Two items that should be addressed at this time are 1) this week’s election for the ACSA Board of Directors, and 2) the assembled disclosure communication to the Residents of the ACSA’s financial status. Let’s take a brief look at each item. Further discussion will follow with future posts.
COMING SOON – WILL THE NEW BOARD OF DIRECTORS BE FOCUSED ON ALL THE RESIDENTS?
THIS WEEK’S BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ ELECTION
The Residents need a change from the current Board of Directors; this Board majority is self-serving and has not served All the Residents equitably. This Blog endorses the following. Director Candidates.
Christopher Edwards
Arthur La Flemme
Robert MacIntosh
ACSA FINANCIAL REPORTING
The ACSA’s financial reporting disclosure communication to the Residents can be made more understandable with the addition of simpler documents, which would offer a snapshot of where the ACSA financially stands. The data disclosed appears detailed; however, it’s like pieces of a puzzle that need to be placed together, i.e. to show a finished puzzle
Two examples of showing an understandable financial situation are a Balance Sheet, and a Profit and Loss Statement, e.g. for the Brassie Grille, Golf Course, and Tennis Club. See examples of these forms below.
These two financial forms are simple and to the point for a quick overview of a financial entity. Certainly, there is much data that these two forms represent; however, the dumping of all the data that has been provided to the Residents for the Residents to decipher is not a fulfilling act of transparency. Showing readable forms WITH the enormous piles of numbers practices true transparency of where the ACSA stands financially.
ALSO COMING SOON – THE CURRENT ACSA BOARD NEEDS A CHANGE. ELECTIONS ARE THE ANSWER.
COMING SOON – COULD THE ACSA FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES BE MORE TRANSPARENT?
Can we really call The LSP Committee, a working committee, with dialogue and a back and forth interaction, which would be expected from a “Committee”?
It appears that the Lakeside Pool (LSP) Committee number three, where volunteers were required to submit a resume and then be chosen, has turned into a shell committee, where Pool Area decisions are made and then disclosed afterwards to the committee. No meeting has been called since the first orientation meeting though a meeting is allegedly scheduled (which did occur), and yet Pool Area events move forward, as disclosed at the last monthly ACSA Meeting by the now apparent sole source of Pool Area information, an ACSA Non-Resident employee. It would seem that this committee, in its now third transformation, would participate in decisions regarding the Pool Matter. After all, the Pool Residents have exclusive use of the Pool Area, are expected to maintain and repair the Pool Area, and pay 100% of the resulting costs. It certainly could be expected that these Residents should have a say in decisions to restore the Pool Area, therefore, the expected reason for an LSP Committee, including the 30-year track record of maintaining and repairing of the Pool Area. However, the past 30 years of caretaker diligence and the current LSP Committee are being ignored, as the ACSA railroads its Pool Area agenda through the Pool Residents, where the costs are not considered, because the cost decision makers do not pay. The Pool Residents pay.
We have a non-Resident, who is an ACSA employee, and to whom we pay this employee’s salary telling us what will be occurring at the Pool Area. The salary BTW, it appears, is beyond a clerical pay grade. Check the ACSA budget for the Administrative Office’s expenses. Ironically, we pay this employee to short change us with the LSP Committee, where discussions and dialogue are expected, yet eliminated, and its resulting purpose is to listen and abide to what ACSA will be doing with the Pool Area through this employee spokesperson. It’s unfortunate for the LSP Committee Members, where the expected ongoing meetings to discuss the Pool Area does not exist, at least with public announcement. These meetings are to be posted and disclosed for the Pool Residents. I have not seen or heard of one. One Pool Member, when I asked about the next meeting, replied the Members were waiting to hear, and another one stated that a meeting may be coming up. Who is running the LSP Committee? There are Chairpersons and Members.
This employee, has shown, in all Pool Matter instances, that the employee is in control of all Pool Matters; however, we don’t know how the Pool decisions are justified other than coming from the employee. No discussions ensue. Decisions are disclosed as events that will occur without an explanation as to the decision. A dictatorial behavior could easily be concluded from the optics of the employee’s actions. Let’s review what has evolved with this employee and the Pool Matter.
The employee submits a Timeline of events, at each monthly ACSA Meeting, that shall occur in the Pool Area restoration. Who decided on these events to occur? The past and current LSP Committees had no participation in these called for events. BTW – The Pool Residents pay for the cost of these events. We’re still waiting for a paid Soil Test from months ago; it’s still being held by this employee. Why? Maybe because it doesn’t concur that the Pool is sinking; we only hear the news that supports the agenda to lay waste to the Pool Area, i.e. demolition of the Bathhouse and shelved up Pool pavers.
