We inform you that when our lawyer arrived at the town hall, half an hour before the meeting, he found that the Mayor and the Councilor for Urban Planning were already meeting alone with the President of the Board, Mr. Marc Tubau.
When we were allowed to enter, the Mayor introduced the meeting with the intention of holding an efficient assembly, conscious of the division, lack of trust, and arrogant communication (attitude) from members of the Board of Delegates.
She stated the following from the outset: If the previous ordinary assembly has legally impugnable defects or facts that do not correspond to what happened, she asks that they be exposed, since one item on the Agenda indicates the approval of the minutes (the facts, not the things or processes that have been impugned). We responded that one issue is linked to the other and that we cannot approve a description of facts that presumably includes decisions with impugnable and untransparent processes.
In the conversation, it was finally recommended to the President that he try to "invalidate" the decisions that were taken in the minutes of the ordinary assembly based on the content of our contentious-administrative appeal. We added the fact that the Board's own auditor signed under pressure, indicating that he was not in agreement.
Proposal for a Monitoring Commission
The Mayor proposes the creation of a Periodic Monitoring Commission (with her participation as moderator) to try to restore trust in the following points.
She commits to holding monthly meetings with the board and the neighbors who wish to participate to discuss all issues related to the sewerage projects or alternative solutions, to work on them and not leave it to annual meetings where the board delegates advance as suits them without debating or explaining absolutely anything.
⚠️ Economic Risk: The €150,000 Policy
The President of the Board tells us that he had already gone before a NOTARY to unilaterally request (since according to him, being the president elected by us, he has the right to do so) a Banking Operations policy with Banco Sabadell for guarantees and receipt collection guarantees worth €150,000.
Finally, he has put it to a vote as item 12. If this decision is made, it will mean that if these €150,000 are used for guarantees and if they are not returned, the debt of this money will belong to the Compensation Board, that is, to all the neighbors.
Technical Solution
Stop the pressure of times and dates for the sewerage project, and commission work on other alternatives (bio-purifiers) at the same level as conventional sewerage; Addressing legal issues, technical viability, costs, advantages, and future risks.
The City Council commits to clarifying with Urban Planning and the Environment unclear issues such as how a council can protect a public service with installations on private property, how to ensure that all owners will perform adequate maintenance being the city council criminally responsible, etc...
We agreed that what is important now is that the bio-purifier project be developed to the same extent as sewerage by collectors and pipes. The president notes to focus the agenda item in this sense, showing the risks of the alternatives and indicating what steps would have to be overcome for both alternatives to be technically approvable, to then be able to assess the economic cost over time.
We agreed that he will propose in the assembly to initiate a study on bio-purifiers with the collaboration and involvement of various companies to have all technical and budgetary guarantees.
⚠️ About the President's Plot and the "Coincidence"
The president comments that he passed the assembly call very tightly as he feels that we scrutinize everything he writes and sends with a magnifying glass and that in numerous chats and writings we insinuate that money is going to be taken for this project.
During the conversation, we conveyed the impression we had and commented that, informally, we had become aware of a modification of the project on his plot. Said modification would have the effect that the installation of a pump for the impulsion of sewage would not be necessary, being also the only plot on Street 10 that would connect directly to the main network, despite the fact that in a previous meeting we were told that the ACA did not allow it.
We were answered that it was a coincidence and then another topic was addressed.
Other Urbanizations and Shared Costs
We also asked about other urbanizations like Can Margarit using the Santa Maria collector and that we did not see it as normal that we paid for the collector and other urbanizations benefited from it. The president commented that it was planned to be done on Tibidabo Street and that the costs of that street were going to be paid 50% by Can Margarit and 50% by Santa María de l'Avall.
Legal Points
The Mayor confirms having contacted Urban Planning for these legal issues and the answer has been "not being clear", to which we say that it is the opportunity to present it positively, being pioneers and above all improving expectations of reducing the cost and economy of the work.
She also indicates that the ACA has been consulted on the extension of temporary permits and the conditions (due to) technical advances that would justify their extension and renewal over time.
Administration Points
We expose the limitations and restrictions on receiving notifications, errors in correspondence, lack of database updates, management of unpaid bills, delay in responses to requests for information, lack of transparency in the voting system, attendance at assemblies restricted by unpaid quotas requested from the Mifer administration and from which no response is received or requires much insistence.
Everything contributes to distrust and the fact that owners do NOT receive information, documentation, and cannot exercise their right to vote. We ask that these issues be resolved and other administrators be looked at who give us greater confidence.
Financial Points
The communication of the ordinary assembly was, presentation of the project, even though it had not been approved, collecting extraordinary quotas, indicating the year of execution in 2027; The economic part, together with the execution of the project is what worries us most, since the plot average places the cost of the basic project at 40-50 K€ (which can be exceeded, being common, by 10-30%) being economically unsustainable for the average economy of our urbanization, so it is requested:
- A more economically viable alternative study.
- A study of execution scenarios considering possible financial supports; from subsidies (city council) to credit entities under favorable conditions or possible forms of payment and financing in tranches.
Neighborhood Initiative of Santa Maria de l’Avall