Month: September 2018

The Workout / Equipment Room Change of Location

As this Blog had previously posted – was there really a need to change the location of the community Workout / Equipment Room?  Remember this a change to two Common Elements, i.e. the Club House and the Admin Building – which would require the Residences to Vote for the change or no change.  There is nothing in the By-Laws which grants the Board the power to change, add, or take away Common Elements among the listed powers granted.

However, the Board’s presumptuous action has taken place, and now we have to, unfortunately, deal with it.  Would it not have been more  useful and economical to have left the buildings alone (which had been functioning fine) and rather spend our funds to replace the equipment (which I believe is original) with leased new equipment, which could be acquired with a maintenance and upgrade program?

The word is that the folks, who provide workout, yoga, etc. classes complained that they needed more space for their classes.  Why not have more than one class to accommodate the participants?   BTW – these folks do not pay for the space and are not vetted for insurance and licenses.  The result – the Residents have now paid to upgrade the instructors’ facility.  Why would the Board do this?  Hmm.

The Board’s seizure of our community continues.

Responses to the Board President’s Special Edition Update

An Aquarina Voice’s responses are in bold and italic –

AQUARINA UPDATE

BY PATRICK POLLOCK

Volume 2 Number 6

August 2018

 

SPECIAL EDITION

Normally AQUARINA UPDATE is dedicated to publicizing life in our community, volunteer activities, construction plans, and special events. Today we will deviate from that normal protocol and we will address allegations and claims from a very small but vocal group of detractors. Up until now we have chosen to ignore the noise created through fabrications, misrepresentations and disregard for facts. Recent concerns and comments from many of our residents indicate a potential

chilling impact on our volunteers, community image and property values if we do not address the issue. The material in this edition comes directly from the material presented at the August Board Meeting.

 

Well, well, the spin has begun.  A few items on this baseless introduction of harm to the Board and the Aquarina Community.

  • The Aquarina Update speaks of construction plans. Are we dealing with a developer, i.e. the current Board? It appears we are. We should be dealing with an elected Board who was chosen to maintain our community , and we should not be dealing with a Board developing the community with construction plans to spend our funds unless the community agrees to it by vote.  After all, the residents bought into an existing community, and any change should be directed by that community, and not a Board of seven individuals.  Construction plans are what a developer implements, who has funds and/or investors. Our Board does not have the funds or the investors, but they do have the Residents’ funds, which it is recklessly spending in the manner of a developer in the guise of a Board of Directors.  Folks, Aquarina has been high-jacked.
  • The announced agenda for the Meeting was surprisingly changed by and for the President to pontificate his defense, which he apparently felt was a personal necessity since he sees the truth of his rogue ways now emerging within the community.
  • Actually, we are not a small group at all, but a growing group, and yes, a vocal group. But noise, fabrications, and misrepresentations are not what you have read from this Blog.  All accounts have been based on existing shown facts and Law. The President and Board have a history exhorting their position with no corroboration. We just have to take their word – right?   WRONG!
  • Concerns and comments from the Residents are said by the President and Board to be about the concern of what this Blog has disclosed to the Aquarina Community. What the Blog has disclosed are the truths of what the President and Board have financially burdened on Aquarina in their guise as a Board of Directors acting as a Developer – which they are not meant to be or directed to be by Law.
  • If any negative impact falls on Aquarina, then it will be because of a rogue Board with its reckless use of the Residents’ funds.

 

In today’s digital world, the Internet has become the new town square. It provides the means to communicate ideas and conduct conversations with expansive groups and at a greater velocity than ever before. It allows total anonymity and reduced accountability. These new degrees of freedom carry both benefits and risks. It forces us to make decisions about the content and intent. Is it a legitimate conversation? Is its purpose to educate and enlighten or to hurt or damage? Is it designed to bring people together or to polarize them? As you read through this material, keep these questions in mind and fact check.

BACKGROUND

A very small group of people has made more than 20 claims of illegal and/or criminal acts by the ACSA/AGI boards.

 

  • Again, this is not a small group as hoped by the Board, but a growing group of concerned Residents who see what the Board is really doing, i.e. working their own agenda and not the Residents’ agenda, which is maintaining the community. We are not anonymous, everyone knows who we are in the community.