A statement from a County Health person, who was told that the Bathhouse had been condemned, squelched a Pool Member request to open the Pool Area, after some repairs could be completed, per a Florida licensed Building Contractor. Did the ACSA employee disclose this condemnation to the Pool Residents? – NO. Further after investigation, no County condemnation had ever occurred or existed. However, the belief of condemnation was left to remain, which supported the employee’s reply statement, when asked if an opening could be something to address, which was that the temporary opening of the Pool Area is “Not supported”, with no employee explanation.
The employee stated an ACSA Meeting that the Pool had a County Code Violation and the violation was being addressed. The violation was never disclosed except for a Chapter from the Code Book. That Chapter has 15 possible pool requirements, which one needs to be addressed?
The employee stated that the architects were finalizing the Bathhouse building. Were we ever shown a rendering of a proposed Bathhouse and told of its amenities? – NO. However, there are drawings of the proposed bathhouse on the Aquarina website. Why not disclose that to the Residents or the Pool Neighborhood Presidents? Pool Area information is vague and is not forthcoming unless it is searched and found.
The ACSA contrived, and so far, has succeeded, with, astonishingly, the assistance of a few Pool Residents, to take control of the Pool Area away from the three Pool Neighborhoods. A shell LSP Committee of ACSA selected Members was formed as an audience to hear from the ACSA employee what will be done with the Pool Area, and for the Members to then relay back to the Pool Residents what was told to them at the meeting. Members are expected to assist the ACSA with its Pool Area agenda. The Pool Residents have their exclusive use (maybe, hopefully) with the ACSA directing the Pool Residents with the responsibility to maintain and pay what the ACSA decides for them, i.e. the type of Bathhouse, and any cost the ACSA elects to create in the renovation of the Pool Area, whether it’s a necessary repair or not, e.g. the Pool gutter being replaced and the pavers being shoveled and re-sloped. No explanation is provided on whom decided that these actions need to occur. There is documented information on the Pool gutter and pavers, which could avoid these repairs, but it has been ignored.
Yes, the ACSA has come to dictate and direct to the Pool Residents what they’ll accept and for which they’ll pay. It’s obvious, that after the Pool Residents set the predicate of maintenance and repair of the Pool Area over these past 30 years, the ACSA decided it wanted complete control of the Pool Residents limited common area (the Pool Area), and schemed for an excuse to take it away. The excuse was that the Bathhouse was neglected and near collapse. A theatrical and fear mongering presentation was made to the Pool Residents of the Bathhouse’s near demise by non-professional and unlicensed laymen. The first LSP Committee had been working on a business plan for this committee as requested by the ACSA, though this committee was shortly disassembled by the ACSA at the completion of the business plan. An ACSA ordered engineering report on the Bathhouse noted, at the worse, that the outdoor supported overhang needed to be shored up with probably replaced support beams. This first LSP Committee after the alarmist presentation on the Bathhouse ordered a building inspection from licensed building inspector to inspect the Bathhouse; however, the ACSA cancelled the LSP Committee inspection order, and requested their own inspection, i.e. the engineering report. This report suggested Pool gutter and paver issues and speculated to the causes of the issues. Where did the decision for gutter replacement and shoveled up and regraded pavers come from, a licensed pool or building contractor? We don’t know. Further did a licensed building contractor provide approximate cost estimates for both demolishing or repairing and restoring the Bathhouse?
Since the Pool Residents will be responsible for maintaining and repairing, and paying all the costs of the Pool Area, it would be expected that they would be part of the decision process, and be informed of licensed building and pool contractors’ suggestions and recommendations for the Pool Area renovation, especially the costs expected with these matters. The ACSA, and its employee and non-Resident spokesperson, need to have a dialogue with the Pool Residents, and not dictate what will occur with Pool Area.
Bottom Line – The ACSA decided it wanted to take control of the Pool Area, which the ACSA ignored for maintenance, repair, and costs for 30 years. The Pool Area had been tended by the three Pool Neighborhoods, and its presentation and use was consistently maintained to its maintained condition today, as it was from its conception in the late 80’s.
However, some drama and politics evolved, which the ACSA apparently saw as an opportunity to ignite a rebellion within the Pool Neighborhoods with assistance from a few Pool Residents. Unlicensed and non-professional findings with the pool Area were embellished to appear with more negativity than positivity to right any correctable problems. 30 years of successful and dedicated care of the Pool Area with no incidents or accidents were ignored, and the ACSA set the stage for its Pool Area take over. It selected its new Lakeside Pool Committee Members, with its second attempt, to assist it with its plan to upstage the Pool Area with its own design, AND have the Pool Residents pay for the costs of the design. After all, the Pool Residents who have exclusive of the Pool Area, maintain the Pool Area, repair the Pool Area, and pay all the costs for the Pool Area, have NO voice at all on the direction that Pool Area will take per the ACSA.
