COMUNIDAD DE PROPIETARIOS
DEL
RESIDENCIAL SOL GOLF, FASES I Y II
ACTA
In Orihuela Costa, 2nd December 2006
Assembled, in ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING, further to the citation urged by the Chairperson and on second call, at 10.30 hrs. in the Drivers Bar, the proprietors below (with corresponding share in percentage),
FASE I:
D. John Stephenson, owner of dwelling no 5...2,11%
D. Gary Howard, owner of dwelling no 7..........2,11%
D. Stephen Taylor, owner of dwelling no 9 ......2,11%
D. Victor Callaghan Smith, owner of dwelling no 17..2,11%
D. Andrew Gibbons, owner of dwelling no 20...2,11%
D. David Gray owner of dwelling no 44.......2,11%
FASE II:
D. Leslie Beale, owner of dwelling no 12.....1,82%
D. Brian Cole, owner of dwelling no 16....1,82%
D. Ronald Cain, owner of dwelling no 18...1,82%
D. Neville Jackson, owner of dwelling no 21..1,82%
D. David Fisher, owner of dwelling no 24..1,82%
D. Dennis Dixon, owner of dwelling no 25..1,82%
D. William James McDonald, owner of dwelling no 29..1,82%
D. James Alexander, owner of dwelling no 55..1,82%
By way of delegating to Mr. John Stephenson, owner of dwelling nr 5, Fase I:
D. Edward J. Pickford, owner of dwelling no 2, Fase I..2,11%
D. C. Schofield, owner of dwelling no3, Fase I..2,11%
D A. H. Peters owner of dwelling no 4, Fase I....2,11%
D. P Seechim, owner of dwelling no 8, Fase I....2,11%
D. J. Thomas, owner of dwelling nr 11, Fase I....2,11%
D. J. Pickering, owner of dwelling nr 16, Fase I.....2,11%
D Daniel Gallimore, owner of dwelling no 25, Fase I....2,11%
DÃ. C. Price, owner of dwelling no 32, Fase I....2,11%
D. Pretsall, owner of dwelling no 33, Fase I......2.11%
DÃ. R. Kerrison, owner of dwelling no 46, Fase I.2,11%
D. J. Proctor, owner of dwelling no 42, Fase I....2,11%
D. M. Garfoot, owner of dwelling no 4, Fase II..1,82%
D. A. Ferguson owner of dwelling no 6, Fase II..1,82%
D. M Iwanko, owner of dwelling no 8, Fase II..1,82%
D. M Downes, owner of dwelling no 9, Fase II......1,82%
D. D. McCallum, owner of dwelling no 10, Fase II.1,82%
D. J. Gordon, owner of dwelling no 19, Fase II.....1,82%
DÃ. J Joicey, owner of dwelling no 27, Fase II....1,82%
D. K. White, owner of dwelling no 28, Fase II...1,82%
D. J. Steen, owner of dwelling no 31, Fase II..1,82%
D. L Van Dijck owner of dwelling no 34, Fase II...1,82%
D. Dean Sharman, owner of dwelling no 36, Fase II...1,82%
D. Eric Watson , owner of dwelling no 41, Fase II.....1,82%
D. R. Blenkinsop, owner of dwelling no 42, Fase II....1,82%
D. Mark Lewis, owner of dwelling no 47, Fase II.....1,82%
By way of delegating to Mr. Liam McDonald, owner of dwelling no 29,
Fase 2:
DÃ. L Ford, owner of dwelling no 27, Fase I....2,11%
DÃ. S Grant, owner of dwelling no 40, Fase I...2,11%
DÃ. A Dudley, owner of dwelling no 3, Fase II.1,82%
D. Wayne Johnson, owner of dwelling no 15, Fase II..1,82%
D. D Morton, owner of dwelling no 17, Fase II......1,82%
DÃ. M. Taylor, owner of dwelling no 22, Fase II.....1,82%
DÃ. A Dudley, owner of dwelling no 33, Fase II......1,82%
DÃ. M Ellis, owner of dwelling no 45, Fase II.....1,82%
D. J Dickinson, owner of dwelling no 50, Fase II....1,82%
By way of delegating to Mr. Jeff Smith
DÃ. R Aylett, owner of dwelling no 34, Fase I. 2,11%
Following an introduction from the Administrator Andres Aranda, the meeting started with an explanation into the voting procedure which was introduced this year in the interest of fairness to those unable to attend. To those who were unsure of or had not received a copy of the minutes of the A.G.M 10th December 2005 there were copies available on the table. In addition, Andres said that anyone wanting any information of previous meetings, bank statements or anything at all to do with the Community of Owners should feel free to contact him and he would be more than willing to supply the information.