 

They have attempted through intimidation and threats, to force the resignation of members of the ACSA board. They have used fabrications, misrepresentations and alleged “statements” from disgruntled ex-employees to substantiate the claims. As we examine the claims you will note that AT BEST: they demonstrate a lack of understanding of Florida law and statues; they demonstrate a lack of understanding of our documents; and they demonstrate a disregard for facts. The material might well lead you to some other interpretation of the nature and motivation of the claims but we leave any such conclusions to you –

only you can make that judgment. We will leave you with two critical pieces of information: all of the assessments as to law are backed by both our Litigation Attorney and our General Council; and after reviewing the materials both attorneys agree that the claims of illegal or criminal activities are fallacious.

 

  • Really? One of our Residents has taken issue with the Board on real and existing issues, which the Board over blows as destructive and unsubstantiated.  The irony is that the President and the Board are the ones that demonstrate the behavior of “fabrication, misrepresentations, and a lack of understanding of our documents and Florida Law”.  They make statements of justification without corroboration. They state attorney opinion and Florida Law supporting their actions, but do not show us or reference the opinion and Law for which they stand on.  Based on their history of dishonesty, e.g. their use of Building Permit Applications (to be discussed later in this response), the Residents should in every way expect a demonstration of evidence to support the Board’s allegations of correctness.

 

CLAIMS AGAINST ACSA and AGI Management

CLAIM 1 – The Board violated Florida’s Fraudulent Communications Act. Specifically, members of the ACSA Board participated in an active scheme to defraud certain lower income families by forcing the sale of their condos so they could buy them at under market values for themselves and/or their families. That this was done by controlling finances of ACSA and AGI without oversight, and restricting access to financial data. They report that a former employee alleges a number of statements were made confirming the intent to defraud. This claim is based on Two Fabrications. First, no board member or their families have bought, offered for, or considered buying in either of the sub communities cited in the claim.

 

  • Actually, what is alleged is the “statement” of purchases and not the action of purchases. Note that making the “statement” to do the purchases has not been denied. 

 

Second, it is not possible for members of the Board to control both ACSA and AGI finances. There is a great deal of oversight. The ACSA and AGI financial processes are open and transparent with more than 45 people participating in the budget development. Seven committees with an average of 5 members per committee provide inputs to the two budgets. Those inputs are reviewed and negotiated by 2 independent finance committees. Once a draft AGI budget is formulated, inputs are integrated into the ACSA budget. That combined draft budget is then presented to, reviewed by and approved by ACSA’s Board during 3 public board meetings over two and a half months. After each meeting the current draft is posted for review by residents on the network.

 

  • What a spin and a total untruth! Without question, the Board controls both ACSA and AGI, e.g. the Board hires, sets salaries, gives direction, and uses the Residents’ budgeted funds to subsidize these businesses within the AGI all under the auspices of the ACSA.  Ironically, the above response states it is not possible to control both ACSA and AGI finances yet it also states it formulates budgets for each! Do they really know what they’re talking about?  The response also states the finances are open and transparent, yet a formal request by a Resident to see the detailed finances of the AGI were denied. Open and transparent?!

 

CLAIM 2 – They claim that AGI financial records are subject to disclosure under FLORIDA STATUTE TITLE XL, CHAPTER 720 (HOA LAW) and have been withheld from both residents and certain board members. This CLAIM is based on Two Fabrications. First, AGI records are not subject to FLORIDA STATUTE TITLE XL, CHAPTER 720 (HOA law) disclosure requirements – it’s not a HOA. (We have a written legal opinion supporting this.)

 

  • Really? The Law actually states the Residents have a right to review all Association (ACSA) revenue and expenses upon proper request. This has been detailed in previous posts to this Blog.  The Residents pay in excess of $200,000 annually to subsidize the AGI. It is absolutely part and parcel of our Association (ACSA). Show the Residents this alleged legal opinion, otherwise.  More concerning, why does the President and Board NOT want to disclose the financials of how the Residents’ funds are being used? This denial just increases suspicion to the President’s and Board’s actions and a developer agenda. They use slide shows and newsletters of volunteer groups and partying, but they do not show evidence of the substantiation of their rogue actions.  Why? Probably because they cannot, since the evidence is nonexistent.

 

Second, nonetheless the AGI budget is posted and AGI’s financial performance is reviewed at each ACSA board meeting. All ACSA official records are available to all members– they are posted on two websites and hard copy available for review by appointment. The only records withheld are AGI salaries & personnel records that are protected by privacy

law and therefore not disclosed.