With the ACSA control of the Pool Area, the Pool Area could have been repaired for use within two weeks, but the repair was ignored for months, and was ACSA stated to be “Not Supported”. As a result, and because of this ACSA non-action, the Pool Area was abandoned and closed for over a year now. It never appeared in the neglective state that it is now. 140 Pool Residents request a discussion for a Pool Area repair, the Residents that will bear all the responsibilities and costs. The ACSA ignored this request.
The Pool Area was taken, the Pool Residents are suffering with a paid and taken amenity for which they still pay. It could be said these failures occurred.
There was no sit-down discussion with the ACSA and the three Pool Neighborhood representatives to determine what were the Pool Area issues and how they could be resolved.
The ACSA took control and of the existing Pool Committee, and after two unsuccessful ACSA attempts to assemble a new committee, the ACSA decided to assemble its own Pool Committee. It selected the members it wanted from the three Pool Neighborhoods, ignoring any Pool Neighborhood endorsed Residents for the committee. The ACSA was determined to have control.
A previous ordered inspection of the Bathhouse by the existing Pool Committee was cancelled, and the ACSA ordered their own engineering report, for which the Pool Residents paid. The report disclosed areas of the bathhouse that needed repair with two choices, i.e. make the repairs for the existing bathhouse, or if it was decided to bring the bathhouse up to code (which was a choice and not a requirement), then replacement would be more cost effective. Further, it was speculated that the Pool may be settling, and a Soil Test was ACSA ordered, for which the Pool Residents paid. That report results were never disclosed.
No discussion with the Pool Committee on how to address these inspection matters ever occurred.
An ACSA spokesperson, came up with how these matters would be addressed with no explanation. Who made the decisions for the addressing of these matters, Licensed Pool and Building Contractors? Do we have these decisions to review? NO. We have an ACSA non-Resident employee, telling the Pool Residents what will transpire with the Pool Area with no substantiation or explanation.
Costs for the ACSA directed Pool Area renovation have estimates up to $7,000 per unit based on what has been heard in the Aquarina Community, with completion by year end. Repair and restore could be up to one half of this cost, and a fraction of the time for completion. These estimates need to be disclosed and discussed, and not just directed at the Pool Residents for what has been decided for them.
The Pool Residents have been usurped, ignored, bullied, and neglected, which have caused personal suffering and economic injury. We know who is the responsible party. The majority of the folks that were surprisingly voted to be where they are sitting, with the fiduciary responsibility to represent their Residents, have arguably failed in this responsibility. However, in their minds, they have succeeded in capturing what they wanted, complete control of the Pool Area of which they ignored for 30 years.
MORE TO COME SOON ON ADDRESSING THE SOURCE OF THE LSP COMMITTEE APPARENT DIALOGUE SHUTDOWN.
PHOTOS UPDATED
Perimeter collateral damage will likely occur.
.
Repair and restore are far less likely to cause any perimeter damage.
Let’s review what has led up to the current road of replacing the Lakeside Pool (LSP) Bathhouse. We had a presentation of propaganda and an alarmist outcry that the Bathhouse was near collapse and the Pool was sinking, which we were told would certainly require, what was a surprising, unprofessional, and layman decision, to demolish the Pool Area. This negative mantra emerged from the second of the now three LSP Committees. The second LSP Committee was ACSA created from selected individuals, who were not committed advocates of our standing Pool Area. As a result of this second LSP Committee’s Pool Area oversight, there was limited transparency and communication, and a closed down Pool Area, for now more than a year.
The demolition decision, as stated, came from unlicensed and non-professional individuals. However, what we do have are two engineering reports from licensed professionals that determined that the Pool was not sinking and that the Bathhouse could be repairable. To further explain the bathhouse matter, it was suggested that repairs were feasible, but to bring the Bathhouse up to current County Codes would, in addition to the repairs, may not be cost effective to do when compared to replacing the Bathhouse.
However, a licensed building contractor provided an opinion, after reading the bathhouse engineering report and seeing the Bathhouse, that the Bathhouse could be repaired for safe use, including some paver repairs, within a two-week period, which would have the Pool Area in a position to be opened. The question becomes, does it make sense to demolish a building that could be remedied for use within two weeks? Further, a cost analysis between repair and restore, and demolition, was never apparently considered since the Pool Residents never saw an analysis or were told of one. The ACSA jumped into a replacement Bathhouse mode without a discussion with the Pool Residents, who will be paying for this rushed and careless decision.
