PRESIDENT'S REPORT: President Walton reported that the reserve study contract had been signed and sent to William Douglas. The start date has not been determined yet. He was asked whether the canals and spoil site were stated in the contract. The response was that they were included in the proposal, but not the contract.
COMMENTS:
First, what kind of report was this? What is the total amount of the contract? Who is the vendor? How is it that canals and spoil site were included in the proposal, but not the contract?
I'm sorry but I don't trust this board for a number of reasons, but particularly when it comes to the spoil site and the canals. Why? Think about it. The Canal Committee, a subcommittee of Water Amenities, took a proposal from committee to Garrison's Legal Committee, last spring. The committee's proposal was to add language to the Individual Assessment by-law, to be voted on by the residents (Note: the proposed by-law change was not an indication that Individual Assessment couldn't stand as it was, but an effort to ease the decisions of another board who faced dredging.) Garrison put his own proposal on the table and that was to form a canal sub-association, put forth a by-law change for a vote, for a yearly set aside for the canals. Additionally, the board would seek a legal opinion from the board attorney regarding the legality of forming a sub-association.
First, the legal opinion was presented verbally by Garrison. There wasn't a written opinion that could be shared/viewed by all, and utilized in the event that someone questioned it. Why? According to Garrison the attorney gave every indication that it was a legal possibility, but every canal resident would have to be in agreement. How likely was that? This board didn't even bother to look in the records when advised that this had been considered in the past.
Second, it was decided that a survey would be sent to all canal lot owners to determine their interest. The survey was months in development and finally sent around the time of the annual meeting. It was a ridiculous instrument! They weren't mailed to all the canal lot owners on the same date. There was no way to look at the authenticity of any of the responses because it wasn't signed by the board, did not require the responder's signature, or date to return by, and left the canal lot owners with a yes or no answer. This was nothing more that a staged effort in futility!
In the end, wait there is no end, because somewhere under 30 surveys were returned. Since there was no return date some could wait to return them next year! Of those returned many said "no".
The survey was mentioned at the December board meeting but what is next? There was nothing listed under "old business", or "new business", for January. Did this subject fall off the face of the earth, or just this "stall and hide tactics" board's agenda? It all just looks like smoke and mirrors to me.
How do you accept what is presented in a proposal and not include the language/assignment in the contract? This is just as sound as getting a legal opinion for a board and residents, verbally!
