Deborah: …mow…14th and 15th… new patio chairs…careful with your jewelry not to scratch them…
1. Landscaping: [Editor’s note: Shelly Andreas graciously emailed the report to your Editor for inclusion herein; thank you, Shelly:]
“Landscape Meeting January 13, 2022
The meeting took place in the pool area under the portico. All members were present. The purpose of the meeting was to prioritize the common areas that need revitalization in 2022.
All members present agreed upon the following:
- Revitalization of the Military Trail Fountain.
- Sod and/or ground cover along CLB where the soil is exposed since the ficus removal.
- Fountain in front of the clubhouse. Removal of the pots on both sides and replace with orbs.
- Fitness center and entrance to pool.
Barry & Shelly co-chairs”
2. Entertainment: [Editor’s note: events modified as necessary; all information per e-blasts.]
3. Facilities: Barbara Gordon: meeting last week, looking into ADA toilets for the entire clubhouse…will get bids in… self-flushing or lever… will keep you posted.
[Editor’s note: Many important items are still being ignored. Details are found on our page entitled “Agenda Items.”]
NEW ENTRIES ON OUR LIST:
[none at this time.]
1. 2022 Residents Survey Results – Deborah Balka
[Editor’s note: some of the survey questions, as most people know, were skewed, and some of them were downright misleading, thus making the value of the results questionable at best. With that disclaimer, the survey results were reported and are now posted on the HOA website under Documents.
Here it is in a nutshell: there were over 400 households that responded. Half of them wanted no change to the clubhouse, 27% wanted to refresh it, and 23% wanted to refurbish it. As for the fitness center, 56% wanted no change, 24% wanted a refresh, and 19% wanted a repurpose.
As for the HOA taking temporary ownership of the mailboxes, which is a completely illegal endeavor by the way, it was almost even: 52% said yes; 48% said no. Replacing the mailboxes and posts only interested 49%; 38% wanted no change and 14% wanted to repair only. As to how you all felt about 2 mailboxes per post, you resoundingly rejected that, 65% to 35%.
Pickleball hard courts with an estimate of about $250 per household: again, it was tight: 52% said no; 48% said yes.
Reducing the threshold for a community vote to pass from 75% to 66 2/3%: 54% said yes, 46% said no. Given that reality, this will likely fail if a formal vote is taken because 75% is required to change the rule.
UPDATE: February 3, 2022
75% is required under the following parts of our governing documents:
1. Article II, section B (page 1-4) (to acquire, sell, or mortgage realty),
2. Article IV, section F.1 (page 1-7) (to convey or mortgage the common area),
3. Article X (page 2-3) (to dissolve the corporation), and
4. Article VII, section E (page 1-14) (alterations, improvements, or modifications to common areas that exceed 1% of the budget).
66 2/3% is required under the following parts of our governing documents:
1. To change or amend the Covenants (Article XII, Section F, page 1-27), and
2. To change or amend the Articles of Incorporation (Article XII, page 2-3)
Therefore, to change the percentage requirement under any of the first four items listed above only requires a 2/3 vote because the vote concerns changing the Covenants and/or Articles of Incorporation, and not any of the actual acts referenced in the sections that require the 75% vote.
Kudos and thanks to Director Sue Schmer for correcting the record.
Reduce the limit of the Board’s spending from 1% to ½% of the budget: 63% said yes, 37% said no. Again, you need 75% to effectuate this change.
Update: same as above in red.
Any change to an amenity to require a community vote regardless of cost: 78% said yes, 22% said no.
Painting the houses with possibly a new color: 60% said yes, 24% said no, and 17% had no opinion.]
Jeff: I’m shocked by some of the answers, not others.
2. Update on COVID restrictions – Harvey Ginsberg
[Editor’s note: short answer: nothing’s changed. Explanation: Harvey graciously emailed your Editor his remarks for inclusion herein; thank you, Harvey:]
Harvey: “The Medical Advisory Group met last Wednesday to consider changes to the current COVID restrictions for indoor activities. According to the available data, it appears that the current Omicron variant surge has peaked, and the number of cases is starting to come down.
However, the numbers haven’t decreased to the level that we feel comfortable loosening the mandatory mask and no guest policy at this time, given that our demographic as an elderly community with possible multiple comorbidities puts us at greater risk.