It also should be considered that the vision of Aquarina began with its construction in the mid 1980’s. This Bathhouse along with Aquarina’s first three neighborhoods, i.e. Tidewater, Egret Trace, and Blue Heron, emerged as top scale architectural and constructed buildings, with the best and most modern materials, to set a tone for what Aquarina would represent, a timeless designed community for those who wanted the best. To this day these neighborhoods and its Bathhouse still stand out as, not outdated, but classic and contemporary as ever. The Bathhouse was designed and built to blend and stand within the pastoral and peaceful setting among the oak trees and pond in this Pool Area. Replacing the Bathhouse with a boxed concrete block building with a metal roof will appear institutional, and be a blot on the setting we now have to enjoy. I have never seen a 1980’s building demolished unless it was uninhabitable because of significant existing destruction, or it had to be moved. The basic structure of the Bathhouse is intact. The needed repairs are a new roof and reworked support beams for the paver overhang area. Toilets and sinks could be replaced. This type of repair and restoration would not trigger County Codes for other upgrade replacements and additions, since the building will be in a repair state and remain intact.
Any demolition will have consequences other than the removal of the bathhouse. A demolition event is not self-contained, especially for a building that is nestled and affixed into a pastoral and pool setting. There is perimeter collateral damage to consider for additional repair and replacement items from the demolition equipment and the removal process for the debris.
A repair and restore process for the Bathhouse eliminates this destructive consequence. Does it make any sense that a 1985 building that could be repaired for County approved use within a two-week period be demolished? Further, $8,000 of refurbished Pool furniture has been stored in the bathhouse to secure it during the past hurricane season by the second Pool Committee that wanted to demolish the whole Pool Area. The irony of it all. None of this Committee’s actions makes any sense. Yet it appears that the now third Pool Committee may be following this unreasonable and expensive path. BTW – we’re still waiting for a report from this Committee on the announcement of their second meeting. All Pool matters are being “slow walked”, while the Pool Residents wait. Where’s the Soil Report for which we paid?
To say again , this Bathhouse was constructed at the time of the original construction of the three neighborhoods that are still striving In Aquarina, i.e. Tidewater, Egret Trace, and Blue Heron. The bathhouse was built with the same focus that the German developer used on these three neighborhoods’ classic and timeless design, upgraded materials, and precision construction to set a tone for Aquarina Community.
Let’s look at these points of action with the Bathhouse.
All licensed and professional evaluations, i.e. an engineering report, a soil study, and a building contractor evaluation did not recommend demolishing of any of the Pool Area. It was suggested that if the bathhouse was to be upgraded to current County Codes, that a replacement may be more cost effective; however, a repair and restore of the current Bathhouse was considered a feasible choice, especially when the cost should be lower for repair and restore rather than replacement.
Any announcement that the Pool Area needed to be demolished was from unlicensed and non-professional laymen, where a propagandized and theatrical display of contrived information and misinformation was displayed to a shocked and puzzled audience of Pool Residents.
A cost-effective approach should be the path for a Pool Area repair and restoration, which would be to replace the roof and replace the support beams for the paver overhang, and change out the toilets and sinks of the Bathhouse, and address the few settled pavers that surround the Pool. BTW – the Pool gutter has been mentioned for repair. It needs explaining, since the assumption was that the slight unlevel nature was from Pool settling, which apparently is not the case.
Demolishing the Bathhouse, hauling the debris away, and going through a replacement building, which is at least a six-month process, as we’re witnessing now with the “slow walked” Pool matter, is absolutely not cost-effective nor time-effective for the Pool to be opened sooner.
No general costs estimates have been disclosed to the Pool Residents for a repair and restore approach as apposed to a replacement. However, work has been ordered for a Bathhouse replacement with no explanation for and no sharing of these costs. Isn’t great when you can spend someone else’s money without discussion or recourse? The ACSA did it with The Brassie Grille, and it’s doing it with the Pool Area.
Misinformation was provided that the Bathhouse was condemned, which discouraged a LSP Committee suggestion to temporarily open the Pool Area while the ongoing Bathhouse replacement process passes. A two-week remediation period before a re-opening resulted in being squashed before it could be reviewed and considered because of this misinformation.
