" or, alternately, "Why does the new managing entity require commercial-grade internet?"
I think that folks in here should prepare for a super-duper commercial-quality park of the future! >>>Cue Clappers<<<
|
|
|
|
Post by courious on May 26, 2015 8:33:02 GMT -5
Even with the towers being secured for up to 130 mph winds, what about their locations next to or in close proximity to SLR Hurricane shelters? Lightning strikes, partial tower damage, even flying debris can impact on the safety and well being of residents.
|
|
|
|
Post by eastpolk on Jun 8, 2015 11:17:19 GMT -5
Just to chime in....At no time has anyone with Polk County requested he install anything. As for other posts regarding his ham radio status and Polk County ARES assistance, that is a bold faced lie. He is not active within the Ham community and he is NOT nor has he ever been a member of Polk County ARES. Contact them for your self and ask. polkares.org/ |
|
