A few interesting discussion points

 

         Here's a few interesting discussion points (from David Luellen 7/29/21)

 

    1. According to the 2020 audit, there was $283,324

    in our "Major Maintenance Fund" at the beginning

    of the year. The Board used $253,257 of that, or

    90%, for "Legal and Professional Fees." Again in

    the 18 month projection that was put out this

    month, they stated that of the "Maintenance Reserve

    Fund" of $422,431, they plan on using half, or

    $211,216 for current expenses, not long term

    projects. Over the period 2020 to 2023, therefore,

    they are planning on spending three-quarters of

    $1m on legal fees.

The July 26, 2021 letter from the Board laments

that "When a community fails to set aside adequate

reserves systematically over decades, they pass

the obligations on to future owners. Fifty years in,

we are those future owners, and we must collect

the special assessment or the community's

infrastructure will fall into further disrepair." And

yet, they are raiding our current and past

maintenance funds for legal fees.

 

2. In the same 18 month projection, $430,000 is

expected to be incurred for legal fees. That's 32%

of the total expenses of $1.351m. Similarly, the

$312,050 of legal expenses incurred in 2020, was

38% of our total expenses of $828,370. (However,

on the projections for 2023-2028, the Board lists

"?" as the potential cost for legal fees -- meaning

we are not currently doing any plannlng for those

years. Previous to these recent litigious years, in

2019, for example, our legal fees were $44,386.

 

3. There are six lawsuits currently in process.

 

    a. Two are unrelated to our bigger issues.

Specifically, BHVA v Weaver is a case of a condo

owner not paying their assessments, now totalling

some $20k. The other is Randy Corso v. BHVA,

which is a trip and fall case, where, if we have any

liability, it should be covered by insurance.

 

        b. BHVA v Town of South Bristol, is where we

are appealing a ruling against us regarding Bristol

Sewerage.

 

    c. Fields v BHVA concerns use of the

fob system to deny access to non—residents,

including non-resident boat slip renters. The Fields

wanted a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) and

they were denied by the court on 7/21/20. The

Fields appealed and arguments are set for 8/3/21.

Again, this is for a TRO, not yet for the merits of

the case.

 

        d. Fields v BHVA seeks summary judgement by

the Fields to get rid of the fines levied by the board

because of the removal of the swim platform, and

seeks to overrule the Board EC on installing a tram.

This is scheduled for 8/18/21.

 

     e. BHVA v Fields, where our Board is the

plaintiff, because the Fields put up a concrete

barrier blocking access to the clock (which is gone

now), alleging that boats stored in the garage are

blocking emergency vehicles, that the kayak rentals

are without Board approval, that they are renting

boat slips to non—residents, and that the Board

desires an injunction against building a tram. BHVA

sought a TRO, which was denied on 7/1/21. The

BHVA, I assume will appeal the TRO, and proceed

to sue on the merits of these issues.

 

As you can see, none of these cases have to do

with who owns the beach,who owns the marina, or,

who owns the elevator. I think much of the

community think these suits are about

protecting our rights to the beach and the elevator,

but none of them actually deal with these matters.

Our access to the beach and our desire to repair

the elevator aren’t even being addressed in these

suits!