It appears that a First Service Residential employee, whom we pay, and a non-Resident, is directing the Pool matter. The released information from the employee on what is occurring with the Pool Area remediation is limited, contrived, and in some cases withheld. Why? The ACSA should be working hand in hand with the Pool Residents with complete transparency and co-operation. Unfortunately, this is not happening, while the Pool Area sits abandoned. The ACSA has provided no data or information with its unreasonable actions with the Pool Area, other than questionable and limited information from what can be considered shill behavior from its spokespersons.
The current path of an extended period for replacement of the Bathhouse makes no sense, and it cannot be defended with reasonable facts. The reasonable facts call for a repair and restoring of the Bathhouse and the tuning up of some pavers, which all could be done in a few weeks. The Pool Residents are being held hostage with their Pool by an ACSA Board, which is obviously more interested in flexing its power and control, instead of its fiduciary responsibility to its Residents.
The current and third LSP Committee would be more effective for the Pool Residents if it was more proactive by asking questions and wanting explanations during these occasional held meetings, one meeting so far. One person, not being a committee member, should not be directing these meetings. The meetings should be dialogue of discussions among all the members, after all, two Chair positions were voted into place to lead the committee. Further, any decisions with the Pool matters, especially cost decisions, should be presented to the Pool Residents at an open meeting, since they’re using and paying the for the Pool Area.
BREAKING UPDATE
There has been one announced LSP Committee Meeting, an orientation meeting. However, just released to the Pool Residents was an announcement of decisions for Pool work to be done, e.g. Pool paver, gutter, and back-fill work, and a request for building contractors’ proposals. When was an LSP Committee Meeting announced to present these work decisions to the Pool Residents for explanation and discussion?
What appears is a pretend Pool Committee for optics, while behind the scenes decisions are made for the Pool Residents, who have not been giving a right to participate. The Pool Committee is made up of ACSA chosen volunteers, who are expected to be the voice of the three Pool Communities, at least 140 Residents. However, these volunteers appear to be listeners to the First Residential spokesperson, who orchestrates the meetings, just one to date, and directs what will be done with the Pool, what appears to be with no discussion among our volunteer representatives, other than them being ACSA conduits rather than filters for what the ACSA has planned for the Pool.
Please, LSP Committee Member Volunteers, stand up for your fellow 140 Pool Residents, ask questions for explanations from the ACSA on its decisions. There are cost effective alternatives to discuss. These Pool Residents overwhelmingly asked for a dialogue on a parallel path for a Pool opening. Now we should also have a dialogue on repair and restore of the Bathhouse, rather than a destructive demolition.
The 140 Pool Residents have spoken, we need our volunteer representatives to speak up for them, not just be lectured to on what will occur with the Pool Area.
The Brassie Grille was intended to be a comfort food eatery. After a round of golf or a set of tennis, you could swing up to the Grille for a cold one and a burger. Other choices were on the menu, which all worked for the folks. It was the type of eatery you find at any other golf facility. Aquarina Golf, Inc. (AGI) managed it, and its effort was a roller coaster ride of ups and downs. If it ever broke even as a business, then it was a success, but breaking even was never certain. However, aha, the AGI had the Residents’ fees to always support its expenses, i.e. subsidized them. What was needed was an experienced Chef/Manger to run it and pay rent, which never really materialized because of continued AGI meddling its way to control The Brassie Grille. The Aquarina political cabal required subservientness to its selfish needs resulting in management and employee relations always being a constant struggle.
Matters continued to spin out of control, when cabal demands were made to have fine dining, which then led to the current expansion, i.e. a bigger and better kitchen, more accommodating furnishings, and more space to accommodate all those dinner parties, and other social/dining events. The cabal moved forward with now $1M plus contracts for the expansion, and more moneys are needed. No problem there, the cabal offered an Aquarina investment opportunity whereby folks can invest in mortgages carrying a healthy interest rate. These five figure investments were instant cash for the cabal spenders, and the Residents, through their maintenance fees, would pay the mortgages back. It’s interesting, the Board can decide to allocate funds for Reserves (to maintain our infrastructure and community maintenance) or “Betterments”, which are to create costs for choices like The Brassie Grille expansion. It would seem with the age and needs of Aquarina that allocation of funds to “Betterments” is a selfish and irresponsible indulgence.
