Author: 9278surf

COMING SOON – An Unreasonable Pool Decision Evolves?

Movement has final occurred with our Lakeside Pool matter where the ACSA in its last Board Meeting layout the timetable of events, which will hopefully lead to a completed Pool Area upgrade.  Unfortunately, the timetable appears to have an end date of at least 12 months from now.  Even one of the Board Members asked if this timetable could be accelerated considering how long the Pool Neighborhoods have already patiently waited for some kind of news for a pool resolution. Again, unfortunately, politics, egos, and drama invaded the pool matter at its outset, and much time was lost to start a productive path.

Other than the provided timetable, discussions have been ongoing with the ACSA and some Residents on having the pool opened again during the interim administration period when plans, approvals, bids, permits, etc. take place, which in themselves could be a six-month period.  Let’s see the facts that we know now with the bath house. There are two major concerns, i.e. the covered patio area with the canvas overhang and its supporting structure, and the roof.  Both these items were noted by the engineering report as a priority and needing to be addressed.  There was no mention of the building in danger of collapsing. The danger was the covered patio area, which was temporarily shored up with metal posts.  The roof was tarped.  There was no penetration into the interior ceiling, and any noted interior water damage was minimal.

It would seem that the covered patio area could have the canvas overhang and its structural support removed, which would eliminate any dangerous situation of collapsing. The total roof could be tarped.  All this would be done by licensed contractors. The contractors could explain their remediation and submit a plan of action to the engineers, and if necessary, to the county. If an agreement is reached, then the completed work could be inspected by the engineers and the county.  Remember, we have a working pool, and there was never any danger cited for the pool.  All this could occur after the soil testing in September.  After the testing, the Pool Area will appear to be vacant for six months.

It is understandable that the ACSA is concerned with the liability that could occur if folks used the Pool Area after a temporary remediation was applied to have the Pool Area open before the construction commences. Surely its attorneys will weigh in; however, if this remediation could be completed and approved, it would seem that any liability would also be remediated.

I believe the ACSA owes the Pool Residents this approach to be investigated by the engineers and a plan submitted to the county as a workable solution to having the pool open again during this vacated period. If the engineers and county come back, after an investigation of this approach, and say that no workable plan can be conceived or approved, then fine. BTW – Please share any official final conclusion with the Residents.  The licensed professionals have spoken, but at least an attempt was made, and the question if the pool could be offered for a period of time before construction would be answered.

I have been told that the architectural plans are underway for the Pool Area Bath House, as is the development of an approach to ensure the pool’s working condition.  In addition, the ACSA process of gathering the information from the planner and architect is hopefully near, at which time a communique will be sent out to the three pool neighborhoods. If all what I have been told is true, then this should be the first written explanation of the commencement of the Pool Area’s restoration. It would then be expected that this communique would be the first of a series of updates as this restoration proceeds.

From our previous experience with the ACSA, there is understandable hesitation to just hope for this new revelation rather than swallow it hook, line and sinker as a foregone conclusion of events to come. But what we do have is a self-proclaimed move by the ACSA describing a specific series of events which were now disclosed to occur.  Moving forward it would be best to hold hope and belief that these events will materialize, not doubt.

The revised LSP Committee, though helpful to a certain degree, had communication deficits, and a prejudicial and biased approach to the task that it was asked to do. A more balance attitude of its membership, and a less aggressive and a more open approach to in its interaction with the Residents would have been helpful. Hopefully, if this Committee continues, its membership makeup will be less dictatorial, and more positive to quickly restore our Pool Area.

Now that the ACSA has spoken with specific actions, we need to keep this dialogue ongoing with paced inquiries.  The number of weeks that has passed with silence about the pool was not fulfilling an ACSA responsibility to keep the three pool neighborhoods apprised of what was being done to restore the Pool Area.  Remember this whole matter did not get off to a positive start with a revised LSP Committee that was behaving in a biased and self-serving way on a mission to show why the Pool Area had to be demolished.

We need to be diligent that any pool work is not done by unlicensed laymen, but is done by licensed contractors. It’s these unlicensed laymen that determined, without any licensed contractor advise and input, that the Pool Area needed to be demolished. It’s incumbent on the Residents of the pool neighborhoods to bird dog the pool restoration process and speak out if information is not forthcoming with this process, or if licensed contractors are not overseeing the work.

Let’s hope that this latest communication from the ACSA will be the start of an action of dialogue and disclosure as the updating of our Pool Area proceeds. Complacency and a head in the sand attitude will feed the silence that has been suffered by the three Pool Neighborhoods up to now.

