Month: August 2023

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.