“Hi, Arthur, I didn’t recognize you. It’s me, your wife, Vicki.”
Permission was given for the ivory color for the back of the house framing of these gnat screens. Linda stated that both she and Shelly (Chairperson of the ARB) agreed it was time to change the guidelines for changing colors and Shelly stated it was a very good change.
Therefore, after a discussion with the ARB committee, it was determined that similar colors to white, such as ivory, would be allowed for backyard patio screen enclosures. Shelly Andreas, ARB Chairperson, was kind enough to email the exact language for this synopsis and for the benefit of the community:
“ARB Guidelines: Under Doors, Screens and Lights, should now read:
Variations in design or style or type of garage doors will be considered.
Variations in design or style of entrance doors including but not limited to glass panels will be considered.
Front entrance screen enclosures must be white aluminum with charcoal screening.
Patio screen frame enclosures may be a different variation of white which can include cream, eggshell, ivory and vanilla with charcoal screening.”
Linda: motion to accept the change in the ARB guidelines. Richard: Second. Sue: this was approved by the entire ARB committee? Linda: yes. All committee members indicated it was appropriate. Harvey: bronze? Linda: not now, off the table. Alan: ARB guidelines should be revisited.
[Editor’s note: we agree with Alan. It’s time to allow creativity and flexibility to naturally upgrade the community each house at a time.]
Linda: for another day. Jeff: all in favor? Unanimous. Linda: the Board has to make the decision to approve right now the change for the resident applying for the ivory color change. Jeff: that’s part of the change. Harvey: it became moot when we accepted.
Sue: Point of Information: ARB meetings have to be publicly noticed, every ARB meeting has to be publicly noticed and residents invited. Harvey: an approval to repair a roof? Sue: read 720. Harvey: every time? Sue: that’s what 720 is saying; I texted all of you. Jeff: we’ll discuss at another time. [Editor’s note: the vote was unanimous.]
[Editor’s note: Sue is correct. Here is the pertinent part of Florida Statute 720.303(2)(a) and (b) which has been posted on our Relevant Rules page for over a year now (with our underlining below for ease of reference):
(2) BOARD MEETINGS.—
(a) Members of the board of administration may use e-mail as a means of communication but may not cast a vote on an association matter via e-mail. A meeting of the board of directors of an association occurs whenever a quorum of the board gathers to conduct association business. Meetings of the board must be open to all members, except for meetings between the board and its attorney with respect to proposed or pending litigation where the contents of the discussion would otherwise be governed by the attorney-client privilege. A meeting of the board must be held at a location that is accessible to a physically handicapped person if requested by a physically handicapped person who has a right to attend the meeting. The provisions of this subsection shall also apply to the meetings of any committee or other similar body when a final decision will be made regarding the expenditure of association funds and to meetings of any body vested with the power to approve or disapprove architectural decisions with respect to a specific parcel of residential property owned by a member of the community.
(b) Members have the right to attend all meetings of the board. The right to attend such meetings includes the right to speak at such meetings with reference to all designated items.
That’s what it says folks, in clear English. All ARB meetings must be public with the residents’ right to speak, just like a regular Board meeting. Zoom ‘em up!]
3. Insurance renewal- Richard Greene
[Editor’s note: Richard reported that the HOA’s current insurer is on the verge of financial insolvency so that if a claim were made, it would potentially not be payable. Therefore, he recommended immediately signing up with Lloyds of London which the HOA’s broker recommended. Richard moved to cancel the policy immediately (it is up on June 30th) and sign up with Lloyds of London immediately. Harvey seconded the motion.
Jeff called the question. At that point, there was a power outage of sorts which knocked offline both Alan and Linda. Then Sue seconded it (even though Harvey had already seconded it, so we guess that means that Sue thirded it.) Jeff called the vote, unanimous of the 5 Board members, noting that they had a quorum, so it was fine. He was right.
Then Alan came back online. At some point Linda joined the property manager in her office and was present again. Harvey asked for a re-vote. This was 100% wrong. There was no need for a re-vote. A quorum was convened, a vote was taken, and it passed. That’s it. Instead, there was more discussion (totally improper), Richard then made the motion again, Sue seconded it this time, and Jeff called the motion which was unanimous. Procedurally, this was completely incorrect.]
4. RCI Contract-Jeff Green: $45,000: Remedial cleaning between paint jobs
Jeff: From Fiddler On The Roof, other company owned by Rosen who owns RCI; the reason there was not three bids is because its really an extension of the paint contract…next paint will be 2026… prior bids did not have this included in the contract… mild cleaning solution to all exterior wall surfaces… then lightly power washing… includes touch up painting, recaulking, and repair masonry cracks…then bids for 2026… reserve item, money in the reserve now. Motion to approve. Second: Harvey.