As we enter the second month of silence after the last ACSA Board Meeting where, among other announcements, we heard how the intention of the Board was to address the disabled and closed Lakeside Pool Area, e.g. by creating a bath house architectural  plan, securing bids from contractors, etc.  However, after weeks and weeks the Pool Area appears to remain unchanged and continually deserted, and no communication to the Pool Neighborhoods has occurred.  At least a proposed timeline on how the ACSA would proceed, could have provided the Pool Residents a proposed path from which these Residents could see a start for the Pool Area’s restoration process, i.e. an indication that something was being done. What we have at this point is no beginning and no end for what will occur in restoring the Pool Area.  Hmm.

WHAT TO DO

What can be offered proactively to kick-start some action, is to engage some Residents to participate in the LSP Committee who are pool advocates, and not as the present LSP Committee members appear to be, pool naysayers.  Remember at the last Neighborhood Meeting, we were lectured with weak and unsupported evidence which attempted to show that the pool should be demolished.  Further, the LSP Committee had no licensed pool contractor to support their position, but, on their own, as unlicensed laymen and nonprofessionals, they decided that the pool had to be demolished.  Are we really surprised at the weeks and weeks of silence?  The LSP Committee needs new blood in its membership to be proactive with the Pool Area, and maybe to be proactive with the ACSA.

The irony here is the Pool Neighborhoods will be paying for all the freight on this project, and they want it done ASAP, while the pool naysayers and the nonpaying ACSA are the source of silence and non-action. And oh yes, if there is action going on, then tell the Residents rather than planting seeds of silence, which causes unnecessary doubt and negative speculation.

The Pool Neighborhoods need to take action.  The Presidents of these three neighborhoods, and its Directors, should unite as a motivation for action by engaging with the ACSA and, hopefully, a re-invigorated LSP Committee to move forward now with a plan, and keep the Residents updated on a regular basis.  

The “elephant in the room” is how the cost for this project will be addressed.  Initial costs will be generated to have architectural plans for the bath house.  Has this occurred? Are the current pool reserves being used for this cost? Contractor bids on the agreed plans will create the cost for a new bath house, and bids for the minor paver repair should provide a total amount.  A determination of how this amount will be paid also needs to be addressed. Where are we in this process? Silence does not help the cause.

DAMAGE IS NOW OCCURRING IN THE POOL NEIGHBORHOODS

In all three Pool Neighborhoods there are units for sale and units for rent.  Sellers and Landlords are obligated to disclose the Lakeside Pool matter to prospective Buyers and Renters.  Unfortunately, there is no written disposition on what is happening with the Pool Area.  A simple written timeline with a brief explanation of the planned renovation process from a joint statement by the ACSA and the LSP Committee is a simple first step. This statement can show that the current closed Pool Area is currently being addressed to have its restoration and its access for use completed asap. Failing to provide this public statement to the three Pool Neighborhoods is resulting in potential Buyers and Renters walking away from a sale or a rental from the these Pool Neighborhood unit owners.  The rights to sell and to rent are being damaged and infringed upon these owners from what could be said is a manufactured silence.

COMING SOON . . .

LSP COMMITEE, WHERE ARE YOU?

WHAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED NOW?

I have been told that all hands are on deck with the resolution to the Lakeside Pool matter.  That is good news, and I hope it is what we see occur going forward. Let’s take a general and basic look at what should be happening now and what should follow.

• The engineers and architect work together to plan a design for the new bath house.
• Materials, roof type, floor plan layout, type of construction (e.g. block, frame) fixtures, flooring, etc. are selected.
• County Code compliance is determined.
• Decision and plans made to leave in place or move current pool equipment to maintain pool chemistry during bath house construction process.
• Decide on licensed building contractors to make and provide bids to the ACSA.
• Meet with the bidding builders to hear their presentations and to answer ACSA questions.
• Decision made on contractor, County permits are secured, and cost and payment plan determined.
• Building Contractor and ACSA maintain a dialogue during the building process.

The three Lakeside Pool neighborhoods should be reasonably included in this above process, i.e. once a basic bath house plan is proposed, a meeting with the ACSA and the neighborhoods should occur where what direction the bath house is taking can be shared and discussed, especially the cost and payment plan.  Further, regular updates would be expected from the ACSA or the LSP Committee on the progress or on any unexpected matters that may arise with the bath house re-build.  Regular communication with the neighborhoods has been lacking other than a onetime alarmist pool demo email from the current LSP Committee.  Residents were given updates only when asked. The recent past ACSA President said that communication was what was wanted by the Residents from the LSP Committee, not having to request updates.