Therefore, it’s the recommendation of the group that the current mandatory mask requirement and no indoor guest policy remain in place pending further evaluation. We will be meeting again prior to the next Board meeting to evaluate the data and make further recommendations as appropriate.”
[Editor’s note: Jeff stated that there was no vote necessary at this time; Deborah stated that the health fair expo is March 29th currently scheduled in the ballroom and vendors need to know; Harvey stated that at the next Board meeting they will have some idea.]
3. Allstate – Stormwater Cleaning – Plat Two – $4550 - Bob Dingee
Bob: ongoing periodic maintenance… Landon Pod… to clean the storm drains… dig out underground collection areas. Motion to accept. Linda: second. Richard: including in the budget that was approved. Harvey: what is Plat 2? Bob: it’s Landon pod. Jeff: all in favor? Unanimous.
1. Fire Inspection - $1025 – Jeffrey Green
Jeff: we have a fire inspection agreement, conducted quarterly… June, September, December, and March. New contract for next year. Motion to accept. Second: Bob. All in favor? Unanimous.
2. PBB – Root mounds - $1350 – Linda Arbeit
Linda: landscaping proposal #03-22, reground and level the root mounds, three addresses on Landon Circle…mound… hazard… motion to accept. Harvey: second. Jeff: all in favor? Unanimous.
[Editor’s note: see our Roving Reporter, Arthur Andelson’s comment and question in the Second Residents’ Input Session about this as to why we are paying PBB to what Arthur suggests is their failure to properly remove the trees in the first place.]
3. PBB – Root pruning - $2340 – Linda Arbeit
Linda: landscaping proposal #05-22, on the side of 5262 Wycombe, the roots are starting to, encroaching on the side wall of the house. Motion to accept. Sue: second. Richard: the two items are included in the budget [this one and the previous one]. Jeff: all in favor? Unanimous.
4. Sale/Lease Application Fees – Richard Greene
[Editor’s note: this is a money-making enterprise whereby anyone who wants to “buy in” to this HOA must first pay a $300 application fee which goes into the HOA’s coffers. The same is true if you want to rent a home here: pay up; but potential renters pay $150. Richard noted there are not too many renters.
This is separate from the “capital investment” also required of a purchaser once accepted.
Richard stated that it has been the same fees for over ten years, he mentioned inflation, and then he moved to increase each amount by $100, Jeff seconded it, and it passed unanimously. The application fees are now $400 for buyers and $250 for renters.]
5. Realtor Survey – Sue Schmer
[Editor’s note: this was an exquisitely crafted survey which sought input from the people who buy and sell real estate in this community. Sue graciously emailed your Editor her remarks and motion for inclusion herein; thank you, Sue:]
Sue: “The LRP Committee proposed that a Realtor Survey be distributed to help provide additional information to the Board as we move forward in the process of long-range planning. All of you were given a copy of the survey which is included in the Board packet. The rationale for this survey is as follows:
1. It can be useful when compared to our residents’ survey.
2. Realtors who buy or sell homes in 55+ communities have been identified by the former Long- Range Planning Committee.
3. The survey is well constructed and will not take much time to complete. It is in Jot form. Participation is optional.
4. We should consider and value the work product of all committees and discuss it at an open Board meeting.
5. I have proposed a means by which to gather the information that is time efficient.
6. No analysis of the survey results will be done as the decision to use the data collected will be up to the next Board, just as the residents’ survey will be.
7. The only thing that would need to change is the introductory wording to read the Board of Directors of Cascade Lakes, instead of the LRP Committee of Cascade Lakes.
I make the following motion: THAT THE REALTOR SURVEY, WITH WORDING MODIFICATIONS, BE SENT TO REALTORS PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY THE FORMER LONG-RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE BEGINNING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2022, WITH A RETURN DATE OF MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28,2022. DETERMINATION AS TO HOW THE INFORMATION COLLECTED WILL BE USED WILL BE MADE BY THE NEXT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.”
[Editor’s note: Harvey seconded it for purposes of discussion even though he stated that he opposed it. We appreciate that he seconded it so that there could be an open discussion about it.]
Harvey: there are two reasons for not buying here: lack of a café and no regulation pickleball courts. It’s a waste of time… Concentrate on what the residents told us in the survey…
Bob: I’m opposed, too… not needed… I go along with Harvey… more interested in the people who bought in the last six months.