It was also stated that due to the problems of unidentified payments into the Community bank account there could not be 100% certainty as to the debtors. Therefore, as this was the case, we were allowing everyone present/or proxy to vote and their votes would be counted unless it was established that they were indeed in debt to the Community.
There was also, it should be brought to the attention of the Community of Owners, a confusion over one guest whom the Administrator mistook for an owner, and while he was of course welcome at the meeting the vote that the Administrator gave to him under this illusion was null and void, and the counting has been re adjusted to take account of this.
They consented to the following resolutions, regarding the issues to be discussed, which have been stated within the
AGENDA
Item 1
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE YEAR 2005-2006.
SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL.
The Administrator gives to those present the balance corresponding to the Financial Year 2005-6. As resulting from the said statement, the balance in the bank account on the 29th November 2006, was 7,259.00 euro which he explained was a good situation to be in.
In the aforementioned statement appears a list of all the payments made by the owners as well as the expenses through the last financial year.
As there were no questions raised by those present, the financial statement was put to the vote and approved by the unanimity of those present and their proxy votes.
It is also given to those present a list of all those owners who are not up to date with payments of Community Fees. The debtors are the ones appearing the following list:
LIST OF DEFAULTERS IN THE COMMUNITY OF OWNERS SOL GOLF I & II
(balance on the 29th November 2006 please contact the Administrator if you believe this to be incorrect)
PHASE I:
Prointersol, S.L., owner of the dwelling 1: Outstanding : 65.31
Scott C. Fergurson, owner of the dwelling 16: Outstanding: 541.24
J A Albaladejo Henarejos, owner of the dwelling 22: Outstanding: 182.04
Christine Moore, owner of the dwelling 29: Outstanding: 261.18
Inessa Grigorovitch, owner of the dwelling 30: Outstanding: 461,18
Pablo Ruiz Palacios, owner of the dwelling 31: Outstanding: 641,24
Christine Batten, owner of the dwelling 36: Outstanding: 201.70
Patrick Curran, owner of the dwelling 37: Outstanding: 641,24
Colin Paxton, owner of the dwelling 38: Outstanding: 195,87
E. Prieto Garcia, owner of the dwelling 39: Outstanding: 261.18
S. Lopez Garcia, owner of the dwelling 43: Outstanding: 261.18
J. Hernandez Bernal,owner of the dwelling 45: Outstanding: 532.36
Please note Mr Paxton is a new owner and may be unaware of the situation.
FASE II:
Prointersol, S.L., , owner of the dwelling 5: Outstanding: 64,90 EUROS
Prointersol, S.L., , owner of the dwelling 7: Outstanding: 64,90 EUROS
Prointersol, S.L., , owner of the dwelling 9: Outstanding: 78,92 EUROS
Hassim Saddique, owner of the dwelling 11: Outstanding: 259.52 EUROS
F. Lopez Ruiz, owner of the dwelling 13: Outstanding 259.52 EUROS
Tatiana Kuchkina, , owner of the dwelling 23: Outstanding: 258,40 EUROS
Prointersol, S.L., , owner of the dwelling 37: Outstanding: 48,92 EUROS
Jessie Pagliarulo, , owner of the dwelling 43: Outstanding: 458,40 EUROS
Please note Mr Saddique is a new owner and may be unaware of the situation.
The owner of the dwelling 9 phase 1 Mr Taylor, requests the Administrator to correct his statement to fully paid. Once sorted this problem, it is placed on record and shown in the present minutes.
The owner of the dwelling 10 phase 1 Mr James, requests the Administrator to correct his statement to fully paid. Once sorted this problem, it is placed on record and shown in the present minutes.
The owner of the dwelling 13 phase 1 Ms F Dockx, requests the Administrator to correct his statement to fully paid. Once sorted this problem, it is placed on record and shown in the present minutes.
The owner of the dwelling 23 phase 1 Ms V Molino, requests the Administrator to correct his statement to fully paid. Once sorted this problem, it is placed on record and shown in the present minutes.