THE CURRENT LSP COMMITTEE

The current LSP Committee may need to be reviewed to create a more balanced approach with its membership. The Committee’s bias with an intent to demolish the pool without licensed and professional input from a licensed pool contractor speaks volumes on its membership’s bias, which needs to be balanced with pool advocates. It could be said that incomplete and a lack of evidentiary opinions by the Committee were presented to the Residents to support the demo bias.  Let’s balance the Committee to attain a sensible approach to any decisions.  Further, other than cleaning, trimming hedges, and raking up cuttings, work performed on pool construction and equipment should be done by licensed and professional pool contractors, and not non-professional laymen.  The neighborhood LSP Residents pay for the pool, and the bath house maintenance and repair, and now a rebuild  It would be expected that any work be done licensed and professionally for the work to be done correctly, and to have any possible liability mitigated by the contractors, and not placed on the three pool neighborhoods.

WHO’S REALLY IN CHARGE?

This whole pool area matter is not an easy situation to address.  We have an entity, the ACSA, which was “gifted” the pool area, and we have three neighborhoods who were responsible for paying the cost of maintaining the pool area as result of their exclusive use. The administrative structure to maintain the pool area was more laissez faire than directive by its owner, the ACSA.

And for nearly 30 years this laissez faire control of the pool area existed.  The pool and the pool area are arguably as nice as one could expect after all these years. Yes, there is the exception of the bath house, which certainly received less attention than the pool.  Should a depreciation table have been setup to be funded for roof and painting, sure.  Keep in mind that there have been no serious occurrences or injuries over these 30 years, and the pool area other than the bath house has been in a safe and usable condition.

Pool politics began when a hasty meeting of the pool neighborhoods was called because of alleged pool  area spending irregularities, and its hastiness resulted in a shouting match where folks were thrown under the bus and biased opinions were spouted about.  It could be said that the whole scenario was instigated, and not surprisingly, the ACSA came in to “save the day”.

What should have occurred, and maybe it was attempted, was for the three neighborhood presidents to first huddle with the LSP Committee at that time to determine what the alleged spending irregularities were, and to resolve the issue.  Calling a spontaneous meeting of the neighborhoods without first having an agenda (where the alleged irregular spending concerns could be explained) resulted in the bedlam at the meeting.  It’s apparent that a political group with its own scheme took control of the meeting.  More on the “politics of the pool” in another Blog Post.

The bottom line here is that both the ACSA as the technical owner, and the three pool neighborhoods as the payers, maintainers, and exclusive users of the pool area, should each have weighted control of this ownership conundrum. Attorneys may be best to come up with a balanced structure of control.  For now, both the ACSA and the three pool neighbors should appreciate their respective ties to the pool area, and work together where everyone wins.

ANOTHER UPDATE COMING – WHAT’S NEXT?

MORE EMERGING FACTS UPDATE FOR THURSDAY

Here is what happened that caused the pool engineering report to make the speculation about the Lakeside Pool may be having a settling issue.  There’s a paper trail of proof with all that is stated below.

• About three years ago, when the pool wooden deck by the lake was removed, a paver company came in to paver that previously decked area.
• Though there was no evidence of any pavers settling around the pool, the paver company convinced the Pool Committee, at that time, to lift a few rows of paver around the pool to check that they were secure with no “potential” for settling. The work was done; however, some of those re-set pavers now appear to have settled. The cause of the settling is more likely from the work replacing the pavers after being removed than from a pool/paver settling issue.  Again, the pavers were all tight to begin with.
• About a year or so ago, there was a leak at the curb where the ladder exists by the deep end.  This is the region of the curb where the engineers detected a 1.5 “ drop in the level of the pool curbing. This area of the curb had been removed and rebuilt as part of the leak repair. It’s reasonable to conclude that after the curb rebuild that the finished surface was lower than the existing curb surrounding the pool.

Again, as with the bath house, I trust that a pool contractor will be secured to assess the pool’s condition. It’s fair and reasonable that the pool neighborhoods have licensed and professional pool contractor evaluations of the status of the pool, like the bath house. It’s unreasonable to have the decision on the pool decided from laymen who are non-licensed and not professionals; the paying pool neighborhoods deserve at least that approach.