Keep in mind now that these majority of cabal Board of Directors had voted to spend a $1M plus dollars of the Residents’ fees without the Residents having a voice of choice for this expenditure. Did we come to Aquarina to be in the restaurant business? We are not on a desert island with no restaurants conveniently available. There are at least six very good restaurants within 10-20 minutes from Aquarina. Trust me, there is no way the revised Brassie Grille will compete with them. Most of them have been here for decades. Further, the $1M plus restaurant was created with our dollars, and a hopeful, restaurateur, was to lease it and run it. Well, that collapsed, and now the cabal is trolling for a tenant. One may have been found, but its history may need scrutiny. Meanwhile the Residents have a huge debt with payback from a maybe profitable restaurant business. This is the community priority? Hmm.
As we all know, we are in strenuous financial times, countrywide inflation is rampant, Florida insurance premiums are out of control, and our nation’s debt continues to recklessly rise. What does the majority of the ACSA Board do? It decides to place a $1M plus debt on its Residents on a completely discretionary decision to expand an existing and functioning restaurant. When you can indiscriminately spend the Residents’ money without recourse, why not – right? The ACSA Board Directors took an oath to serve the Residents and pledge a fiduciary responsibility to oversee the Residents’ funds. Has this occurred with their actions?
I would hope and think that among these Board Members there exists a small voice of reason; however, it appears that these voices have been squashed and intimidated with a politically cabal majority, who have their own selfish and reckless behavior to create and oversee. An election of Directors appears on the horizon; may there be an opportunity for change in Aquarina’s future direction or will complacency continue?
THE LAKESIDE POOL
Yet another “My way or the highway” without discussion, is the Lakeside Pool fiasco. A premeditated brouhaha occurred at a Pool Neighborhood meeting on Pool Area matters, where the ACSA later conveniently appeared to calm the apparently uncontrolled situation. Keep in mind, the three Pool Neighborhoods had overseen the Lakeside Pool for over 30 years without incident, since the Developer at the time bequeathed exclusive use of the Pool Area to the three Pool Neighborhoods.
An ad hoc Pool Committee was assembled with previous and new Members to provide structure to a Pool Area maintenance process that had been successful for these past 30 years. This Pool Committee was diligent and prepared, and documented an administrative structure for Pool Area maintenance, which previously was a Laissez-faire yet efficient process. Politics ensued, where the ACSA infiltrated the Pool Committee and removed some of its Members, when it was determined that this Committee intended to continue with the pool maintenance process as it had been handled for the past 30 years.
The ACSA (it had quietly been on the deed for the Pool Area) would not hear of this approach, since after 30 years of silence on pool matters, it now decided to take control, in every way, with how matters will be handled. The Pool Area was quickly closed because of structural repairs that needed to be addressed at the Bathhouse, and non-professional, unlicensed, and alarmist opinions that the pool itself may be sinking into the ground. BTW – the original Pool Committee was in the process of overseeing the structural matters, but was stopped by the ACSA. The addressing of these matters by the ACSA has been slow walked over the months with minimal communication and no remediation action taken to open the Pool Area. It was determined during this time that the pool was not sinking away, and a decision was to replace the Bathhouse. It was also determined by a licensed building contractor enlisted by the Pool Residents that any Pool Area repairs, e.g. the Bathhouse, could be resolved in two weeks, and the Pool Area could be opened for the interim to the Pool Residents, while the administrative process to replace the bathhouse was underway, at least a six month period. This remediation was turned down by the ACSA without explanation, other than stating this remediation was not ACSA supported. Ninety Pool Residents, who would pay for this fix, agreed to this remediation approach with a100% vote to proceed with the repair and opening, were stifled.
The Pool Area continues to remain closed. It has been a year of closure, where its landscape maintenance had been ignored, and Bathhouse’s roof tarp was waving in the wind, until protests to its neglected condition were finally acknowledged for correction by the ACSA. In 30 years, the Pool Area never experience the neglect that has been currently put upon it.
The decision to replace the bathhouse, based on the county process, and the slow walk of the ACSA over Pool Area matters, will most likely result in at least another six months or more of Pool Area closure. This closure, of the Pool Residents’ paid for amenity, the pool, was taken, and the result has injured these Resident units’ with sales, with rentals, and with their personal use. Many used the pool for physical therapy, and with the Pool Area taken away, certainly now is even more of a direct burden and injury for some of these Residents.
Selected and possibly prejudicial treatment are quite obvious, where the Board’s “all hands are on deck” motto was followed to subsidize the loss of The Brassie Grille with dinner nights and Club House food service, while the Pool Residents are left with a taken Pool Area and no near end in sight for its opening. The Pool Residents did have a path to open the Pool Area as previously explained, but the ACSA Board voted not to support it, which says you’ll get your Pool Area back at our pace and with our conditions.