 

  • All wrong! The detailed AGI financials were never made available. There is no privacy law prohibiting the Residents to know the salaries of the AGI employees. Don’t we know, as tax payers, the salaries of our policemen, firemen, teachers, and public officials?
  • With about $1,500,000 of yearly Resident fees to oversee and spend, the fact that the Board’s specific use of over $200,000 of these fees are kept away from the Residents to see is WRONG.

 

CLAIM 3 – They claim that board members are guilty of falsifying permit documents to have work completed on the administration building … [thus] resulting work being stopped and costing the residents money. This statement consists of two fabrications. First, no documents were falsified. All of the required permits applications were completed and submitted. The permit was delayed and resubmitted because it had the mailing address instead of the street address. The builder started work without the permit in hand. The county issued a stop work order and he was fined. ACSA was not party to the builders decision or the subsequent fine. Second there was no cost to residents – it was the builder’s error and his fine not ours.

 

  • More spin here – The reality was that the Permit Application was under the pretense of some minor repairs (documents to this occurrence were posted on this Blog), i.e. carpet replacement, drywall repair, and door replacement. The listed cost on the App was about $10,000. In addition to work being done without a Permit, the actual work being done was a remodel of the Admin Building at the Residents’ cost of over $90,000 (the contractual agreement was posted on this Blog).  Work was stopped not only for having no Permit, but also for doing work beyond the scope of the Applied Permit (Minor Repair).  The Permit App needed to be resubmitted to comply with the County requirements for the actual renovation work.  Other issues are manifested here. 1) Because the Permit App was for Minor Repair and possibly damage repair, the By-Laws (Article 13) may have been implemented to consider these repairs as an Insurance Casualty.  With this situation, any cost above the insurance payout that reaches $75,000 requires the Residents to vote to decide how to address the repair.  This approach could have saved the residents money based on their decision and not the Board’s decision.  Did the Board consider this approach? – NO – because that would have provided the Residents a say in the renovation. 2) This renovation to the Admin Building to accommodate the Work Out facility to be moved is a change to a common element, which also requires the Residents to vote if the change will occur or not, since the Board does not have the power (per our By-Laws) to change, take away, or add a common element.  Did you vote?

 

CALIM 4 – The board implemented a contract for $90,000 without community approval as required by our Bylaws; the moneys could have been used to offset AGI losses; and the moneys were spent illegally to make sure that additional funds would cost residents supplemental fees and possibly force lower income residents to sell continuing the scheme to defraud.

This is two fabrications and one misrepresentation. First, our by-laws only require community votes of approval for SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS and then only for two specific cases. There was no special assessment involved in this action therefore no community vote was required. The approximately $80,000 for the repairs to the Administration Building and Community Center were budgeted items in our 2018 reserves plans and were unanimously approved by the board.

 

  • More spin – See above for the pretense of Minor Repair that turned into a renovation. The Board approved about $90,000 for the Admin Building Reserve Account, which was meant for future repairs and upkeep, and not for a renovation and a change of use of a common element, which, again, the By-Laws do not allow without a community vote. The Admin Building has been changed in its use and at the Residents’ cost.

 

Relocation of the exercise room along with the budgeted repairs were separately voted on a second time by the board and approved 6 – 1.

 

  • More spin – Budgeted Repairs turned into renovation costs, i.e. a common element change which is not a Board decision, but a community decision.
  • In addition, the move of the Workout Facility to the Admin Building also resulted in a renovation cost to the Club House, i.e. the Residents’ cost.

 

Second, they misrepresent that the reserve funds used for the Administration Building could be used to off-set AGI losses.

Florida law (720) refers to reserve funds as restricted funds because they must be separartely accounted for and held, and

cannot be used for HOA operational expenses like AGI costs. To use them for AGI losses would be a violation of the law.

 

  • More spin – Rather than budgeting $90,000 of the Residents’ funds for the Admin Building reserve, most of it could have been budgeted for AGI expenses when the budget was assembled, especially when the Permit App listed about $10,000 for the Minor Repair cost. Does it make sense to incur unnecessary costs for renovations to existing Common Elements, which are perfectly acceptable in their current and intended uses when these funds could have been used for the Subsidy Costs to AGI, and thus reducing the Residents’ subsidy payment?