RECAP OF WHAT WE KNOW

The re-aligned LSP Committee sent out an email to the pool neighborhoods for an information meeting announcing the Committee’s decision to demolish both the bath house and the pool, and the Committee would explain the process of the demolition and what would follow.  The Committee’s reason for their decision was an engineering report that suggested a demo of the bath house if it was to be brought up to code rather than just a repair of what was needed, and further, a demo of the pool, that was not suggested or mentioned in the report , but was based on the chairpersons’ laymen opinion as a result of their research, which was selectively debunked at the Meeting.  It has been obvious that this Committee has had a “cowboy” approach to the whole pool matter with their reckless manner of decision making, e.g. a lack of professional and licensed input on the pool, further, a lack of professional and licensed building contractor input on the bath house, and the bullying of the Residents with the total demolition of the pool area announcement without Residential participation. Remember, at the Meeting the ACSA soothed the Residents that the Residents would be able to participate in pool matters, and the ACSA would be the last word on the future of the pool area.  The LSP Committee denied knowing about the demolition announcement, on which they were interestingly copied.

NEW POOL AREA INFORMATION EMERGES

LSP  and ACSA Members met this past week at the pool with an outside licensed building contractor, who is well credentialed with decades of experience here in Brevard County.  The contractor was suggested to the ACSA, and the ACSA President agreed to meet with the other attending Members, one of which was the LSP Committee chairperson. What was relayed to the Members was a second licensed professional opinion, the other being the engineering report. See the following which was reported to the members.

• It would be best to selectively and carefully disassemble the bath house to preserve the surrounding pool area.
• An arborist would be used to trim the oaks above the bath house roof.
• The current bath house footprint could be retained and raised with four inches of concrete to create a higher elevation to prevent water intrusion.
• By implementing the current footprint, the expense of additional code requirements could be avoided, other than the ones that will be required with the current footprint.
• The estimated base cost for the rebuild could be $125,000 to $150,000 depending on what is selected, e.g. roofing, toilets, sinks, flooring etc.
• The building would be concrete block with the suggestion of maybe opaque transom glass windows for natural lighting.
• The estimated time for the rebuild could be 90 days.  Of course, this would depend on material availability, weather, deliveries, etc.
• The ACSA would secure bids for the rebuild after architectural plans were agreed and completed to be reviewed.
• The licensed building contractor offering this above information would have an interest in the job.

As far as the pool itself is concerned, the contractor offered the following.

• Pool contractors and building contractors work separately.  Two pool contractors were recommended, Brevard Pools and Intercoastal Pool and Spa Builders.  Certainly, like the building contractor coming in on this pool area matter, a pool contractor should come in and provide licensed professional information concerning the status of the pool, and not unlicensed laymen.
• It was revealed that typically pools are not demolished. Pools are demoed if they are being removed or the cement shell is broken beyond repair.
• If major work is required on a pool, then the pool and its area can be taken down to the cement shell and then built back out.
• By going down to the cement shell if there are extreme repair conditions, then the location, size, and shape of the pool remains where it is located, i.e. the existing Lakeside Pool can continue to provide its historic enjoyment to the neighborhoods.

After communicating with the ACSA after the pool on site meeting, the attendees were said to be impressed with the contractor provided information, and I hope that the advise of procuring a pool contractor or two to come with their opinions will be arranged asap.  In addition, I also hope that the LSP Committee will be more open with communication; there should be nothing to hide. After all, it is the pool neighborhoods’ funds which will pay this pool area upgrade.

NEWLY UPDATED

UPDATE II COMING SOON

The Lakeside Pool (LSP) Committee had a meeting with the pool neighborhoods this past Saturday.  The purpose of the meeting was for the LSP Committee to explain their published decision ( previous, via email) to the Residents that they unanimously decided to demo the pool area, and how this demo would proceed. When the meeting commenced, the LSP Committee vaguely recanted the published email, and stated that discussions on the demo would continue with the Residents, and agreed that any demo would only occur if a replacement pool area was agreed upon before the demo.

Firstly, we are all appreciative of the volunteer work of the LSP Committee, especially for the county information with regard to the Bath House. The county building requirements for a repair may be onerous and a demo and a rebuild could be the choice. That still needs more investigation with a licensed professional builder.  Remember, we have laymen on the LSP Committee; they have their opinions, but with the enormity of the project here, we need licensed professionals to advise us.  Remember, again, we do have a licensed engineering report that does not call for a demo of the pool area, with possible repair choices.

