Monday, November 12, 2007

Seawall Consultant To Report at Board Meeting

Reuben H. Clarson, the consultant who was hired to evaluate our seawall this summer, will be present to speak and answer questions at the Board meeting this Saturday November 17, 2007, at 10 am.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Okay Lady's and Gentlemen, here we go again. Where are your comments and thoughts on the Board making decisions for us. "Seawall" very important that we are not led down the path of millions of dollars of debt to this possible exaggerated problem. Attending the meeting and listening to the consultant report is important, but remember, reports like medical findings should be questioned and a second opinion should be imperative. A staging of repairs can be made over a period of years rather than the extream make-over suggested.

Payoff of this community without further debt or interest should be #1 priority by the Board.

November 14, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Anonymous said...

Monitor, sorry you didn't find it prudent to publish comments on the "Seawall." That makes one step forward and two steps back for a Board member. Felt comments were very important and proper. It only suggested that share holders be aware of their place in this community. It seems to me that Board members may feel intimidation by those who would question goings-on by the Board! There are other methods of communications besides the blog, if freedom of speach is so monitored!

November 16, 2007 at 9:22 AM
Don Spector said...

Off the top it seems like there has been poor planing for this project in the past.The 2008 statutory reserves give a total cost of 1,000,000 over 40 years and we have 31 years left-yet there is only 4,166.66 in the budget for the last 9 years.In reality we should have been setting aside 25,000 a year at the very minumn-which comes out to about $5.31 per home per month for the last 9 years.With inflation on this projected the price of 1,000,000 in the year 2038 seems on the low side.

November 16, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous, I disagree with your #1 priority of debt payoff. But this is only my opinion, bear with me. I think that the #1 priority of the board is the safety of the people of the park, as well as the security of their financial investments. Many residents would be financially devastated if a major seawall catastrophe occurred, and a $5k assessment was levied per household. It may be more prudent to spread the seawall debt to another 20 or 30 years of future residents. These are very difficult decisions for the members of the board to consider. We are obligated by law to maintain and preserve the common areas. Failure to do so would be a crime. The members of the board also try to consider the collective needs of the people, always aware of the financial burden that fee increases and assessments put on our elderly and most delicate neighbors. None of us, believe me, NO ONE wants to see maintenance increases. We all want to do only what is absolutely necessary. We all just can't seem to agree on what necessary really is.
PS Next time you add a comment, under "Choose an Identity" below, hit the button for "other", and make up a user name for yourself. There are so many anonymous contributions hitting my email, I can't keep them straight, and may overlook one every so often. If that was you, I am sorry.It wasn't intentional.

November 17, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Anonymous said...

To Don,
I didn't see you at the board meeting today. I hope you have some sources that will relay to you what I thought was a really good board meeting.
You may be wrong about the seawall reserves. I thought we totally depleted them with the last major repair this past summer.
According to some of our wise elders, there has been an issue in reporting the condition of the seawall since the paperwork for buying this park was made public in the 90s. I doubt there is anyone alive who can tell us exactly when the seawall was fabricated. Because the park was developed in stages, it is quite possible that the seawall went up in stages too. Judy Webb and I came across newspaper clippings from 1964 when Mr. Guernsey sold the 75 acres to the Dominion Development Co to form Georgetown. (See page 15 in the history book.) In 1965, the Redfish Bayou seawall was built. Fifty years later, there are cracked slabs and washouts and sinkholes.
When this park was sold in 1991, the resident shareholders were told by the seller that the seawall had a life expectancy.In 1994, according to our annual independent auditor's reports, the Board hired a licensed engineer who conducted a study to estimate the remaining lives and replacement costs of the land components of Regency Cove. (See note H 2007 Auditor's report)

Yes, it apparently was a mistake. There was poor reserve planning for many years, because few Florida associations felt the need until the storms of 2004 devastated the state. It was then that hundreds of coops and homeowners associations learned the price of poor reserve funding. Our board visited sites in Punta Gorda, and vowed to steadily increase our reserves for our own protection.

Don, I think everyone who attends the board meetings pretty much learned a while back that we do not have 30 years left on our seawall. I have only been in this park 2 years, and it has been a concern at the meetings since I began attending them.
We just have to accept that there were some miscalculations in the past. Poor planning? OK, if you insist. There was no experience upon which to make good judgements.

November 17, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Don Spector said...

Sandy,i did not attend the last board meeting or many others in the past.Not everyone in this park is retired,i am 57 and single and have 2 part time jobs and do some volunteer work as well as have many health issues from a bad back,diabetes,etc.etc.and am a disable Viet-nam vet.I depend on the board for the info it sends out for my opinions.My facts come from the 2008 proposed budget that we all recently received.You says after the 2004 storms it was relized we needed to increase our reserves.Yet, when i see 4,166 in reserve for the seawall and it should have been adding 25,000 a year which based on this budget low figures we are short 221,000..I taught basic accounting class in high school 20 plus years ago and this sounds like the same methods the US GOVT uses for social security program.I do know every year we get a glowing report from all auditors on our finances and the board lets us know this and how good of shape we are in.All i am trying to say simply lets get with the 7 P PROGRAM-proper previous planning prevents p---- poor pridiciments.

November 18, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)