 

Third, as noted in the answer to item 1 – there is not nor was there ever a conspiracy to defraud certain condo owners, such a conspiracy would require more than 45 Aquarina owners, the board, and seven committees to participate in the fraud.

 

  • The Spin continues – any conspiracy can only arise out of what was heard by the noted witness, which has not been denied.

 

CLAIM 5 – They claim the expenditures for repair of the Golf Maintenance Facility are illegal because our documents require a community vote. This is another fabrication as in CLAIM 4 above. No community vote was required. Partial funding for the GMF came from of a 2017 special assessment into the ACSA reserves for emergency repairs, safety, and environmental issues that resulted from chronic underfunding of reserves. Special assessments (SA) into the ACSA reserves necessitated by chronic underfunding are specifically exempted from a vote by our By-laws. The ACSA board unanimously approved the SA and the using ACSA reserves for the GMF repair.

 

  • Spin, Spin, Spin – as was cited by us above, the Permit App was with the pretense of a Repair at just about a $90,000 cost, and not a renovation of the GMF, which was the intent with the Board’s $400,000 assessment to the Residents by a Board of seven; one voted NO. As previously discussed with the Admin Building debacle, a possible choice of the Insurance Casualty process (Article 13 in the By-Laws) explained previously could have been an approach to save the Residents costs, and then the Residents could have decided on a less expensive approach than the $400K assessment.  However, that approach would not have satisfied the Board’s agenda.
  • With this magnitude of Assessment, documentation should have been presented to the Residents showing the professionally documented safety and environmental concerns that would have attested for the need of a $400,000 hit to the Residents. Fact – among the expenses for the GMF repair/renovation was a $43,000 lawn mower washer!
  • Like the Admin Building debacle, the GMF assessment was meant for a renovation and not just a Repair. It was the renovation, like at the Admin Building, that caused the extra costs to the Residents.

 

CLAIM 6 – They claim that Pollock intimidated a former employee, specifically: Pollock did not like MAD’s fence but the employee advised him that it was required by law. The ex employee also advised that CBC was required to have a fence around the beach club. Pollock allegedly told employee “bring shit like that to me [again] and I will stomp you out.” Pollock also told the employee to stop talking to residents. The employee was subsequently fired and replaced. WOW! I’m not going to waste time with he said/she said. However, I will point of the following about the relationship with the employee:

. Approximately three months after the MAD fence construction, the employee was placed in a 90-day performance improvement program administered jointly by 1st Service’s Regional VP, his direct supervisor, Mr. Helmer and myself.

. While the Board’s performance review of the employee had identified numerous problems, three were singled out for correction: passive/aggressive behavior, not processing invoices in a timely and accurate manner, and spending too much time gossiping with residents.

. The performance improvement program failed; a month later 1st Services reassigned the employee and reimbursed

ACSA several hundred dollars for late fees that they deemed were caused by him.

 

  • The Voice has no comment on this event, since it has not yet been researched.

 

CLAIM 7 – The ex-employee claims some ACSA board members held private meetings with Dan Winkler in violation of Florida’s Sunshine Law and the meetings were held without a board quorum present. The reality, the Florida Sunshine Law does not apply to HOAs. As to the private meetings – in the normal course of doing our jobs board members routinely meet with builders, county officials, lawyers, bankers, contractors, non-government agencies, etc. It’s part of the job. In general we try to have at least two members present in those meetings but it’s not required. Further, neither Florida 720 nor ACSA bylaws require that we have a quorum or a formal board meeting to hold discussions with 3rd parties. We’d never get anything done! That’s one fabrication and one misrepresentation.

 

  • The Voice has no comment on this event either, since it has not yet been researched.

 

CLAIM 8 – They claim that the ACSA budget is out of control, specifically they claim that budgets have grown out of control and have been increasing 72% per year; they project that 2019 will increase to more than $1,400 per household per quarter and 2020 will top $1,900; and they further claim that the ex-employee complained to the board that increases would force lower income residents out of their homes.

So let’s take a closer look. The 2015 budget was $1,091,758 and that has grown to $1,408,540 in 2018 – an increase of $316,782 or 22%. That’s not the 72% claimed but still is a significant increase. Why? There are four major causes:

  1. Up through 2015 reserves were underfunded by at least $150,000 per year for over eight years resulting in more than $1.2m in deferred maintenance.