There is no mistake that there is an undertone from the LSP Committee that they’re not repair pool advocates.  I actually know one member who told me that the member was not a pool person and would not enter an HOA pool, which can be understandable for some folks. However, I’d like to see a LSP Committee with pool advocates too, which would create a balance of all opinions before any decisions are made.  I was previously on the new LSP Committee, and a pool advocate, but was removed from the Committee for fabricated information and replaced with a pool demo advocate.  Further, some of the LSD Pool Committee arguments for a demo were debunked by the Residents in presence, engineers, BTW.

On another note, it was a nice gesture and effort for one of the LSP Committee members to secure metal poles to buttress the decayed wooden poles that are holding up the structure of the canvas overhang at the bath house, as we were told at the meeting.  However, I do not believe the member is licensed for such work.  If these poles fail and someone is around, or they fail and cause damage, then the liability is with the HOA for permitting a non-licensed repair, as would not be the case where a licensed installer would have the liability.  Just saying.

Back to laymen volunteers, both the two LSD Pool Committee chairpersons justified the demo of the pool with unfounded and unreasonable reasons.  One said that a pool’s lifespan is 40 years, rather a broad statement with no evidence. Our pool is a classic designed commercial resort pool.  Its presentation is unique and timeless, like the German architecture of the original pool neighborhoods, i.e. Blue Heron and Egret Trace.  It’s a pool worth preserving, which it has been over these 30 plus years. A pools longevity is a product of its materials, construction, and maintenance.  As I have said many times over, the pools presentation has not change since I first used it in 1995.  It could be considered an architectural crime to destroy this visibly classic one of kind pool area, which is unique, and not an out of the box pool. This pool area embellishes and is a landmark for Aquarina; it’s part of its heritage. The proposed out of the box pool would give us less than what we have now. Let’s reasonably repair the pool area, and keep it going.

The other member said that the inch to one plus inch settling of the gutter, and the minimal settling of a few pavers along the curbing was justification for a demo, even not knowing when the settling occurred, and further answered that if it was the member’s pool that the member would have it demoed.  Really? With such a huge consequence of demoing the pool, you would not exhaust other possibilities, such to monitoring the repaired pavers to see if they continued settling?  A 30 plus year old pool, will have some settling, especially with pavers.  The pavers could have settled to where they exist now years and years ago. Let’s repair them and make a determination, and keep an eye on any further settling of the gutter. A statement by the member like he made is all you need to know to see the bias, and the unreasonableness.

We need licensed professionals to speak to the Residents concerning the pool area, and not biased laymen LSP Committee members telling us what they believe to do with the pool area, with information they found or were told.  We shouldn’t have laymen being “middlemen” apprising us. We should have the sourced licensed professionals apprise us.  Certainly the 100’s of thousands of dollars expense that could arise with a demo demands direct professional advice.

LEGAL CONCERNS

Another matter may be the legal issues that could surface with, which appears, as the evolving “taking’ of the pool area.  Though the pool area was “gifted” to the ACSA, it is a limited common area for the three pool neighborhoods, which means the neighborhoods are responsible for the maintenance of the pool area. Further, per the Aquarina documents, the three neighborhoods were given and have “exclusive” use of the pool area.  This laid out written promise for the pool area has been in place for nearly 30 years.

This exclusive use can be considered a pool neighborhood equity interest in the pool area.  The neighborhood Residents paid for this equity interest when they purchased their units. The neighborhoods maintained the pool and paid the costs for the pool during the 30 years.  The ACSA had no costs.  It provided clerical services for pool area budgets and maintenance fees.

Though there are some issues now with the maintenance of the pool, let’s not forget the past 30 years of stewardship that the pool neighborhoods gave the pool area, with no incident of injury or harm.  The result of that stewardship is the still wonderful presentation of this pool area today, not withstand the bath house, which can be remedied.  Because of this neighborhoods’ 30 year history, it deserves to drive where the pool area’s future shall head.  Since the neighborhoods maintain the pool, pay the costs of the pool, and have the exclusive use of the pool, it could be argued that the ACSA is a partner in the pool area, and not the exclusive decision maker with the pool area. I’m sure a judge would see this partnership situation with the evidential history and evidence of maintenance over these past 30 years.

CONCLUSION

I believe that after the recent community meeting, a consensus emerged from the Residents that the pool demo argument is bogus with no real evidentiary data for a leapfrogging demolition, before a measured approach of selective paver repair is completed coupled with a monitoring of the repaired pavers, and the gutter for any significant measurement change.  This means no tearing up of all the pavers, but selective repair where they have settled.  This approach could occur with minimal time and effort to have the pool be functional and usable again. 

