With respect to this roofing project for the clubhouse, fitness center, and guard shack, an inspection should not be done prior to each bill being paid. That is absurd because that is an arbitrary time period which may have no relation to what is actually happening on the roof in real time, because once you put down one layer, the workmanship underneath is hidden. Rather, an inspection should be done at each phase of the project. (We do not believe that the County signs off on permits on a phase-by-phase basis. They do so at the end when you advise them that your project is complete and request them to approve it.)
For example, phase one is stripping the roof down to the plywood to see which sheets of plywood need to be replaced. After this stripping, there should be an inspection. Phase two would be the removal of the plywood to see which beams may have dry rot and need to be replaced. After this removal, there should be another inspection. Phase three is the replacement of beams and plywood, and when that is done, a third inspection should take place.
Phase four is when they then place a paper-like material over the plywood and secure it to the roof and all flashings are added. When that is completed, another inspection should occur. Phase five is the placement of the tile which covers the roof. When that is completed, another inspection should take place. There could also be spot checks along the way at the discretion of the inspector.
The only challenge is how the roofing company plans on doing this project. If they strip the roof in its entirety and do the phases to cover the entire roof as they go, this schedule works well. If, however, they decide to do the project in sections, completing sections of the roof at a time, that makes teach section a separate inspection which is obviously more cumbersome and expensive.
We do not know if the roofing company plans on doing everything together or doing the structures (clubhouse, fitness center, guard shack) separately. By doing them separately, we would have to have five inspections on each one which is $2,000 per building at the stated rate of $400 per inspection. It is incumbent upon the Board to revise their instruction to the inspector to follow the above protocol to ensure that the roofs are installed properly.]
2. Roof Project Manager: $2400-$11,250 - Richard Greene
Richard: motion to approve Richard Campbell to be the roof consultant for the replacement of the roof, $400 per inspection with six inspections, amend the contract, additional inspections $400 each. Eileen: second. Marion: he mentions West Spot Professional Engineer, $80 an hour. Deborah: no, that’s another one. Sue: West is another one. CVA Roof Consultant, one page, that’s basically him. Marion: all in favor? Unanimous.
3. N & S Fences on CL Blvd – Eileen Olitsky
[Editor’s note: second time’s a charm?]
Harvey: I’m still recusing myself so I will be leaving the discussion. Eileen: last week, three to three; I would like to bring it up again. Verbally, they were called and said no.
[Editor’s note: above in the First Residents’ Input Session, in response to Leonard Tannen’s question above, Marion stated that they were not contacted. So, who is telling the truth here? Because both statements cannot be true. We’ll go with what Eileen is stating because this is her motion, and she seems to be on top of the situation.]
Eileen: I would like to have a letter written to them requesting, due to expenses… roof, COVID….would like to cancel, would be willing to give deposit and any costs… if not, approve $10,550 on the south side and not complete the north side. The contract was signed in March. It’s been nine months since they’ve done anything. Permits took so long, including the gate…no completion date in here… Sue: there’s no start date either. Eileen: this could take ten years. I would like – write a letter – don’t want to give them two choices…
Sue: no additional money can be spent, that’s already done. These two gates would do nothing to improve security… security has not been an issue… I was not on the Board at the time. No start or end date, additional permit fees…
Linda: I don’t believe this contract is airtight and I would like to see this contract broken. All you have to do is walk through; you don’t have to go through bushes…give them their $1,000 deposit and say goodbye. Eileen: I agree with Linda and Sue… I am regretful that I voted on it… we can change our mind, the contract, nothing’s been done in nine months. Richard: I wasn’t on the Board; I was very, very upset the way it was approved.
[Editor’s note: Richard, if you were so upset about it, why didn’t you comment as a resident during any residents’ input session either at the time it was on the agenda or any time thereafter; and furthermore, as a Board member since last March 26, 2020, which was a mere six days later, you could have revisited it and put it on the Agenda yourself.
So, it is one thing to claim that you are very, very upset, but you did nothing when you had ample opportunity to do something before the alleged $1,000 payment was made. We say alleged payment because that was not a deposit; the contract called for a 50% deposit. That was a $1,000 payment made for reasons unknown. More on this matter at the end of this discussion.]
Richard: They’re gonna be removing the ficus. The whole area is gonna be completely open…I think we’re gonna need to put a fence there…white fly problems…anyone can walk through…
[Editor’s note: they can walk through using the sidewalk, Richard, while the guard is snoozing, checking his or her iPhone, or checking ID for a car that is trying to enter.
By the way, many, many years ago when your Editor flew here from my home in Los Angeles to visit my parents, who are original owners, and arrived from the airport after midnight, and the limo pulled up to the guard shack, we had to pound on the door of the guard shack to wake him up because the horn wasn’t doing the trick. It probably would have been easier for me to get out of the limo, take my luggage on wheels, and walk to their house on Grove Ridge Lane.
This same scenario played out again when the two of us, your Editor and your Roving Reporter, arrived on another occasion, again after midnight, but that time we didn’t have to bang on the door, as honking the horn a few times worked. Harvey, sorry if we woke you.]
Marion: I’m against cancelling the contract.
[Editor’s note: of course you are. You were the one who made the motion and your sidekick, Harvey, seconded it.]
Marion: It will be one wide open area. Those houses will have no protection from anybody…it was suggested by the sheriff’s department…I think the price we got was phenomenal.
[Editor’s note: the price is irrelevant; the sheriff’s recommendations were over a year prior to this motion that you made, the sheriff likely pointed out all of the vulnerable areas, and likely had no idea about shrubbery replacement.]
Eileen: we talked about doing two because of the eventuality of the gate…Deborah: it will cost approximately $15,000 for the removal of ficus on the south side.
[Editor’s note: shop it better; there is no reason why you can’t get competitive bids and then negotiate downward from there. 316 feet for $15,000 is outrageous; that comes to $47.47 per foot assuming you fill every single inch of that area.]
[Editor’s further note: more discussion ensued.]
Sue: did we get a permit for this yet? Deborah: he [Rapid Fence] applied for just the two sides; as of today I have nothing saying he has a permit. Linda: I don’t think it’s a question about breaking the contract… Marion: he has written the administrative plan.
[Editor’s note: Marion, are you now representing Rapid Fence as their advocate? Don’t you think that’s a conflict of interest?]
Linda: let him have the $1,000; that’s a lot of money. Marion: I’m incredibly disappointed at this point. This has been voted on twice…
[Editor’s note: the community is a hell of a lot more disappointed in you, and not only because of this fence/gate issue that you rammed down everyone’s throat to avoid a community vote. And whether or not it was voted on twice is irrelevant; you had no problem with voting twice on Harvey’s Sign Up Genius motion.]
Linda: I agreed on it under false pretenses…I’m sorry I voted for it…any of us have the privilege of changing our mind…and I did make the wrong decision at the time and I admit it…
[Editor’s note: there is nothing wrong with making a mistake, and it is commendable when someone recognizes it, owns it, admits it, apologizes for it, learns from it so that it doesn’t happen again, and then tries to make it right. Bravo.]
Eileen: [regarding Marion’s comment about the matter having been voted on twice] I respectfully disagree with you. Many times, other Board members brought up issues and we’ve had a revote. We are allowed to change our minds and apologize for actions in the past.
[Editor’s note: bravo again.]
Richard: Deb, in your estimation, do you think we’re gonna have to put a fence there…pulling out the ficus.
[Editor’s note: nothing personal, but an employee’s opinion is irrelevant. If you want opinions, ask the owners/residents and ask the Landscaping Committee because their opinions are what matters. They might suggest you buy larger gallon pots so that they fill in faster.]
Deborah: That will be a Board decision – taller foliage…
[Editor’s note: excellent answer.]
Deborah: proposal from Palm Beach Broward was about $15,000…
[Editor’s note: you’re being shafted. Send it out for competitive bidding.]
Marion: all in favor of having a letter written to Rapid Fence trying to get out – Eileen: not requesting – that we want out of the contract.
[Editor’s note: did the Editor miss the motion and a second?]
Marion: In favor, Linda, Eileen, Sue. Marion: oppose. Richard: abstain. I’m against losing any money.
[Editor’s note: Richard, you’re against losing $1,000 and would rather spend over $20,000 more for this debacle? That’s not being fiscally responsible.]
Marion: three-one-one. Eileen: it’s not “can we,” it’s that “we want.” Marion: passes. Deb, you and I will get together and draft the letter.
[Editor’s note: having the person who made the ill-fated motion and the one person who voted against drafting the letter is the last person who should be involved in its creation or any communication with this vendor. Eileen astutely brings this up later at the Round Table discussion to make sure there is oversight on what is being written, but frankly, the task should not be handled by Marion who was the sole dissenter. In our opinion, that’s loco and is a horrible business decision.
There is nothing in the contract that we were provided which shows that a $1,000 payment was to be made; the contract says the deposit shall be 50% of the entire job. Therefore, who authorized a payment of $1,000 and why? This is nonsensical. This $1,000 was not a deposit. It was an undesignated payment which was given for an unknown and unnecessary reason. The vendor never should have accepted it. It appears that both sides were and are asleep at the wheel. Both sides are ignoring a material term of the contract: the amount and schedule of payments.
The purported contract has neither a start nor finish date. There is no evidence of any performance over the last eight months. Since the required consideration of 50% payment was not given, the vendor should not have started the project under the terms of the contract. Indeed, after eight months, there does not appear to be any performance by the vendor of which we are aware and nor should there be, because the condition precedent to the performance (the 50% payment) was never satisfied.
There was a failure of consideration. The vendor has remained silent. The payment of 50% was to have occurred first, before any performance on the part of the vendor. Since that did not happen, the only recourse the vendor would theoretically have would be to sue on the contract for damages.
However, it would be virtually impossible for the vendor to establish damages, because there was to have been no performance prior to payment, so the vendor should not have incurred any damages for labor and/or materials. If the vendor started work, it did so at its own risk because it failed to enforce the condition precedent. Thus, essentially, while there is a contract, it is, as a practical matter, not enforceable. The parties just walk away. See how simple this is?
As for the $1,000, the HOA should demand its return as it was an improper payment, and if that is refused, then the individuals who paid that to the vendor, those Board members who authorized and signed off on that payment, should reimburse the HOA because they had no right to make that payment. They are probably not legally obligated to repay the HOA, but they should do so because they acted outside their authority and contrary to the specific terms of the contract.
It is incumbent upon the Board to approach this matter from a position of strength, not weakness. It is important not to write things in a letter that could be construed as admissions against interest or waivers of defenses. Be careful. Words matter.]
Linda: passed? Marion: yes.
4. Concrete vs Paver Expansion for Ramp: $3,042-$3648- Eileen Olitsky
Eileen: two bids…one concrete only…Deborah: concrete is more expensive than pavers…Eileen: so we voted; we’re revisiting it…Deborah:: concrete is also a trip hazard [as are pavers] …pavers can be reset as needed… Eileen: new proposal $3,648. Motion we go with the alternate proposal of pavers. Harvey: second. Harvey: pavers will match, aesthetically will look a lot better…not a trip hazard…can repurpose the river rock…
Eileen: additional row of pavers going to the pickleball as well. Sue: [it says] sprinklers could be moved by others. Who? Deborah: Palm Beach Broward. Sue: extra charge for that? Deborah: no…
Sue: color of the pavers – they are already stained…concrete slab… I have no problem with the pavers… can concrete be stained? Deborah: yes. Sue: pavers will look terrible. Marion: all in favor of paver expansion for the ramp, APC, for $3,648? Eileen: point of order: rescind the one from the 4th. Marion: all in favor of rescinding the concrete expansion area [last Board vote]? Harvey: second. Marion: unanimous. All in favor of using pavers, $3,648? Unanimous.
5. Landon pod beautification – Additional $900: Deborah: proposal 71-20, pod entrance, started. $900. I could have approved on my own, it is within my purview; I decided not to. The work was done already; I just wanted it to be out in the open.
Linda: motion. Harvey: second. Sue: reserve or budgeted? I don’t know what [this comes under]. Richard: all landscaping is operating item (unless you set up a reserve). Marion: all in favor of 71-20, green eyelet ficus northwest corner Landon Circle? Unanimous.
6. Landscape: Utility Building - $2575. Someone, possibly Marion: proposal 68-20, $2,575, landscaping around the utility building. Marion makes the motion. Harvey: second. Richard: operating expense… [discussion about river rock repurposing] … Harvey: amend the motion to accept it, $375 for new river rock…be removed or amended depending on how much can be repurposed. Deborah: can you just approve it the way it is? They’ll have to adjust the invoice. Marion: all in favor? Unanimous.
1. Bocce: Open for play – Linda Arbeit. Linda: residents would like to have the bocce court opened at this time. Motion to open the bocce court. Eileen: second. Sue: thank Irv Kenig; gave me a two minute explanation on how to play bocce because I told him I’ve only seen it in Godfather movies…there will be CDC guidelines…my apology to people who play, it was an oversight, unintended.
[Editor’s note: presumably that it was not included in the discussions about use of facilities during COVID19.]
Deborah: I need to get it cleaned, prepared by Lee. Eileen: amount? Marion: recommend four per side. Several: that’s eight.
[Editor’s note: see comments of Jefferey D. Green below in the Second Residents’ Input Session wherein he states that there are two people on a team, four on the court, that the court is not made for eight people, and that people usually do not have their own equipment.]
Marion: they schedule themselves. Eileen: they only play on Sunday (morning). Marion: we put the rules in writing and send it to the community. Deborah: equipment, are we using community equipment and who’s going to be sanitizing? Eileen: 8 players, they bring their own equipment.
[Editor’s note: per Jeffrey D. Green below, four players and they don’t bring their own equipment.]
Sue: we can get clarification… eight at a time… It is my understanding that there are no more than eight that play… Eileen: specify when and how many. Marion: all in favor of open play for Bocce? Eileen: we have to stipulate one session at a time, no more than eight people at a time, with eight people at a time, four on each side, equipment to be sanitized between plays… Sue: subject to sanitation procedures. Harvey: spray bottle of solution, let them spray the balls…Marion: we’ll talk to Image and see how they want to do it. Deborah: you have one person here from Image on Sunday, does the pool, bathrooms. Sue: second.
[Editor’s note: Eileen already seconded.]
Marion: all in favor? Unanimous.
2. 2021 Community Vote re: Mailboxes and Hard Surface Pickleball-Marion Weil
[Editor’s note: the mailboxes are not subject to community vote. They are individually owned along with the poles. Shared poles are owned equally by the residents attached to those mailboxes. The poles are an integral part of the mailboxes, without which the mailboxes would fall to the ground or blow away in the wind.
The HOA cannot simply seize an owner’s personal property, change it, and then return something else to the owner. Ownership doesn’t work that way. The HOA is not the State, the latter of which has eminent domain rights. A resident sent us his/her thoughts on the mailboxes. Here is our response to that resident:
"We understand the frustration about the mailboxes and the look of the community in general. To us, the most glaring issue is the appearance of the roads. Simple resealing would completely change the look of the entire place in a very positive way. It would be relatively inexpensive, and it would dramatically increase curb appeal.
As to the mailboxes, we are familiar with the aluminum mailboxes to which you refer. One resident referred to that mailbox as looking like a “coffin.” Why is uniformity of mailboxes so important? Some think uniformity is boring and gauche, like a cheap perfume. Some of the very tony communities do not have uniformity of mailboxes, and some of those unique mailboxes are beautiful and match the landscaping and character of the individual home, which greatly enhances the look of the community.
If one or more Board members wants to spend community funds on fancy signage to look more like a country club, then the homes and mailboxes should also reflect that image. For example, we are upgrading the appearance of our home and its curb appeal by doing custom landscaping which Arthur designed and is personally creating and completing (when it’s not raining). It would be nice to have a mailbox that matches this custom job. Our governing documents permit such a unique mailbox, with ARB approval. This enhances the community’s curb appeal.
Barring a change in the governing documents, there is no rightful and legal way for the Board to do anything with regard to the individual homeowner’s domain over his/her mailbox (and pole, which is part of the mailbox unit), and even such a change is fraught with legal problems as explained below.
You have the issue of whether or not they can legally “grandfather in” all the current homeowners as opposed to this proposed rule applying to new buyers only. Current owners purchased the home and its appurtenances, which included the mailboxes and poles. That is a personal asset of the owner which cannot be taken. If taken, that would be called theft. And changing documents does not transpose the theft into a legal taking. You cannot have a community vote to steal a homeowner’s mailbox."
Our analysis of the issue is found on our dedicated Mailboxes page under our HOA Issues page.]
Marion: community vote, mailboxes and hard courts pickleball, 2021, put a vote out there once we get our all the information from Facilities…and pickleball… we need a 75% of those voting in order for this to go through. Harvey: not bundle. Marion: I agree. Richard: I’d like to be sure we include all the costs. With pickleball, a lot of landscaping to be done, and mailboxes…Marion: we have a project management form, lists every committee…
Eileen: says vote today; respectfully, it’s premature… I think this is a discussion only; before any approved, we have to have numbers; we need clarification who owns the mailboxes, who owns the poles, we don’t have updated prices… Harvey: we should ask Facilities and get prices, rough proposals… Marion: I would like a vote in 2021 when we have all this information. Richard: will involve a lot of committees…
Sue: the subject of bundling, one of the problems, doing without bundling, I doubt will get 75%... there are pros and cons about bundling… Marion: just a discussion…
Sue: our documents need to be revised; there are serious questions who owns what, for sure, the mailboxes themselves and the signs are owned by the residents. Covenants… Marion: [regarding the poles] put in by the developer, owned by the association. Sue: poles on community area – so are the mailboxes. The mailboxes are attached to the poles. Revising the documents is expensive. Marion: 2011, 2018 from the attorneys. Sue: I do not believe there is clarity in either attorney’s letter.
Linda: I made a few phone calls [other communities], all three cases, residents own the mailboxes and the poles.
[Editor’s note: it’s common sense; they are a unit, and the mailbox cannot stand without its pole.]
Marion: president council meetings – not…
[Editor’s note: what’s with these presidents? Are they just making things up as they go along? And if they don’t have the same governing documents as this HOA has, who cares? It is completely irrelevant what other HOA presidents are saying.]
Chat: Vicki: LINDA IS CORRECT. YOU CANNOT DO THAT. YOU CANNOT TAKE PERSONAL PROPERTY. ILLEGAL SEIZURE.
[Editor’s note: kindly excuse the all-caps in the Chat function at the meeting; the cap lock stuck.]
Eileen: thank…Facilities. They have done an enormous amount of work researching mailboxes… pickleball, last year we relined the surfaces… I’d also like to thank Long Range Planning [committee]… Harvey: I agree with what you’re saying, Marion.
[Editor’s note: but of course you do.]
Harvey: …we do not need to bring it to a vote… 75% is an awful high bar… Marion: you never know… alright, let’s move on.
[Editor’s note: what was the purpose of this item being on the Agenda? There are so many other pressing issues; just to name a few:
-correcting faulty prior Minutes (March 18, 2020) to have an accurate record,
-rescinding the outrageously improper “Let’s Ban Alex” vote,
-rescinding the illegal “Take Away Your Transponder If You Have An Estate Sale” vote,
-banning the improper presidential slush fund of $1,000 per month,
-banning clubs from having their own rules, policies, and by-laws that allow, for example, non-resident interlopers full membership in the pickleball club with full voting rights and full access to the pickleball courts so that they can displace residents, wear and tear on community assets, and present liability issues to the HOA when they are injured on campus.
But for some reason, this untimely discussion about a potential community vote in 2021 was more important to Marion at this time.]
3. Electrical Panel-boost transformer at pool equipment- $5900 - Richard Greene.
Richard: two proposals, the transformer… $5,990 and $4,295…postpone this until Arnie [Green] meeting with other communities… and Larry Jacobowitz…get more information…Harvey: what is this going to do for us? What’s the benefit? Richard: we’re burning out motors… there’s a problem with the voltage… Arnie Green: pool company recommended…why is FPL giving us a low voltage…trying to find out.. Richard: postpone… Harvey: motion to table pending further information. Marion: Second. All in favor of postponing until next meeting? 5-0, Linda is out of the room.
[Editor’s note: the motion was to table pending further information, not to postpone until the next meeting. There is a difference, and the person presiding over the meeting, the president, ought to be more precise.]
Second Residents’ Input Session:
1. Chuck Cramer: I want to thank the Board for addressing the pickleball courts and the mailboxes… I’d like to offer the support of the pickleball club… mailboxes and court could be on the same ballot either separately or combined…
[Editor’s note: the following is copied from Chuck’s input into the Chat function, which is essentially what he read out loud:]
“From Chuck Cramer to Everyone: 07:36 PM
this is Chuck Cramer, i raised my hand 5 times and my name was removed from the list. this is what I wanted to say. This is Chuck Cramer Glenville Drive and President of the Pickleball Club of Cascade Lakes. I wanted to speak on the potential ballot of pickleball hard courts and mailboxes. I assume that to bring to a vote in 2021 you will need good prices. I would like to offer the support of the pickleball club in designing the plans and specifications and interfacing with potential vendors.
As you know we have an architect, engineers and much experience with other communities and with vendors and of course, the play of the game. There are many decisions to be made that will affect price such as surface material, fencing, drainage observation areas etc. We would also be happy to support any informational meetings you might have with the community.
I would guess you have already considered this but the mailboxes and courts could be on the same ballot to save money but should be separate line items.”
2. Joyce Winston: #1, as head of Rules & Regs, Sue and I have discussed mailboxes and poles. The documents are very clear; the homeowner owns just the mailboxes; some are two to a pole and some are three to a pole…who’s gonna pay for the poles…
[Editor’s note: we respectfully disagree as we have explained above. Shared poles are owned equally between or among the owners of the mailboxes attached thereto. The mailbox and pole are a unit; the mailbox cannot stand without the pole. Recall when the coffin-like mailboxes were shown to the community in 2019, they came with the poles. The poles were part of the cost of the mailboxes.]
Joyce: #2, the second thing, I don’t know if Harvey should recuse himself. Marion: go ahead, Joyce. Joyce: based on the original motion of Harvey to circumvent the community vote, this entire subject is illegal, so I suggest you do your very utmost to cancel that contract.
3. Elliot Graff: Sue, you keep on turning down my 80/20 rule, not in the documents, it’s allowed in the state of Florida. Agents, they’re all going to the other Cascades. Our maintenance is $100 more than theirs. Second, bundling, last time, it was not bundled… 3. Maintenance $1,625 or $1,650? Last time you voted on $1,650, I got notification of $1,625. I don’t know what to tell new residents.
[Editor’s note: Elliot is one of the top real estate agents around and he also was our August 2020 Resident of the Month.]
Sue: the 80/20 rule does involve the FHA… [Federal Fair Housing Act] … the state doesn’t care what you do with the other 20%. Elliot: that is correct… Sue: would be a decision for the Board… Elliot: I brought this up before; it was turned down… let me know. Is the maintenance $1,625 or $1,650? Richard: $1,625 is what the budget committee approved, being proposed, the Board has not made their final approval yet.
[Editor’s note: yes and no. The Board did make a final vote to increase it to $1,650 at the illegal improper annual budget meeting; we called this procedure out based on lack of notice and lack of giving the residents the statutorily required entitlement to speak, so there is a do-over of sorts of the annual budget meeting scheduled for November 25, 2020.
There is no motion listed on the Agenda to rescind that vote. Marion is very evasive about it. Was a vote made? Yes. Was it legal? No. It is the position of this News Site that it is therefore void ab initio. If that is true, then it technically does not have to be rescinded because there is nothing to rescind if it is void as opposed to voidable.]
Richard: Next week the Board is going to approve a maintenance fee… Eileen: I’ve had some issues with the process here… I had questions about the maintenance fee…I had requested at that time a community meeting where the residents could listen in to the discussion. I was told that that was not happening and that the time for that discussion was at the November 4th meeting.
[Editor’s note: told by whom?]
Eileen: If I was in error, then I question the process completely because there was no opportunity for the residents to hear any discussion about that proposed maintenance fee. Marion: that’s why we’re redoing it next week. Eileen: there will be a discussion again about the maintenance fee.
Marion: there was no opportunity for resident discussion and that has been that way for umpteen years past [Editor’s note: until your Editor and Roving Reporter arrived!] but now we know that that was wrong… Harvey: so essentially the meeting on the 4th [November], budget meeting, was technically illegal and really we should strike the Minutes because we’re doing it again, so really the first meeting, in reality, in theory, didn’t occur, so we should strike those Minutes…
Marion: no, according to the attorney who we spoke to [Editor’s note: who is the “we” who spoke to the attorney; clearly Harvey was not in on that call.] Marion: which is why we’re doing it again, it was not illegal, we just neglected to put in the Residents’ Input Session, so that’s why we’re having the meeting on the 25th. You can’t negate what was there.
[Editor’s note: it was in total violation of the open meeting laws and that made it illegal. Just declare it void; this is so simple.]
Harvey: then let’s just say it was not illegal, it was inappropriate…we should void the last meeting.
[Editor’s note: Harvey is getting close here, so kudos to him for this. The meeting cannot be voided, but the vote should be considered void, and this should be clearly stated in the November 4, 2020 Budget Meeting Minutes that said vote was and is void. Then, once again at the November 25, 2020 annual budget meeting, declare the prior annual budget meeting’s vote as void and record that in those Minutes as well. In that way, you will have a clear and clean record before proceeding.]
Marion: you can’t void a meeting that took place according to the attorneys.
[Editor’s note: void the vote, genius, not the meeting.]
Sue: given the fact that there were a lot of procedural errors that went on with this, and thanks to whomever it was who said that we were in error because we were...
[Editor’s note: you’re welcome!]
Sue: …words matter…when you put out something to residents that says budget and then in the agenda it says proposed budget, which one is it?... Since there were errors, and since this was going on for a while, I guess, that we should clearly delineate what those procedures are so that everyone, including Board members, have a right to give their input. I think it’s imperative that the community know everything that we do that involves expenditures of money.
[Editor’s note: Bravo, and that includes the $6,052.35 spent on legal fees without a Board vote, without community input, for the sole purpose in our opinion of frivolously and maliciously going after your Editor and Roving Reporter to try and stifle us, and that means you, Marion, and whoever went along with that, which to us was a clear scheme of harassment using HOA moneys.]
Sue: this is a case where transparency is a must… Richard: the letter said proposed budget; the documents behind it said recommended budget; it never said approved budget.
4. Jeffrey D. Green: Bocce court, there are two people on a team. The court is not made for eight people. Four people on the court. People usually don’t have their own equipment. The balls, they’re two pounds each… Maintenance is $100 more than that of Cascades: you have factors, Elliot, how much is in their reserve? You can’t compare apples and oranges. Mailboxes, and who owns them: residents own them. If you thought that the community owns them then you better be able to pay the people for their mailboxes.
5. Barry Gordon: To answer Elliot, I was on the Board when we turned down the 80/20. A lot of us have children who might inherit the houses; most of them are not 55…that’s why we did it.
6. Elliot: I was on the Board at the same time. The reason was the attorney was holding 20% for heirs. 120 homes…a lot of people who are aging out, their children are older than 55…
7. Irwin Schenkman: I was on the original pre-Board and the first Board. The builder sold to people who were under 55…20% of the homes can be under 55, however you can’t have anybody under the age of 20; would be subject to school taxes… mailboxes… trucks would hit mailboxes…at that time, homeowners did not have to replace … [Editor’s note: Irwin’s audio cut out] …
[Editor’s note: the 20% can be used any way the HOA wants; the HOA’s governing documents control that 20%. The current documents reserve that 20% for heirs as legacy homes. Amending the governing documents is not a very big deal, actually. Only that section would need to be amended, and that could be done on a one-page document.
The issue is not the expense of it, in this writer’s opinion; the issue is whether the matter is supported or not. It does appear at this juncture that this is not considered a priority by the Board, plain and simple. However, as with anything, the priority level of this issue could change at any time.]
Round Table Discussion:
Eileen: the fences. Marion, you said you were going to write the letter with Deborah. I would like all Board members to see it before it goes out.
[Editor’s note: the letter should be written by someone else and with some of the language we provided above. Marion is the last person who should be drafting that letter for the reasons we stated. That being said, we thank the other ladies on the Board for their wisdom in rectifying this disaster. A big thank you to Eileen, Linda, and Sue.]
Sue: …already approved mailboxes $193,000; will have to amend that in order to move forward. Marion: Right.
[Editor’s note: easy enough. It was never a well-thought out vote to begin with.]
Harvey: I would like to thank Mark Goodman for all his hard work…
[Editor’s note: Harvey expounded upon this and was effusive in his praise of Mark.]
Marion: I don’t have anything.
Marion: motion to adjourn? Eileen. Second: Sue. Marion: all in favor? Unanimous. It’s 9:44pm. [Editor’s note: it registered 9:48pm on our computer.]
Eileen: we’ll miss Mark.
[Editor’s note: Once again, a big shout-out to Zoom operator Mike Blackman and his faithful assistant, Arnie Green, for doing a great job administering the Zoom meetings. We thank them for their continued service and volunteerism.