The owner of the dwelling 33 phase 1 Mr A Pretsall, requests the Administrator to correct his statement to fully paid. Once sorted this problem, it is placed on record and shown in the present minutes.
The owner of the dwelling no 1 phase 2 Mr Gregory, requests the Administrator to correct his statement to fully paid. Once sorted this problem, it is placed on record and shown in the present minutes.
The owner of the dwelling 8 phase 2 Mr M Iwanko, requests the Administrator to correct his statement to fully paid. Once sorted this problem, it is placed on record and shown in the present minutes.
The owner of the dwelling 22 phase 2 Ms Melanie Taylor, requests the Administrator to correct his statement to fully paid. Once sorted this problem, it is placed on record and shown in the present minutes.
BUDGET OF THE COMMUNITY OF OWNERS FOR THE YEAR 2005-2006. COMMUNITY FEES AND DISCUSSION OF THE BUDGET FOR 2007.
The Administrator explained to those present the monthly and annual Budget for this new Financial Year 2006-7, In response to a question raised Why do we spend what we spend he explained that the Urbanisaiton is a private area and we must maintain not only the pool but all communal areas. The need for insurance to cover this area was also explained and the fact that three quotes had been obtained. It appeared that the quote from Mapfre was not only the cheapest but also offered the most comprehensive cover. The increase in Community charge from the current 260 euros to 300 euros (an increase of 40 euro per apartment & corresponding amounts for the two villas on phase 1) per year was also approved after discussion by the Administrator. Andres explained the Community of Owners obligation to pay for the extra insurance, work on the internal walkways on the Urbanisation, the need for a larger contingency fund and of course the increase in the price of water and electricity. Once submitted to those present to vote and taking into account the proxy votes, it was approved by unanimity.
Voted Yes 38 for 1 against
The payment of the Community Fees comes into effect in December 2006 and can be made by transfer, or directly in cash in the BBVA,
Account number: 0182 4487 01 0201506780
IBAN CODE: ES27
SWIFT CODE: BBVAESMM
Communidad of Proprietors Sol Golf 1
always include as reference the name of the owner and number of the property. Please could all owners refrain from putting Community charge payment Sol Golf on the payment instructions as this is what is causing the problem at the bank. The bank (as all banks in the UK and the rest of Europe do) will only take account of the first 20 digits of instruction. Therefore, if I put Community charge payment Sol Golf phase 1 Mr Stephenson no 5 the bank will pay it through as Community charge payment Sol G and nothing more. This is the reason we have so many payments into the bank with no identification and not as was stated by one present at the meeting the fault of either our bank or Administrator. Please when making payment only put the amount paid and the number of the apartment, and phase. There is no need to add the words Sol Golf Community payment 2006/7 or any of that sentence.
Voted yes/agreed 38 for 1 against
Item 2
APPOINTMENT OR CONFIRMATION OF THE POSTS OF THE COMMUNITY OF OWNERS.
The Administrator informs those present of the need to appoint a person to hold the post of President of the Community of Owners during this financial year, or confirm to the current President in his post. He stated that in all of his dealings with Communities the President of the Community of Sol Golf phases 1 and 2 was the best. He mentioned that although he is the paid official, he could not possibly know the problems and the comings and goings of the Community. However, as he stated he had in the previous eight months received in excess of 500 emails from the President (who by the way was determined, much more than himself to collect the outstanding payments and correct the state of the Urbanisation), he felt it only fair that those present be made aware that the President, the Vice Presidents and the Committee asked for no payment from the Community and this could only be applauded.
As to this point, to those present he proposed Mr. John Stephenson, owner of dwelling 5, phase I, to carry on in his post for another year. That Mr Victor Callaghan Smith dwelling 17 phase 1 to carry on his post as Vice President for another year. That Mr Dennis Dixon dwelling 25 phase 2 be elected Vice President (joint) and that the Committee proposed was (re elected/elected) as Mrs Janet Turnbull dwelling 24 phase 1, Mr Ron Cain dwelling 18 phase 2, Mr John Healy dwelling 52 phase 2 and new to the Committee Mr Andy Gibbons dwelling no 20 phase 1 and Mrs Angie Fisher dwelling no 24 phase 2. Andres then stated that the President has asked him to enquire if any of the Spanish owners would like to join the Committee but that they did not. Following this also on request of the President he asked those present if any of them wanted to stand for any position and non did. Then once submitted to the vote of those present, and the proxy votes this proposal, it is approved by the unanimity.