Decisions would next to be made with the bath house. The bath house demo could be considered since it would be the quickest way to neutralize that area, and permit the pool to be safely used. It would need to be a measured and paced demolition to preserve the pool equipment and the near pool area; basically disassembled. Time could then be utilized to determine the direction for a new bath house.  The bathroom requirement, if any, needs to be researched with the county codes.  I do believe, with HOA pools, the bathroom requirements are less stringent, e.g. those neighborhoods with pool access can be up to 200 feet from the pool’s water’s edge, and no on site bathroom requirements are required.  However, this needs to be confirmed.  Maybe portal-potties could work instead. However again, a bath house repair should still be reviewed professionally before a final decision is made.

I see this above method a positive step to address the bath house and pool, and activate the pool again for the pool neighborhood Residents,  In addition, it shows an active solution process to make the pool area usable again in a prompt manner, and the “uncertainty” of the pool area eliminated, during this measured process for eventual resolution.

MORE TO COME SOON.

THE BACKGROUND TO THIS POOL REPORT

Over the past decades, the Lakeside Pool has been an amenity for three neighborhoods, Blue Heron, Egret Trace, and Spoonbill Villas. The original Aquarina developer had overseen the pool, and eventually passed, i.e. basically “gifting” it to the ACSA, that was over 30 years ago, with the documented stipulation that the above mentioned three neighborhoods would have exclusive use of the pool.

There being no documentation of whom would oversee the pool, the three neighborhoods assumed the oversee role with the ACSA assisting with the accounting for budgeting and assessments.  The only real direction for the overseeing was provided by these three neighborhoods with a de facto cooperation by the ACSA.  All went well with this arrangement for these past 30 plus years.

Then, BOOM!  Bickering began among some of the neighbors about how the pool’s funds were being spent, i.e. being spent in a questionable manner and without transparency. The bickering metastasized into a townhall meeting among the three neighborhoods.  The result was not good, with opposite sides feuding, and no resolution attained.

Politics emerged, and the ACSA was called into the fray.  Obviously, when a larger political base is beseached, it will come in and take control, which it has done.  During the takeover, the ACSA was reminded in the Aquarina documentation that the ACSA was indeed the property owner of the Lakeside Pool, and its surrounding grounds.  It has been apparent from the meetings called by the ACSA explaining the pool and its care, that even though the folks have been told that the ACSA realizes the importance of this amenity to the three neighborhoods, there was an ACSA undertone that the pool’s historic use and existence may be subject to a change.

Change?  All the ACSA sponsored presentations concerning the pool and its condition had been made alarming and gloomy at best. It is true that the building dates back to the 80’s, with no really major repairs occurring; it’s a bath house with two bathrooms.  The engineering report revealed, which was finally and recently offered for public viewing, that the support beams for the outdoor canvas overhang need replacement and the roof needs to be replaced in addition to two storage rooms that needed repair.

Gloom and minimal updates if any had been the best the neighborhoods received.  I say “gloom” because the ACSA’s continual take has been the negativity of the situation, e.g. demolition is a possibility, or a rebuilding, which may take a year or more.  True, the bath house awning area is not a safe place with the decayed beams holding up the canvas overhang, and folks should not be in that vicinity; however, the folks are not hearing from the ACSA saying that we hope repairs can be completed with the present situation at hand in a prompt manner, and we’ll keep you updated.   Instead, the folks were left with weeks and weeks of silence on the matter, until the recent released engineering report.

The released engineering report would be expected to show the folks a “start” of what the three neighborhoods need to do to make in an informed decision with the ACSA.  Afterall, the Residents of these three neighborhoods paid for this pool when they bought into these communities.  It is an important amenity for the neighborhoods, and it adds value to all the units.  Many bought because of the pool amenity.  The reasonable reality was for the original developer to pass the responsibility of the Lakeside Pool to the three neighborhoods, which it unfortunately did not. Tidewater and Ocean Dunes have pools, and the pools are their responsibility.  The hope was that with the ACSA now involved, fairness would prevail to an outcome with which all can be content.  However, matters have gone bumpy.

Unfortunately, on July 1 a hasty decision was reached with minimal data, by the Pool Committee and apparently also by the ACSA, since it oversees the committee.  The decision was to demo both the bath house and the pool., and have a meeting with the three effected neighborhoods, on July 8, where the Pool Committee will relay their plans following the demolition. What happened to what the departing ACSA president told us?  Any decision on the pool would be a decision reached by the pool neighborhoods and the ACSA. The Residents were by-passed.