Jeff: I’m against it as well, especially after Deborah [presented the survey results]. Every house sold within three to four days; prices are going sky high. Harvey said it perfectly…no pickleball [hard courts] and café… 7-8 realtors who sell here, maybe… ridiculous.
Linda: I’m against the survey for the same reasons that Harvey said; we’re not in the business of selling homes. We’re in the business of providing amenities for our residents here; and providing those amenities and different amenities to invite other prospective residents to come into Cascade Lakes.
I am against sending a residents’ [sic] survey out; we know why people won’t buy here; we know why people are buying here, so I am against it, and again, I with Jeff, I agree with Harvey, and I agree with Bob.
Richard: the last Treasurers’ meeting I was discussing how we were selling houses like hotcakes; and a lot of communities are not doing as well as we are. So, there’s something that’s attracting the people to this; I see no reason to send anything to the realtors at this point because, as Harvey says, we know what people are buying here, and there’s good reasons why people are buying here, so I see no reason for the survey.
Sue: if you looked at the survey, there are reasons why people buy and they are in ranked order why they don’t… long-range planning – well done… and at some point some of you sort of agreed… I was told assume nothing.
When Eileen Olitsky and I, when she was on the Board, did an informal survey from the realtors living here, believe it or not, the one thing that stood out more than any other was that they had friends or relatives living here. We are assuming that in the long run prices will continue to rise. That may or may not be the economic trend.
And as I said to you back and forth, there would be no more than two dozen people who would respond if they choose to; and I did provide a means by which to gather the information, and not to be decided on or not to be used until the next Board decides that this may be useful.
So, for comparison purposes, to honor the work of the former Long-Range Planning and just for comparison purposes, I think the more data that you gather, the better the decision-making will be.
Harvey: I’d like to call the question please.
Jeff: all in favor? One. Opposed? Five. Motion fails, five to one. Thank you.
Second Residents’ Input Session:
1. Valerie Rogoff: Corbel Lake. I think the more information you get; a residents’ survey is great, but it would be interesting to find out what the real estate people say. Jeff: thank you.
2. Arthur Andelson: Landon Circle. On New Business item #2, talks about the mounds. Palm Beach Broward was already paid to do this job and it was substandard; I don’t understand why we’re going back to pay them to do their job properly. That’s the question.
[Editor’s note: Arthur, your Roving Reporter, explains: “PBB was paid to remove the trees; they then put sod over the mound they left where the tree once stood. That sod was higher than the rest of the sod because it was placed on top of the mound. This was clearly going to result in a hazard that would need to be dealt with. Why did PBB not properly flatten the area when they removed the tree? Who puts sod on a root mound?
It appears to me that they ground up the roots but didn’t do it properly or adequately to remove the remaining root mound. Why should we pay them again for something they were paid to do properly and failed to complete?”]
Jeff: we’ll look into it, Arthur. Arthur: thank you.
3. Seymour (Skip) Jacobs: $1,000 fire inspection – who performs that? Deborah: Summer Sprinklers. They have to report to the Fire Department.
4. Mark Goodman: [Editor’s note: Mark stated essentially the same thing he wrote in the Chat function as follows:] “We received approval for 2 mailboxes on one post a few years ago when I was on the Board. - from the PostMaster General in D.C. to the head County Postmaster in West Palm Beach to the 2 Boynton Beach P.O.’s.”
[Editor’s note: Deborah inquired if Mark had any written documentation; apparently it was only a verbal approval.
Who was it who said that a verbal agreement is not worth the paper it’s written on? Answer: The joke is generally attributed to Australian/Irish politician Bryan O’Loghlen. Sir Bryan O'Loghlen, 3rd Baronet (pronounced and sometimes spelt Brian O'Lochlen) (27 June 1828 – 31 October 1905), Australian colonial politician, was the 13th Premier of Victoria, although it is also reported that it did circulate anonymously as a joke during that time period.]
5. Dorothy Waxman: [referring to the water drainage:] were all the pods checked? Deborah: absolutely. Dorothy: the houses are selling well. I’m a broker over 50 years in real estate on Long Island. We have a really nice community [here] … eventually, if houses aren’t selling, and it’s pinpointed to the pickleball surface, maybe we’d get more… I moved here for the indoor pool, so I’m very happy. Cafes could be problematic… Thank you.
Round Table Discussion: