Hi all,
Again we have questions on the BLOG about who owns what and who maintains what. Previously, in this BLOG, references and evidence have been presented to prove unambiguously that the lakes (Except the Wellington ponds) belong to The Benenson Corporation in New york City.
They are managed by their Resident Managing Agent, W.P.R.F., Inc.
Below, I shall republish these references; but first permit me to present some information and make some comments.
As has been mentioned in this BLOG previously; an analysis was made by Army Corps of Engineers Team leader Amir Gamliel (ELSAT Engineering). This report layed out, in some detail, how this job of restoration should be accomplished and a number of options were presented. The costs ranged from $4 million to $8.5 million dollars. These plans were rejected on the basis of cost. From a technical point of view, this is totally unacceptable, but it was done anyway.
Following this report, plans were made up within UCO for another plan whose resemblance to the Technically correct plan, is purely coincidental.
Now comes Andre, who's plan is no more technically acceptable, than is the UCO plan. Both approaches are mere bandaids, destined in short order to come apart and have to be repeated.
If you the unit owners wanted to spend the money to follow the Gamliel Report plan, you the Unit Owners should have made your voices heard at Delegate Assembly; AND made it clear that you were ready to pay the price! At the very least, you should have demanded to see the report, which to this very day is held in secret. As a VP of UCO I was finally able to see this report and if anyone wants to read it, send your Email address to me at: nsasigint@comcast.net and I shall Email the report to you.
Finally, to exacerbate matters, there is a rank confusion between the issue of Shoreline Restoration and Water levels in our Lakes and Canals.
There is a natural cycle here in Florida; there is a Rain season and there is a Dry season. In the dry season, the water level drops in accordance with the seasonal variation of the Water Table. when the Water Table drops, there is virtually NO amount of reclaimed water that will maintain the level of the lakes. because the water seeps through the sandy sedimentary bottom into the surrounding infrastructure, thus, we would have to raise the Water Table of Southern Florida to keep our lakes full; this would require Billions of gallons to accomplish, and that is just not going to happen.
UCO's goal is to take enough reclaimed water to keep the water level above the Irrigation Pump intakes. This is a difficult task in the Dry season and Sal and Pat and their committees are to be commended on this valiant effort in working with the County to modulate the flow, and keep our plants and grass irrigated.
So, please, get involved and become informed before expressing your opinion; there is more to this issue than meets the eye.
Following is the reference mentioned above:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The confusion arises over the Millennium Amendment to the Long Term Lease, which ultimately, relegates to the Unit Owners of Century Village the responsibility for Operational costs and Maintenance of the Recreational Facility. The issue of what constitutes Maintenance and what constitutes Capital Improvements I shall leave to Lawyers and Accountants.
20 comments:
I find your replly to Andres criticism that none of our 4 UCO VP stood up to UCO management in throwing money in beautification of our shorelines very sarcastic.You said:Now comes Andre whos plan is no more technically acceptable than is the UCO plan.Dave,at least Andre is trying to do something-what about you?
Hi Branko
Jun 1, 2009 9:00:00 PM,
My only contribution at this point is to provide technical facts as I see them and evidence which no one seems to want to read.
The plans, currently in execution, started long before I got there.
If you really think Andre's plan has technical merit, how about reading the Elsat report by a Nationally recognized expert in the field, please do not confuse facts with sarcasm.
Dave Israel
The following is an abbreviated snip of one of the ELSAT recommendations, it seems obvious to me that this item should be given more consideration, in that it would benefit all shorelines. Rapid water level fall has a particular effect of undercutting and collapsing banks (see study).
“Flow-Control Weir
Weir with a flow control device at the Village's waterways downstream location
According to our experience with erosion and dam-failure investigations, equipping the Village downstream weir with a flow control device will immensely help to protect the waterways banks against erosion. Such modification will prevent reoccurrence of the severe erosion that happened last Fall because of the relatively rapid lake water residence, which induced high seepage rate……
It will increase the total water storage volume in the area during the drought season.
It will reduce the load on the drainage system during the time of maximum flow rate at the
canals.
It will correct the Village downstream flow rates to amounts that are expected under natural
conditions from the time before the Village was built. ….”
Highly recommended you read the whole thing per Dave’s offer.
What is going on at Dover, is the shoreline work continuing in deep water?
Dave, you make it sound as if the Delegates knowingly turned down the ELSAT plan for shorelines, Did they? Did it appear at Irrig/Infrastructure, or Operations, or Executive Bd, or Officers, or Delegates, how far up the cmte tree did it go?
In my early attempts to find out what had happened to the ELSAT study, I never heard any discussion of it in Irrig/Infrastructure meetings, or evidence in minutes, I wonder if the cmte read it? Also Sal was repeatedly unable to produce the study despite writing reminders to himself to look for it.
Mark Levy's brother-in-law owns the shoreline restoration company.
Need I say more ????
Hi Elaine
June 02, 2009 9:01:00 am
I am not aware that the Elsat report was ever briefed in detail to anyone, outside of the inner clique.
It was briefly mentioned at an Ex. Board meeting; whereupon I ferreted out the name of the author by circuitous route.
Dave Israel
I have on hand a letter dated April 20, 2009 signed by Mark. F. Levy, President W.P.R.F. Inc. which read as follow:
Dear Mr. Veilleux,
I am in receipt of your letter dated April 16,2009 regarding your proposed alternative plan to the UCO/W.P.R.F. Inc. (WPRF) lakeside restoration plan ( the ''Plan '').