The real unfortunate part is that the process did not include the three effected neighborhoods, and the demo decision was based on opinion and a one sided interpretation of facts.  The engineering report stated three major issues with the bath house, i.e. the unstable posts for the canvas overhang, the worn roof, and leakage in the rear attached storage closets.  The main bath house structure was sound and not in danger of collapsing.  The posts and canvas could have been repaired and replaced, the roof could have been repaired and replaced, and the two attached closets could have been repaired from water leaks, e.g. replace drywall.  The repair costs for these three issues was never discussed or offered.  The report simply stated these repair and replacement items would cost more than a demo and rebuild – really? The unreality of that statement certainly shows bias.

In addition, the pool was stated to be undermined as evidenced by sinking pavers and insufficient soil support on its sides.  The pool has been there for 30 plus years.  It could be argued that any settling over these many years has already occurred, and any settling that now appears, which is all minimal, is not an immediate concern, and it is something that could be monitored to determine if unusual settling is ongoing. Exposed tile, was noted, as a dangerous situation, but is certainly a repairable situation.  No injuries over these years as a result of the tiles has come to my attention.

The Lakeside Pool is special.  Its design and layout is unique and surely worthy of a “maintaining it” mentality.  It’s one of Aquarina’s cornerstones and symbols of the Aquarina Community; it’s part of its heritage.  Should it be demolished by the likes of a 12 person Pool Committee or should its viability be discussed as a paid and important amenity by the 65 homes having exclusive use of the pool for these past 30 plus years?

A Look at the Report – My opinion in brackets.

BATH HOUSE

• The report was Preliminary, and it states that the condition of structural materials is beyond the report.
• (Without question, the roof needs to be replaced.)
• Severe water damage was not found within the main building other some possible minor water intrusion of a (cosmetic nature) in the restrooms, but all appeared to be in “viable” condition per the report.  Water damage was found in the rear attached storage rooms, where drywall and wood would need to be replaced.
• In the men’s room there was a crack in floor tile.  (Some settling after 30 plus years does not seem unusual.)
• The canvas overhang covering a patio area and its beams and posts were in poor condition, and caused a dangerous situation. (Certainly the canvas overhang and its supporting structure need to be replace.)
• Some water damage appeared on the outside NW corner of the women’s bath where water can sit.  (Easily repairable).

That’s it for the pool bath house. Do replacing the roof, patching up the attached storage sheds, replacing an attached canvas overhang and its support beams, and repairing some water damage at a small outside corner of the building justify tearing down the whole building and building new one? (I think not.)  The report stated it would be more cost effective to rebuild than make these noted repairs.  It was an opinion supported with no data.  (That makes no sense.  Let’s secure some repair estimates for comparison purposes so we have choices.)

POOL

• The tile coping had some cracks. (After 30 plus years I would think some cracks could be expected. A structural issue?)
• The Pavers appeared not even and not always sloping toward the pool per recent code. ( After 30 plus years, I would think pavers in some areas will settle a bit.  If you want to see real settling after 30 plus years, then look at Aquarina’s entrance. What have we been doing about that?  It was never mentioned what immediate threat these pool pavers are doing to the pool, other than it could mean settling.  The pavers that are settling can be easily repaired, and then be monitored if continued settling occurs.)
• Water levels at the pool gutters showed a range margin of 1.5 inches, and it was opinionated that the pool had settling issues. (Again, after 30 plus years, settling ranges within 1.5” is a problem?  Like the pavers this measurement can be monitored to determine if there is a problem. There was no opinion that rebuilding the pool was more cost effective than repairing it, even to the extent of the recommended radical repairs, i.e. tearing up all the pavers.  I used the pool more than anyone over the past years. These random sinking pavers have been there in their present condition for years.)

Conclusions

• The three pool neighborhoods have been misled in what was told them.  The past ACSA president assured the neighborhoods that a group decision would be made on the future of the pool matter.  What happened, is that the report was provided to the Residents for review and within a week the Pool Committee of 12 people decided to demo the pool area.  We are told that a meeting is set for July 8 to tell the Residents how the Pool Committee will proceed with the pool demolition and what’s to follow.  So much for a community input decision.
• Keep in mind, the prudent course before a demolition is to look at the consequences.  The current pool is a classic and expensive design that you will not find, but in a few places; it’s not an out of the box pool.  Its replacement to its current design will be very expensive. It’s also obvious that a rebuild of both the pool and bath house to the current code will be very, very expensive.  We should know these costs BEFORE a demolition.  We should also have a second opinion as to a repair approach BEFORE a demolition.
• Let’s look in the past at the track record for an Aquarina Community pool. The ACSA approached the subject, did some dance with committees and plans, and then nothing.  Would that occur again after the decided demo?
• Other consequences to a demolition are:
• How will the three neighborhoods’ quarterly assessments be affected?
• The value of the neighborhoods’ units could certainly take a hit in a loss because of what could be considered a “taking” of the pool area, an amenity for which the Residents paid when their units were purchased.  This “taking” could be argued since it was not done in a practical approach.  The decision was made hastily and without proper supporting evidence from more than one source,
• . Further not addressed is the economic impact on the Residents’ units.
• The units’ values are additionally diminished by the unknown time and cost that would arise with a rebuild of the entire pool area.
• The proverbial rug has been pulled out from under the feet of the three pool neighborhoods. Their homes are in danger of a loss in value, and household costs will rise to unknown levels because of new assessments as a result of actions by a small group within the Aquarina Community.
• We all need to take a pause here and regroup.  Peoples’ lives will change with the present course laid out before us.

Fourth of July

Remembering Our Foundation of Freedom

AND

Our Salvation from Tyranny

Apparently, seven Board of Director positions are up for filling.  This makes for an interesting situation, since the complexion of the entire Board could change if some folks with a new administrative approach step up to run for these coming vacant Board seats, and cause a new majority from the majority we currently have. It’s curious that the Director elections are so late this year compared to past elections.  Two possible reasons come to mind, 1) time was needed to have a vote on the new Amendments increasing the term of the Directors, and 2) at this time of the year many Residents have left for the summer, and may not be paying as much  attention to voting matters.

It was also suggested that there would be no election if only seven folks placed their names on the ballot for the seven Director seats, e.g. the current seven Board members if they run again, or any other new candidates totaling seven. The current Board’s logistics of this election, voting when the Resident count is lowest, i.e. in the summer, and squeezing in the Amendments before the election, can certainly be seen as a means to return the current Directors or the Board’s chosen candidates, which could discourage any arising opposition candidates, and continue the Board’s past ways.  We’ll see.

The current Board has an agenda to continue, e.g. the Brassie Grille expansion, and its obvious expansion of its social events calendar. What evolves with possibly new candidates, other than the current bevy of Board Directors, will be interesting, since we’ll see where the Resident majority will be, in favor of our current lavish spending course, or wanting a change for more fiscal responsibility.

Hopefully, there may be, even a minority opinion of frugality and common sense, who will be a strong and convincing voice, which espouses spending that will be for the whole community and the community’s infrastructure, and will trump the fun spending that has been rampant over these past years.  

The informational Bylaws and Declaration explanations, among other topics, spilled out to the participating Residents at the Meeting on Thursday; however, Residents’ questions created a bumpy road for the Board’s spun explanations. As a result, the pointed questions eventually uncovered the truth of these proposed amendments.  The most telling, as was not surprising, were that amendments 1 and 2 were changes that would increase the tenure of the Board Directors.  The third amendment, which would affect a large portion of privately owned Aquarina property, was found to be in error in its legal description and in the amount of referenced property in the amendment.

It appears that the haste in assembling this vote resulted in a package of amendments that were not only self-serving, but lacked proper research, especially with the privately owned Aquarina property.  It is so apparent with the daily email harassments to vote, that this Board has an agenda for itself with these amendments. Are the Residents and this private property owner being served in a fair and responsible manner?

We have a rushed vote with vague and self-indulgent explanations on matters that effect our founding documents, and a Aquarina landowner who finds himself in a defensive position because of a lack of the Board’s due diligence.  The Board’s response is that the voting should continue, and we’ll fix things later. What? How about that the voting is suspended until the proper communication channels are set in place to determine what this vote is all about, and how it will affect the Residents, as a next step.

Remember this, we have been provided these amendments, which have been “promoted” and not sufficiently explained, not at the beginning of the voting process, but during the voting process with the daily email harassments to vote on them now. This amounts to dumping ballots before the date to vote. At the date to vote, and as it should be, the voting takes place, all the ballots are submitted, and a determination is made if the amendments have 1) a quorum for a vote and 2) whether they are voted to pass or fail.

It is so obvious that this whole scenario was devised to fool the Residents with an apparent official manner of voting, which in actuality was a scheme to cement the Board’s hold on the its position to continue its selfish and reckless agenda of squandering the Residents’ funds, and maybe play property chess with an individual’s hold on Aquarina land. None of this is good.

I vote NO on all the amendments with a turned in paper Ballot, and I won’t use or support computer based voting, which was implemented to facilitate this ruse.

More to come soon.