 

  • This is based on a professional reserve study for the community to determine the under funding for its assets? The community has seen the suggested funding, but is the full study available for the Residents to see? As we have seen, the Board has full discretion with the funding.  The problem is that they are using the funds in the reserve for the cost of their agenda for changing the Community. The Reserves are meant to keep our assets maintained in working condition.  The Reserve Funds are not meant for renovating and changing are Common Elements.  The Residents decide renovation and change. 

 

  1. In 2015, there was no Beach Club – P&I, taxes, insurance, cleaning, utilities, etc.
  2. In 2017, the Florida Public Utility Commission granted Aquarina Utilities an increase that tripled ACSA and AGI non-potable water rates.
  3. Hurricanes Mathew and Irma resulted in significant insurance cost increases

What was the impact of these four items? (Change from 2015 to 2018)

. Proper reserve funding $ 78,000

. Beach Club operations $102,000

. Non-potable water $160,000

. Insurance $ 20,000

Total extraordinary costs $360,000

 

  • FYI – These are not considered Extraordinary Costs, which are one time unexpected events. These listed costs would be ongoing, for which they should have been expected and budgeted.

 

These four items that were beyond ACSA’s control totaled MORE THAN THE ACTUAL INCREASE. In fact, from a what-might-have-been-expected standpoint:

. Extraordinary costs $ 360k

. Inflation on $840k 1 $ 34k (this is the inflation on non-extraordinary items only)

. 2015 budget $1,092k

. 2018 budget should have been $1,486k

. 2018 budget is $1,409k

That is the BASELINE BUDGET IS DOWN $77K from what might have reasonably been expected. Before I leave this CLAIM, two more things. First, they claim fees will double by 2019. How can you get these numbers? Easy. You assume that the special assessment for emergency repairs will occurs every year. Then you assume that 2017 adjustment for the non potable water will reoccur every year. And, then you assume that the extrodinary increase will reoccur every year. Voila! You are there – 72% per year each year. The likely budget outcome – NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE from where we are today. Finally, I would like to remind everyone that for the past two and half years the primary objective of your board has been the financial stabilization of our finances. Our emergency and deferred maintenance are behind us. We have made the tough

choices and cleaned up both AGI’s and ACSA’s balance sheets. Our reserves are properly funded. Look around the community and you can see the repairs and improvements to our infrastructure.

 

  • Actually, what is alleged to be better, is far less good than what the financial situation could be with nearly $1,500,000 in Resident fees generated annually.

 

The best measure, however, is from our banking partner. Two years ago they demonstrated no interest in discussing the refinance of our balloon debt that comes due in 2022. Today we are in discussions to do that, extend the period to 15 years, to modify the covenants and to convert to a fixed rate. Why the change? Because they consider us to be a model for a well run HOA. We have made all the improvements and changes we said we would, and we are financially sound.

 

  • All this is financial mumble jumble is senseless. Bottom Line – more is being spent recklessly than not. The Board has annual revenues of $1,500,000 and the economy is humming. The reckless use of the Residents’ funds has been mitigated by the large amount of annual fees and the economy, which gives comfort to the bank, and the Board takes credit. Ha! Actually, there is an argument that our quarterly fees should go down, which would take away the “high fee” cloud over Aquarina and certainly boost our home values.  It won’t happen with this Board.

 

CLAIM 9 – For their own benefit, two board members authorized $2,000 in repairs to the Ocean Dunes surface water management system. This was subsequently changed to Egret Trace even thought the two cited board members have no financial interest in that community. The fact is no such repairs ever occurred or were paid for by ACSA – it’s a pure fabrication.

 

  • I know there were storm drain grates replaced. Who paid for them?  The language above is unclear and others disagree with this Board assessment of the situation.

 

CLAIM 10 – AGI has been mismanaged specifically: staffing issues including a dangerous tennis contract, use of courts by pro without payment to AGI, unqualified employees and $100k in lost teaching revenue; non residents should not be committee members; and ability to save $70k to $150k but may lose members.

  1. The Pro’s contract:

. There are no contracts – we have “at will” employment only.

. Lessons fees are posted and dependent on number of participants of group lessons. Our Pro keeps 100% lesson revenue is very common (usually in alignment with salary) this is the most cost effective formula for AGI! And we have comprehensive liability insurance so there is no risk.

. Our USPTA Pro offers lessons to club members at our request as a service to the membership. Total 2017 lesson revenue was just over $17k vs the $100k claimed. That’s two fabrications and one misrepresentation.