With ACSA Board Director positions coming up for a vote this spring, may some of these injured Pool Residents participate in offering Board Director Candidates to offset a Board majority that has its own agenda rather than an Aquarina agenda for all its Residents, or will the complacency on which the Board feeds prevail?
Fortunately, with yet another ACSA Board re-assembled Lakeside Pool Committee, there appears to be some appointed members that have the will to monitor and to speed up the administrative process for permitting to occur sooner than later for the bathhouse replacement. Hopefully, these pool advocate members will be heard and not ignored.
At this juncture, there is still no response from the ACSA Directors on the overwhelming vote of YES to have a discussion with these Directors on the track that the Pool Residents, to a large majority and a 100% vote of YES, want to pursue. The answer to the headline question is a resounding NO, as the ACSA continues ignoring 90 plus voting Pool Residents.
POWER AND CONTROL
The ACSA is in a Power and Control state. This attitude is reflected in its ignoring, in every way, the Pool Residents’ call for a discussion of their loss, i.e. the Lakeside Pool Area, now closed for 10 ten months. There is a path for a resolution to have the Pool Area reopened during the extended process of replacing the Bath House. However, the ACSA refuses to acknowledge the resolution, and refuses to meet with the Pool Residents or their representatives to explain itself.
It could be said that this Board Directorship, as a majority voice, has failed its Pool Residents, and has not kept its oath, as an HOA Board, to represent its Residents both in a fiduciary and moral manner.
Folks, we have a problem. Don’t allow complacency to feed their blatant actions of disrespect.
The Lakeside Pool Residents have overwhelmingly spoken. Will the ACSA finally listen?
MORE COMING.
COMING SOON – Control and Power prevail. The Residents will just have to wait.
The Lakeside Pool matter continues with controversy and frustration. The next Board Meeting in October, when, hopefully, the delayed September Soil Testing per the original timeline will be available, is when a Pool Area direction of remediation should be decided. The Soil Test results, for which the Residents have paid would expect to be available to them for review. Favorable results could be argued to re-open the Pool Area, withstanding a remediated Bath House, which is doable, per a licensed Building Contractor, who inspected the Bath House building. We know the submitted timetable for the Pool Area construction will extend longer than original timetable presented, e.g. the Soil Tests were to be done in September. The Pool Area’s actual construction is at least six months away. With favorable soil tests and the licensed opinion that the Bath House could be made safe for use, begs the question – Why not open the Pool Area until construction commences. I’m sure the Pool Neighborhoods would agree to several thousand dollars of Bath House temporary remediation, with County approval, to use the pool (which is in usable condition) for the next six plus months. HOWEVER, the ACSA says NO to this approach because of liability issues. Really? Which are?
Questions need to be answered.
Where is the source of information that a choice for the pool is demolition as was presented at the last Board Meeting?
If the source for demolition is the LSP Committee, then why would unlicensed and non-professional laymen, rather than licensed and professional Building or Pool Contractors, be depended upon for such a dramatic and expensive decision that would have enormous consequences to the three Pool neighborhoods? Remember, the engineering report did not mention demolishing the pool. A licensed Building Contractor, who toured the Pool Area with ACSA members, suggested that would not be the path for remediation of the pool, and that the Bath House could be temporarily made safe for the current working pool to be used again until construction begins.
Why were licensed pool and building contractors not consulted before a decision was made by the LSP Committee to demolish the whole Pool Area?
What are the liabilities issues at the Pool Area if the Bath House is temporarily remediated with County approval, per a licensed Florida Building Contractor?
Why is the Pool Area deck and landscaping not being kept up, and making it appear abandoned? Is this a prelude to an intended demolition?
It appears that the current LSP Committee needs additional direction and additional participation to have it function properly and fairly with counter points of view. Its behavior certainly has become questionable, e.g. an initial lack of communication with the Pool Neighborhoods, unsupported decision making without licensedand professional advice, an unwillingness to work with previous LSP Committee members, who attempted to provide historic information explaining current pool conditions. Among its other actions, it appears to be Chairmen driven more by personal feelings, i.e. demolition, than that of community wants and needs.
Though efforts by the current LSP Committee have existed, these efforts were performed to veil, which appears to be an agenda and goal, to have the total Pool Area demolished, and replaced with a lesser Pool. This approach would diminish the value of the neighborhood units, i.e. increasing costs with a pool demolition, and the rebuilding of a pool, a pool which would be lesser than exists now. To increase the value of the units, the practical and cost effective approach is to mitigate any alleged pool matters, and rebuild the Bath House. This leaves a landmark pool, which would otherwise be demolished and be a huge expense to now duplicate with our country’s current inflationary infliction, to again serve the Pool Neighborhoods with its majestic manner.