Sue: I have issues with it. The contract extension, we did it 2015…contract extension usually refers to time and not to the subject matter. It is not a contract extension. The Board voted…fiscal responsibility – any item great than $25,000 should have three actual bids; that’s what it says. I’m not questioning the rationale. I’m questioning to what extent should be ignore our rules for the sake of expediency…
Harvey: the original contract, August 2015, extension of the contract signed December 2, 2011…the Board at that time didn’t plan on having another remedial cleaning… single source bid – you have to -no one would touch another contractor’s work… same thing with Palm Beach Broward…ficus replacement…
Sue: Harvey, you’ve proven my point. It was not in the contract… to what extent do you want to bend the rules because it’s inconvenient. Yet we put a rule in place…the thinking is inconsistent. Jeff: All in favor to approve the contract for remedial cleaning: 6. Sue: abstain; I can see both sides.
5. CL Blvd Ficus Removal - $52,982 - Linda
Linda: replace with arboricola. Normally three bids, however, “sole source justification” – Palm Beach Broward knows our development, irrigation, where the pipes are, they know where all the zones are, therefore, motion to accept the proposal for [the reduced amount of] $48,852 to remove all the ficus and replace with arboricola and caloosa. Second: Harvey or Bob.
Jeff: made sense to do all at once…aesthetically will look better. Harvey: completion of a five year plan that took seven years… Linda: not a completion…Sue: same argument here, justification is PBB knows where the wires are, could keep them forever. I’m concerned. We are obviating our own rules for fiscal responsibility. If PBB knows where the wires are, why don’t we… put higher shrubbery so owners don’t have to pay for it… Jeff: we have money in he budget. All in favor? 6. Sue: Oppose. Deborah: letters will go out to all homeowners on Cascade Lakes Blvd.
6. Remove Mahogany Trees - $6,750 - Linda
Linda: To remove nine trees in the parking lot; the road will be milled, road redone. Removed then put back in again. Second: Harvey. Harvey: why do we have to remove? Deborah: the roots are lifting the asphalt. Replace with other than mahogany. Jeff: all in favor? Unanimous.
7. Irrigation – Corbel, Landon and Angel Wing– $4,800 – Linda
Linda: irrigation is rotted…economically and directly need to be fixed. Entrances. Not to exceed $4,800. Motion to accept the proposal. Second: Bob. Jeff: all in favor? Unanimous.
8. Aerator: Bob: Angel Wing aerator is not working; compressor has failed. $1,395 for a new one, one year guaranty; the old one is seven years old. Motion to accept. Second: Linda. Jeff: all in favor? Unanimous.
9. Irrigation: $1,335. Deborah: behind a home and it encompasses two other homes. Getting too much water; only has irrigation and it needs rotors and sprinklers. It’s urgent. The sod is dying on the side and the back is too much water drowning the plants. Jeff: motion to accept. Second: Linda. Jeff: All in favor? Unanimous.
10. Hard Tru: Jeff: Lee put in a request yesterday and Deborah decided to put on the Agenda. $2,559.06. It’s a budgeted item. Motion to accept. Second: Bob. Jeff: All in favor? Unanimous.
Second Residents’ Input Session:
1. Barry: [last name not given] The rear gate signage – 2 cars backed up – not residents, couldn’t get in. Piper’s Glen sign – the residents only sign is gone. It’s half way through into the gate. I had to back up…a truck the day before… Deborah: on the right hand side. Barry: I know, other sign. Deborah: we put it closer. Jeff: you’re coming past the turn. Deborah: I will redo it.
2. Joyce Winston: [Editor’s note: your Editor asked Joyce to email her comments for inclusion herein which she graciously did.] “What I spoke about was really from my work on the Long Range Planning Committee, when 3 of us (me, Mike Gentry and Carol Charles) visited Signarama to look at what signs they produce, how various color schemes would look on signs throughout the community, and especially that there were too many signs on the back gate entrance, signs of different sizes and colors, etc.
Mike, as Chair of our Committee, sent our suggestions to the Facilities Committee, who eventually selects what is ordered. When I saw all the different signs on the back fence and surrounding area, I couldn't believe what I saw....duplications of messages, all sorts of colors, shapes and materials used for the various signage....in other words, nothing really changed except we spent money on new signage that looks no better than we had before.”
Jeff: we’ll look into it.
Joyce: [Editor’s note: Joyce also emailed the following for inclusion herein.] “I agreed with Sue Schmer, Board member, that we should not be renewing landscaping, painting and similar contracts without getting 3 bids for anything that costs more than what our documents call for. I was part of the Ad Hoc Board that hired Palm Beach Broward as our landscaper 21 years ago. The landscaping has deteriorated, numerous complaints from residents, and we do nothing to replace them.”
Joyce: Sue brought up having to use the same contractor for years and not giving ourselves the opportunity to get bids. We’re entitled to get multiple bids in accordance with our documents… Jeff: I have some ideas on some of the contracts and we will be discussing as they come due.
Round Table Discussion:
[Editor’s note: what? This meeting’s not over yet?]