Month: July 2023

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.