This letter is to advise you that WPRF is not a participant in the Plan and is merely an agent for the collection of funds which are held in a separate lakeshore restoration account. WPRF has not endorsed the Plan nor has it been asked for its input to develop the Plan.
I hope this clears up WPRF'S status in this matter.
( Signed ) Mark F, Levy President
Many questions remains unanswered about this UCO Plan the most important one being whether or not this $2,000,000 dollar expenditure was approved by the Delegates. Andre
Dave: Mark Levy and Beneson are NOT responsible for anything related to shoreline restoration. CV gave that up in the Milennuim Agreement. What is hard about that to understand??
Hi A Nony Mouse
Jun 2, 2009 9:43:00 PM,
Benenson owns the Recreational Facility, WPRF is Benensons Resident Manager of the Recreational Facility.
UCO/WE, the Unit owners, are reponsible for all Operational costs of maintenance of the Recreational Facility, per the Millenium amendment to the Long Term Lease.
This is the typical business model of the Triple Net Lease.
So; how hard is that to understand?
Oh, by the way, the lakes and canals are part of the Recreational Facility.
Dave Israel
Triple net lease ????
This was not included in Kurt Weiss' executive summary of the Millinium Admendment.
This is big time FRAUD.
Dave, you are disgusting.
Hi Dave; If Mr. Levy and WPRF say "no" as they did in Andre's letter, and UCO has started to restore the shore, doesn't that mean that we (CV) have assumed responsibility for the entire project?
There is no such thing as "we".
Lowenstein and Blucnk are personally resp[onsible for all UCO shenanigans.
Dave, I am trying to understand the process here.
1)UCO is fully responsible for all operational cost required by WPRF to maintain the recreational activities of which the lakes and lagoons are part and parcel;
2)These operational costs are approved by the UCO Operations Committee which is chaired by the President of UCO;
3)Once this approval is given to WPRF, Anita Cruz as the Manager, proceeds to spend that money and reports back to UCO as to the status of the account on a periodic basis;
4)UCO would certainly not be allowed to go into the Hasting Clubhouse and do any type of physical changes to the building without the approval of the owner represented by WPRF;
Question 1: Under what authority is UCO authorized to restore the lakeshore without any approval from WPRF as stated by Mark Levy in his correspondence to me?
Question 2: What tender process is being followed by UCO to spend that kind of money which is held in a separate account by WPRF?
Question 3: When does the Delegate Meeting ( the Board ) happens to approve these kind of spending?
Question 4: If WPRF is only holding the money bag and the work is to be executed under UCO sole discretion and authority, why din't UCO collected the money directly from the owners through the UCO fees?
Question 5; Is there more here to this issue than meets the eyes? Thank you Andre
Hi A Nony Mouse
Jun 3, 2009 7:50:00 AM,
" Dave Is Disgusting"
OK! have you ever hear the saying: "Don't shoot the messenger"
Dave is not responsible for what is in Kurt's Executive Summary.
Dave was not even resident in CV when it was written.
Please read the Millennium Amendment and see for yourself what type of lease model it defines.
----------------------
TRIPLE NET LEASE
Definition
A lease in which the lessee pays rent to the lessor, as well as all taxes, insurance, and maintenance expenses that arise from the use of the property.
This content can be found on the following page:
http://www.investorwords.com/5830/triple_net_lease.html
Dave Israel
Hi Peter
Jun 3, 2009 8:54:00 AM,
Once again; WPRF is the owners Resident managing Agent. What Mark Levy wrote, in part, is:
"WPRF is not a participant in the Plan and is merely an agent for the collection of funds which are held in a separate lakeshore restoration account. WPRF has not endorsed the Plan nor has it been asked for its input to develop the Plan."
Thus, UCO, is indeed developing the plan to restore the shoreline which is, by definition, a maintenance expense of the Recreational Facility.
In other words, if "we" want the shoreline fixed, "we" get to pay for it. So if we do not assume responsibility for the work; it will not be done.
This is but another impact of the Millennium Amendment.
Dave Israel
Let the shoreline live its NATURAL LIFE.
The barren shoreline only bothers residents, most of them part time, when the dry season is here.
Right now, using my 20-20's corrected vision, I see no specific issue overall. If there is a REAL NEED, not a perceived OH WOULDN'T LOOK BETTER, then shore up the coast line.
The ocean waves that are taking the soils away and weakening the construction of CV housing is very scary.
Get real......there is no need to spend all that cash at this time.
When the lakes were built, a long time ago, there does not appear that there was a need to put down significant amounts of reinforcement against the aluvial action of the wind.
SAVE THE MONEY.
Actually Howard, there are canals on the north side of CV whose banks are collapsing! You need better glasses!
Actually Howard, the Elsat Rpt requires 20ft between the buildings and the top of the sloped bank. Have the needy areas been identified? where the water is closer.
Howard may have a point here where in CV the developers have built the units to not face the water like you normally find in most south florida developments. In fact the ''lakes '' are in the backyard and the back of most enclosed Florida rooms respond to no specifications.
Everyone does what he wants to enclosed the back room ....as long as the front door meets the building specs. Quite a strange behavior here.
I guest everyone will agree that this is the 2nd ugliest thing in the Village ..after the garbage bins.....
Steve, this might be the reason UCO Irrigation Committee was not receptive to the Alternate Plan which aims is to beautify the waterways. Andre
Post a Comment