Voted yes to all /agreed 38 for 1 against
Item 3
RENEW CONTRACTS
It was then put to the vote to renew the contracts of
Fincas Network /yes 38 for 1 against
Pool Maintenance/yes 38 for 1 against
Pool exterior/yes 37 for 2 against
Insurance increase/yes 38 for 1 against
The subject of the pool maintenance and the pool exterior cleaning brought much discussion from those present. Questions were raised why two seperate Companies were needed when usually they were done by one. In answer to this the Administrator stated that the Pool maintenance Company were very good in the job that they did but that this was a technical job and not one of cleaning tiled areas (of which we have a lot). He went on to say that the Company had been approached to clean the outside area and they had declined as they are specialised pool cleaners . They of course could do the work but the cost quoted far exceeded the one we pay at the moment so the issue was taken no further with them. Questions were asked why we did not change the Company to one who would do both. The reply was as the officials are happy with the condition of the pool (and have had no complaints since they started) and also quotes obtained in the past did not included exterior cleaning it was felt that the situation be left as it is. A question was then raised that we (The Community of Owners) should re tile the pool area with non slip tiles! As this was not on the agenda (requests for items for the agenda have been asked for for the last year) it could not be voted on. There seemed to be some issue that the antil slip material (applied for free by Slip Solutions S.L. saving the Community over 3,000 euro) was costing the Community money for its upkeep. There is also a rumour to the effect that it will need renewing every year at a cost to the Community of 3,000 euros plus. Mr A. Gibbons from Slip Solutions explained to those present that the Company who carried out the work gave him no renumeration. The existing treatment was guaranteed for ten years and if maintained properly would last that long. He also pointed out that whatever the pool exterior area was covered with, it would need cleaning to remove sun oil, body fats, dirt, dust etc. The Administrator said that he had obtained quotes for this work from other Companies and that they far exceeded what we paid at the moment. Andres then asked those who stated that they could have it done cheaper to submit quotes. However, it was concluded that there were non, and non had actually been obtained, by the owners or their proxies.
In addition, while on the subject of the pool exterior area the Administrator told those present that he had had a request from an owner to take the builder to court to make him pay for anti slip tiles. This he stated had been looked into in the past by the President and also by Legal and Tax. Many legal aspects have been looked into and the upshot of it is that by taking the builder to court it would cost ten of thousands of euros and that the outcome could be predicted now. The builder, he stated, gave the Community of Owners a pool. That is it, not a pool with this, a pool with that but a pool. Of course if an individual owner thinks that there is a chance of making the builder re-tile the pool area then if they want to take their own (not in the name of the Community) action against the builder then they of course can, and will be assisted with documents.
The issue of why we needed insurance was then discussed, and it was explained that as we (The Community of Owners) own the Urbanisation then we could be liable for any accident or incident that occured on any of the Communal areas. Also if any accident/incident occured we would be covered. He went on to mention the recent fire in the pump house and that due to the great efforts of the President, Vice President and some of the Committee it re-opened withing three days, the fact that the President had made sure that the Community had a fund for such problems also helped. This highlighted the need for future insurance to cover such things.
As stated all four contracts were renewed for a further year by unanimity of those present and the counting of proxy votes
Voted yes to renew all four contracts for a further year
Item 4.
COMMUNITY CHARGE PAYMENT AS A SINGLE PAYMENT /20% SURCHARGE, FOR PAYMENTS LATER THAN APRIL 1st 2007
There was much discussion over this subject and a few people thought that it should remain as a twice a year payment. It was however, voted by the majority (and by proxy) present to change this to once a year. The payment of 300 euros is due from the 2nd December 2006 and can be paid by cash, direct debit, cheque or bank transfer. To facilitate this change it was decided to allow owners until 1st April 2007 (before that date not on, or after) to make payment. Any payments not received by that date will be subject to a 20% a surcharge. It was felt by one person present that the 20% was high! It was then pointed out by an owner that it would only apply to those who did not pay on time! Another sensible owner asked about the possibility of placing the money in a higher interest account, and the President and Officials will look into this.
Voted yes
Item 3a Increase in Community charge to 300 euros
It was it seemed felt by many that this type of increase is to be expected and that a rise of 40 euro a year to give the Community a larger emergency fund, spend money not previously spent on the upkeep of the internal walkways and also take into account inflation was while not welcome acceptable. We still have one of the lowest Community charges in the area and measures are taken daily to maintain this.
