Mandatory Drug Testing??

Our manager, Joanne, has been ordered by President Slota to begin mandatory random drug testing of our employees.

I would like to know who decided to do this. It is a major policy change which should have been discussed and voted on at a public board meeting. And you have to wonder, is this expensive and time consuming process really an attempt to reduce our rampant drug problem, or just another demeaning harassment of our employees by a couple of directors whose life work seems to be to get rid of our own people and bring in contractors.

And who decided to bring in an outside landscape firm to do trimming at the entrance at Rec 3? How was that outside landscape firm chosen? And was the job put out for bid? Is this not the same company that botched the trimming of the trees (also decided without a board vote)? We've already spent $4,300 with them on two jobs. This is almost 20% of what it would cost on an annual basis to hire a full time replacement for the man we're short on the landscape crew.

I also saw a bid for janitorial service to replace our in-house crew. Maybe I'm going senile, but I don't remember voting to do this. This couldn't be another case of certain members of the BOD going off on their own. And again, who chose the company which submitted the bid?

It seems to me that if some of the board members WANTED to create the appearance of corruption and impropriety they couldn't do a better job than they currently are.

Bill Brady
Bill

Not What We Were Expecting

The Comcast Cable contract that was recently approved by the BCC Board of Directors and signed by Board President Slota, was, in fact, negotiated by a company called Communications Consulting Group, CCG for short, under a contract signed in September of 2008. This company (CCG) is a “savings contingent” company which is compensated for its efforts to negotiate lower cable rates than proposed by Comcast by receiving 25% of all savings achieved.

Under the terms of the contract there are two areas of savings. First there is a one-time $128,000 “sign-up” bonus for BCC agreeing to a 10 year contract, and second there is a reduction in the monthly rate per unit over the ten years of the contract. Under the terms of the contract with CCG they are entitled to 25% of both the “sign-up” bonus and 25% of the savings for the next ten years.

As Shakespeare said, “ay, there’s the rub”. The payment to CCG for the “sign-up bonus” is not a problem since it will be paid for out of the bonus itself, but since savings don’t generate cash, all the payments due for savings in the out-years, a total of more than $89,000, will have to come from the quarterly maintenance assessments. To my astonishment, this came as a complete surprise to all the other Board members. You have to wonder, did anyone actually read the contract before it was signed?

Now there are two responsible ways to solve this problem. The first is to take the net “sign-up” bonus of $96,000 ($128,000 minus CCG’s 25% or $32,000) and put it in a protected bank account which cannot be used for any purpose but to pay off the future obligation.

The second, and preferred, strategy is to negotiate a discounted, up-front payment to CCG which would extinguish the debt now. Depending on the discount rate used this could be in the $60,000 to $70,000 range and would assure that future Boards can’t raid the bank account for other purposes.

To be completely clear about this, if the Board spends the $96,000 for current expenses or unbudgeted improvements like updating the rec center bathrooms, future homeowner are on the hook for $89,000 in payments over the next ten years.

I’ve polled my fellow Board members for agreement with one of the two approaches and asked that it be placed on the agenda for the September meeting and have heard nothing, which leads me to believe that the Board wants to keep this under wraps and proceed with business as usual. This is just not acceptable.

Bill Brady
Secretary, BCC

THEY DID WHAT?!

This article is to provide a place for readers to post comments which don't really have a home elsewhere. Kind of a miscellaneous "In Box" to comment on BCC events, good and bad, which don't fit under other existing articles. PLEASE NOTE: GOOD AND BAD. Let's also hear it for those good and/or smart things that go by without recognition or comment as well as the gripes and grumbles..

MONTHLY FINANCIALS… FACT OR FICTION?

The following quote is from BCC accountant Donna Seidenberg’s every monthly Financial Reports' cover letter produced since December 2008. Underlining has been added for emphasis.

“Management has elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures and the statement of cash flows required by generally accepted accounting principles. If the omitted statement of cash flows and the disclosures were included in the financial statements, they might influence the user’s conclusions about the Association’s financial position, results of operation and cash flows. Accordingly, these financial statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such matters. “

In other words, the BCC Board of Directors has acted to keep BCC owners ignorant about what’s happening to their $2 million+ annual maintenance payments. In doing so, they are violating the generally accepted and required accounting standards and the advice of our accountant.

These Financial Reports are available on the BCC Official web site (see link in left column, go to "Resources" then "Documents"). Hard copies also available for pick up in the BCC office.

PUPPY? MUTT? %$#@ *,?+!@?!!@!!

BCC residents want an article about dogs so readers can post their doggy comments, opinions and complaints. Here you go folks.

Just click on comments below and let's hear what you think.

This article is not pro or con dogs. It is posted to allow readers to discuss dogs among themselves.

GO TO IT... NO BITING!

SECURITY? FOR WHOM?

“KevinFlagg” suggested opening a discussion on BCC security. Please see his comment among those below.

Actual 2008 Security costs (including vehicle fuel & maintenance) were $185,290. These costs (discounting SRD) are our 4^th largest expense. It is one of few BCC expenses which is discretionary and which has proven to be an ineffective waste of money.

A well-designed system using properly placed surveillance cameras and monitored by the gate guard would actually permit apprehension and arrest of thieves and vandals that have been preying on BCC residents. (Please don’t use the lame SRD system stolen from Rec 2 as a reason to dismiss cameras!) Motion activated cameras linked to radar automatically generate speeding tickets and stop sign violations. License plates for entering and departing vehicles would be video recorded along with entrance and exit times. Similar systems are being used successfully in many high-end Florida condos.

With elimination of useless day-time roamers plus increased fines, a decent system would pay for itself in months, reduce speeders and actually protect residents. (However, I am certain that some night-roaming members of our BOD will do their best to defeat a cost/benefit analysis of any effective security system.)

Why not a more effective, lower cost system? Let’s have your thoughts. Add a comment.

DOCK DEPOSIT? WHAT DOCK DEPOSIT?

I can confirm the sloppy accounting and lack of control over Deposits. In 2008 I canceled the dock lease I had obtained more than 20 years before and asked for the return of my deposit. I was told there was no record of my having made any deposit and that I should provide a copy of the canceled check! Who keeps canceled checks for 20+ years?

Luckily I had a signed lease acknowledging my deposit, so I got my money back. How many people not so lucky will get done out of their deposit? Remember the $50 “deposit” for gate openers that most of us lost?

I would be surprised if detailed support could be provided for either the rental or the dock deposits. If any detail does exist, it would only be due to the efforts of Joanne Lowenthal, our manager, working against stiff opposition from some BOD members.