Again, there is real time licensed and professional advice that states 1) there is no reason to demolish the pool, and 2) the Bath House, as it exists, can be remedied for safe usage, which would be approved by the county. The LSP Committee has no licensed Building or Pool Contractor support to demolish the pool, other than their non-professional and laymen opinions. They also have not suggested a temporary mitigation of the Bath House as a licensed Building Contractor has done.
The LSP Committee’s prejudicial actions with the Pool Area are now obvious. Remember the licensed engineering report did not recommend a pool demolition. Further, the Soil Tests will be important for the Pool, and all the Pool Neighborhoods should have access to this report, for which they paid. Hopefully, the report will not be construed to be other than what it states or recommends. There is a factual and corroborated explanation for why several of the pavers and the pool gutter were askew; however, the engineers at the time were not aware of this explanation. Therefore, there was an assumption of settling under the pavers and the pool, and soil tests were advised. The minor evidence of a few settling spots has been at the pool for years with no apparent change. I’ve used the pool for decades, I know. However, diligence with the soil test report is paramount for the Pool Neighborhoods to see.
This whole Pool Area matter becomes murkier with each step that the ACSA takes with it. Unfortunately, too, each step taken has resulted in more questions than answers. This could be considered playing with fire. The homes of the Pool Neighborhoods have found their home values in jeopardy and in decline by this “taking” of their Pool Area. The taking of the Pool Area has obviously caused financial injury to these Residents; they lost their premier amenity and asset. Direct remedial action to this dilemma is on the table and could be taken. What will the ACSA do as the bleeding continues? The folks want expedited answers and action.
COMING SOON – COMMENTS ON THE RECENT BOARD MEETING
COMING SOON – LET’S SEE WHAT THE 9/28 BOARD MEETING WILL TELL US.
Unfortunately, the hope to have the Pool Area open during the administrative portion of the Pool Area restoration, when the Pool Area would be vacant for several months, has been dashed away. The sad part is that there was a path to navigate for an opening, but it was cancelled for specious reasoning by a majority of the ACSA Directors, particularly by the attorneys and maybe too by First Residential’s representative for Aquarina, who created an up to seven month timeline before any Pool Area renovation would occur. The reason was “liability” issues, and not particularly the remediation of the bath house which would have served the Pool Area for the vacant months before the commencement of the new construction.
A licensed building contractor, who had previously surveyed the Bath House, felt that the building could be secured for safe use. He is a long time Florida licensed Brevard builder with decades of experience, and who did a total remodel of our unit here in Aquarina. This most probable remediation path to open the pool up was negated by the reason of liability with the pavers. The several pavers that had settled at the most an inch or less along and adjacent to the pool perimeter, totally out of a pedestrian traffic path, had been deemed a liability hazard to prevent pool use. Keep in mind that these very noted pavers had been that way for longer than anyone can remember over the past years.
It’s understandable that as a result of the engineers’ speculation of settling in the Pool Area that some soil tests be completed to determine if a serious settling issue exists. It was told to us that it would happen this month. The expectation for pool advocates was to let’s get the tests done for us to move on to a road of securing the bath house to a safe condition, and open the pool to the Pool Neighborhoods. It would be hoped that the tests will reveal no serious settling, since the pavers have been in this state for a long time, and the settling is attributed to a not required repair that was not restored properly. There is documentation to show this past situation.
Bottom-line – there was an opportunity to reopen the Pool Area during the months of pool vacancy while waiting for the renovation to commence. This opportunity was decided not to be pursued because of the liability as presented by some pavers (see photos below), which existed as seen, for years. To my knowledge since 1995, I do not know of any liability matter that arose at the Pool Area. If you want to see a settling issue with pavers, look at the Aquarina entrance, where repairs have been put off for years. Because of this total unreasonableness, the decision to stop any reasonable attempt to open the pool could lead someone to believe there is an agenda other than providing a real possibility of remediating the Pool Area now, and to have it temporarily opened for the Pool Neighborhoods.
WHAT TO DO –
If you would like to see the Pool Area temporarily opened safely, then call, email, and text the ACSA Directors, and ask them to explain why this above measured approach has been refused and blocked.
The hazardous pavers below (with years of no resulting accidents) have shut down a doable and reasonable path that could have opened the pool for its Residents during the next several months. BTW -these are the paver photos cited in the engineering report. Frightening, aren’t they?
Are these photos frightening? Are they a valid reason to lock down the pool? Something doesn’t seem right here. Communication about the pool now is silence. The Pool Neighborhoods need to speak up.