Voted yes to an increase to 300 euros per annum for 29 against 9
Item 5
EXTERIOR PAINTING FUND
Several people objected to this proposal pointing out that as avid DIYers they would prefer to do their own maintenance. The majority present and also the majority proxy votes voted no to this item.
Voted no to an increase to 350 to set up a painting fund. For 17 against 22.
Item 6
LEGAL DEMAND OF PAYMENTS OF OWNERS CURRENTLY IN DEFAULT. AGREEMENTS
The Administrator informed those present of the right the Community of Owners have to claim through the Courts the payment of all the outstanding community fees. He then went on to explain that there are several court orders being processed at the moment and that all the other debtors have been sent letters of a last and final warning. It was stated that we have several payments with no owner details on them in the Community bank. We have asked all owners with a debt against their name if this payment could be theirs not once, but on many occasions. To date we have had five positive replies and on production of receipt this has been amended as a payment against a property. Once again can we please ask that you do not put "Community charge payment Sol Golf" on your paying in/bank transfer form. Please, please please just put your name and or the number of your property, as the bank will only process the first 20 letters and the only incoming money is Community charge payments so we know what it is for. Hopefully, once the new invoices go out owners will realise that they are the ones that we are looking for and on production of proof of payment the problem will be solved. Please could you help solve this problem and not go out of your way to make it as difficult as possible, there are not as was stated at the A.G.M. "thousands in a hidden account" this money is in the Community account and we are trying to find who paid it in but we need help with this not obstruction.
Agreed yes
Item 7
MEASURES RE NON ALLOWED BUILDINGS
Permission is required for anything to be erected in gardens or on roofs/terraces etc. It is understood that the area where Sol Golf is situated i.e. Pau 8 is under stringent planning laws. There are, it was stated by one owner present, many extensions, sheds and glass structured buildings in the area. These the Administrator said are illegal buildings and once the council check, the Community of owners where these are placed will be liable for a fine from the council because of this. In addition, these structures will also have to be demolished and removed. Several owners voiced the opinion that they had bought these particular apartments because of their appearance and that they would strongly object to this being changed. Bearing this in mind it is asked that all owners wanting to carry out any work that will change the appearance of an apartment (outside of course) to apply for planning permission from the local Council. If this permission is granted could they then bring a set of plans and the planning consent to the President to put before the Vice Presidents and Committee. If in the opinion of the Officials it would change drastically the appearance of the Urbanisation then an E. G. M. would need to be called, to allow (in all fairness) all owners to vote on the proposal.
The issue of the positioning of air con units was then discussed and it is asked that where possible not to place them in the centre of theirs and the adjoining property. In addition it was also asked where possible not to postion the units near the steps as the water output from these could cause someone to slip.
Agreed yes
Item 8
INDIVIDUAL INVOICES RE COMMUNITY CHARGE.
Individual invoices are to be sent by the Administrator by end of of January 2007. A 20% surcharge will be added if the Community charge is not paid by April 1st 2007.
The use of direct debit is recommended although not compulsory. The use of previous details for collection of Community charge (stopped in 2005/6) which is a common way for the Spanish to pay their bills is to be reintroduced
Voted yes For 38 agaist 0
Item 9
10% BUDGET SPEND
It was agreed by the majority of all those present and a majortiy of proxy votes submitted, to allow the officials to spend up to and including ten per cent of the annual budget without having to notify owners. To allow for the day to day running of the Urbanisation this is essential. Following one owners strong complaint (in writing) over the introduction of this it is felt that examples should be given as follows.
In recent months we have not only had a fire in the pump house that needed money spent to re-open the pool, (middle of August pool re-opened in three days) we also had a problem with the drains on phase 1 outside numbers 20 and 30. Following several calls to the Constructor who came once and stated their was no problem, the drainage cover blew and we had raw sewage flowing down the streets. Had the President needed the whole of the Communities permission to bring in a drains specialist the sewage would still be running down the streets now. We are never going to get 101 owners to reply to such letters. Also the cost of posting and employing someone to do the letter writing (not in the Administrators or the Presidents remit) would far outweigh the cost of most items/repairs etc. The cost of clearing the drain (it was blocked with builders cement and debris) was 180 euros and an independent survey was included in this price. In the process of trying to claim this money back from the Constructor the President realised that if one drain was affected then the likelihood of the others been affected was great. After many more phone calls and other forms of communication the drains on phases 1 and 2 were checked and it was found that all had the same problem and indeed two drains on phase 2 were not even connected. We are of course trying to claim the 180 euros back but if we never succeed we think that by getting all the drains cleared in advance of further problems it is money well spent. No doubt there will be someone who does not and as an owner they are of course entitled to try .