  1. Non-resident committee members – specifically residents were removed from committees and employees were allowed to serve instead. This was done to cover up illegal activity.

. Never have employees replaced resident members on the tennis committee.

. Committee includes residents and non-resident members (40% of members are non-resident). AGI By-laws allow non-resident board and committee members and allows them to be paid.

. There is not nor has there been illegal activity by the current AGI management. That’s two fabrications and one misrepresentation.

  1. Big potential savings are possible

. There is no $100k in potential tennis lesson income – 2017 gross was $17k.

. The total cost of the tennis program to ACSA is less than $80k with a net cost of less than $20k. $70k to $150k in cost savings is not even feasible.

That’s two more fabrications.

 

  • Not sure about these statements either because the Residents don’t have access to the financials, but we are left with just taking the word of the President, which we know is suspect because nothing is ever substantiated with documentation.

 

CLAIM 11 – “Removal of ACSA/AGI Inventory Illegally. During the 2017 hurricane, Brassie employees were given all

refrigerated food to take home, while the restaurant never lost power and resulted in the loss of hundreds of dollars of food.

Even if the restaurant had lost power, ACSA and Brassie insurance would cover the food losses verses giving the food away.”

The reality:

. AGI policy is ‘no employees may take food home free from the restaurant’.

. The Brassie staff did work diligently to prep for the storm in an effort to salvage food inventory and minimize losses.

. AGI did not qualify for emergency fund reimbursement for ‘loss of income’ or ‘loss of inventory’.

That’s two more fabrications.

 

  • No comment on this allegation either, which has not yet been researched. But, again, the Residents do not have access to the financials.

 

CLAIM 12 – The AGI President, Ann Bruns has accepted free drinks and food from the Brassie. Her response:

ABSOLUTELY FALSE!

. My husband and I frequent the restaurant to support the business and to observe the operations first hand.

. We pay for our food and beverages.

. Pay the exact prices as all of the other residents of our community. Another fabrication.

 

  • No comment here on food issues and payments since there is no access to the financials.

 

One last thing – the Golf Maintenance Facility. OH MY GOD, look at what they’ve done now $43,000 for a wash down station when a $15 hose with a spray nozzle would have done the job! And $400,000 for the facility!

The facility, which is nearing completion, is a $400,000 item and why would be a fair question. For example, why $43,000 for a wash down station? The answer to both questions is county and state imposed requirements that did not exist when the facility was originally build. Florida Department of Environmental Protect mandated the wash down station. It is a recycling system to prevent concentrated chemicals and fertilizers from entering Mullet Creek, a particularly sensitive area of the Indian River Lagoon. Other major mandated changes that were imposed over the year long permitting process included: a block enclosure for the dumpster to hide it from the community’s view; storage bins for dirt, sand and gravel to limit run-off; and extensive plantings of 4” caliper oak trees. The Fire Marshall’s office included a larger area around the facility to accommodate newer

engines allowing them to turn around; improved containment and safety features for the fueling stations; and a new fire hydrant where none existed before. Finally we had to pave the entire area.

The Construction and Maintenance Committee has done a good job bringing the $400,000 project within budget. It includes: the engineering; the repair of the building; the site plan development and negotiation; and implementation of the site plan. These three photos from the nearly completed GMF show some of the things that the county and state mandated. They are wash down station, the fueling station containment, and the dumpster enclosure with the three material storage bins.

 

  • Show the community the professional documentation requiring everything you (the Board) just itemized. Maybe if the pretense of the repairs were just done and not a complete renovation, there would not have been these requirements. The same occurred with the Admin Building, where the renovation resulted in a whole new Permit App, and at a higher cost than the simple requested repair would have been.    In addition, you (the Board) are changing common elements without a community vote, and you could have considered using Article 13 of our By-Laws for a Casualty Repair instead of the pretense of a minor repair for a renovation, which would have resulted in the Residents voting for or not for these costs and changes, thus saving them the cost of the $400K assessment. However, this approach would not have provided the Board with their agenda of dumping a $400,000 assessment on the Residents.
  • When you have a Board of seven making financial decisions (without the Residents’ duly allowed input) and using a War Chest of nearly $1,500,000 annually of the Residents’ funds, there is temptation of self- aggrandizement and a flagrant use of authority.  Apparently this temptation has leached itself into our Board.

 

Until next time – An Aquarina Voice.