Voted yes For 26 against 7
Item 10
SECURITY /LIFEGUARD
Quotations of a summertime lifeguard/security guard for the Communal pool from the hours of 10 am to 8 pm came in at 936 euro per month. It was however, voted by the majority present and the majority proxy to decline this as most thought it an unnecessary expenditure and thought that adults should be responsible for their own children. Could we please remind all owners that they need to remind guests of the pool rules and not expect the officials to intervene on their behalf.
Voted no. For 2 against 36
Item 11
GARDENS
Due to a massive involvement of the President the 23 unkempt (including his own) have now been reduced to 8. However, it was felt that this is still 8 too many. It was agreed by the majority present and by a majority proxy vote to have one last attempt to get the owners to remedy the situation. Failing this the gardens will be landscaped (using the cheapest method) by the Community of owners using Community money and a debt for the work plus expenses and interest will be placed against the property involved.
Voted yes For 25 against 15
Item 12
POST BOXES AND LARGER DISPLAY BOARD
The subject of moving the post boxes was no longer an issue as between the dates of the agenda being sent out and the meeting the post boxes on phase two were moved by the builder. The council on it first inspection of Sol Golf phases 1 and 2 refused the Certificate of Habitation because of the post boxes on the pool wall. They were, it appears, extending from the wall 2cm more than allowed on the original plan. Apart from the aspect of the builder working flat out to move them and at no charge to the Community, it did highlight the problems that can occur with buildings or alterations that are not on the plans. It was however, stated that the owners on phase 2 are having their mail damaged by water getting into the boxes and it was decided 23 to 7 to get some waterproof covering to both boxes and also to purchase a larger notice board (planning permission allowed of course)
Voted Yes For 23 against 7
Item 13
To continue with plans (already passed A.G.M. 2005) to purchase plants, seats and an irrigation system for the pool area.
This issue once again provided some discussion. Where many had commented about the swing seats provided and liked them, it seemed that some present did not and had wanted stone seating instead. The swing seats were bought to provide shade as well as seating and have been a huge success during one of the hottest summers on record for the area. They were not expensive (cost to each owner less than four euros or 1 euro each) and of course it was realised that they are not going to last forever. It has always been the plan to purchase some permanent seating (either stone or wood or a mixture) but the reaction from some owners over this issue is making the Officials question why they should bother. Obviously they are never going to please all 101 owners all the time so it has been decided to purchase a mixture of types of seating in an attempt to at least get something right. The issue of plants and irrigation will also be looked into and if any owner has a strong prefence for or against certain plants could they put this in writing to the Administrator.
Voted yes. For 27 against 7
Item 14
The purchase of sunbeds and paralsols for the pool area
Although some owners stated that those wanting sunbeds around the pool should take their own it was agreed by the majority present and by proxy to purchasesome strong sunbeds for around the pool. In addition, it was also voted by the majority present and by proxy to purchase some stronger parasols. One owner objected to the wording on the agenda of item 14 as they wanted parasols but not sunbeds. This was a good point but as the meeting could not go on for ever some items e.g. items 1, 4 and 14 had to be lumped together. In addition, when the invitation for items to be added to the agenda was given this is the exact way that this was submitted by three owners. One owner had asked for the wooden type parasol that seems to last longer, and this is being looked into. The insinuation that something untowards had happened to the previous parasols was answered without a problem and could have been asked before the meeting. The parasols were bought from monies collected by the President by those on phase 3 wanting to pay to use the pool on phases 1 and 2 as theirs was not ready for use at the time. There were objections to this from one owner but as every one else was happy with the situation (including those who paid) it went ahead. This money was documented and put to one side and the parasols were purchased with it. Once again the President got an excellent deal, collected them himself to save on delivery charges and with the help of some of the owners of the Community, fixed them around the pool. Over the next two years, the President, the Vice President, members of the Committee and several owners (thankyou we know who you are) put the parasols down at the end of the day. There were occasions when non of these people were present and of course they snapped in the winds that occassion. The parasols were unsafe for use in a public area. It was not possible to get them fixed to the extent that they would ever be fit for use in a public area. To that effect they were removed from the pool area and put by the bin outside the pool. Following that they were removed and taken to three owners apartments, these owners have repaired them at their own cost and kept them for their own use. If someone has a problem with this could they once again please put it in writing and send it to the Administrator, but please could they also bear in mind that if they had helped look after them in the first place this would not be an issue now!
Voted Yes. For 24 against 11
Item 15
The placing of a copy of the intenal rules of the urbanisation in each rental property.
There was not much discussion over this item as it was felt (in general) that this could only to the good of the Community. It was however, agreed that a copy of the internal rules needed to go to all apartments as some of the owners who did not let out their properties were unsure of the rules
Voted Yes. For 39 against 0
Item 16
To no longer allow long term lets through rental agencies, unless by prior discussion and aggrement of the President, Vice Presidents and the other Officials.
It would seem that there was some confusion over the need for this item to be included on the agenda and many thought it was purley to restrict owners to what they can and cannot do in their own property! We on Sol Golf phases 1 and 2 like all other urbanisations have suffered from the behaviour of long term tenants. While not saying that everyone who rents is of bad behaviour (we have three properties at the moment with excellent long term tenants) the idea was to at least get to know the renters and welcome them into our Community. Those who are aware of this situation, voted for this measure and it was a very close vote. It is however, of such importance that it would need a vote of 50% or more so although there was a larger vote for than against it can not be passed.
While this item on the agenda was been voted on a guest at the meeting suggested that all the items on the agenda were petty and that we should be doing something about security. As all owners are aware the President has worked hard towards this but the cost to the Community is higher than most if not all are prepared to pay. The guest stated that we should have two security guards employed every evening to patrol each end of the Urbanisation. As this has been looked into to a great extent Andres was able to furnish the guest with the exact cost of this operation, was this was known then the guest changed his mind. However, Andres has been in touch with the chief of Police and they are to start more patrols on Pau 8 in the new year which can only be good news. In addition we now have the involvement of the Neighbourhood watch. Leaflets were given out at the meeting and details can be found on the lamp posts on the Urbanisation and also from the home of the President at no 5 phase 1.
Voted yes but no under the law. For 24 against 16
Item 17
Dogs with a tendency to bark not to be left outside for long periods when the owners are absent
This was one of the few items on the agenda which brought no discussion and only one vote against.
Voted Yes. For 39 against 1
Item 18Pool rules to be amended to include
18a No ball games Voted no balls games to be allowed (small soft baby balls excepted) Voted Yes. For 33 against 5
18b No music unless by earpiece Voted yes. For 17 against 10
18c No food around or in the pool area. Voted no food to be allowed (obviously this does not include snacks this is intended to stop full meals and picnics around the pool) Voted yes. For 35 against 2
18d No drinks in glass or ceramics Voted no drinks to be allowed in glass or ceramic containers Voted Yes. For 32 against 6
18e Children under the age of 10 to be with an adult Voted yes not to allow children in the pool or pool area without an adulresponsibleresponisble person i.e. someone sensible over the age of 14/15 or thereabouts. Voted yes. For 39
18f Babies to wear nappies or other suitable garments when in the pool water Voted Yes. For 39 against 0
Item 19
Other matters. Complaints, comments, suggestions requests and questions.
There was no further discussion although one owner asked for all apartment owners to be aware of the correct address and area code when contacting the emergency services as there had been a problem recently getting an ambulance. The need for everyone to have the emergency numbers was also highlighted and these it was pointed out were on the back of the leaflet we had just given out published by the Neighbourhood Watch. If anyone wants these numbers could they please contact any one of the Officials.
Andres the Administrator said to those present that if in the event of a problem they could contact him on his mobile (number 665839125) and he would do his best to help. However, following the meeting the rumour is that Andres is charging for this service and of course this is once again malicious gossip. Anyone would be aware that Andres can not act for all in an unpaid capacity (he would never get the work he is paid for done) but in the event of an emergency his service to the owners of property on phases 1 and 2 is free.
The next (4th) Annual General Meeting Sol Golf phases 1 and 2 is set for Saturday December 1st 2007 at 10am (venue to be arranged) items for the agenda are been collected throughout the year.
The 3rd Annual General Meeting Sol Golf phases 1 and 2 closed at 13.25. Thankyou to all involved present and by proxy
No comments:
Post a Comment