MORE TO COME SOON ON ADDRESSING THE SOURCE OF THE LSP COMMITTEE APPARENT DIALOGUE SHUTDOWN.
PHOTOS UPDATED
Perimeter collateral damage will likely occur.
.
Repair and restore are far less likely to cause any perimeter damage.
Let’s review what has led up to the current road of replacing the Lakeside Pool (LSP) Bathhouse. We had a presentation of propaganda and an alarmist outcry that the Bathhouse was near collapse and the Pool was sinking, which we were told would certainly require, what was a surprising, unprofessional, and layman decision, to demolish the Pool Area. This negative mantra emerged from the second of the now three LSP Committees. The second LSP Committee was ACSA created from selected individuals, who were not committed advocates of our standing Pool Area. As a result of this second LSP Committee’s Pool Area oversight, there was limited transparency and communication, and a closed down Pool Area, for now more than a year.
The demolition decision, as stated, came from unlicensed and non-professional individuals. However, what we do have are two engineering reports from licensed professionals that determined that the Pool was not sinking and that the Bathhouse could be repairable. To further explain the bathhouse matter, it was suggested that repairs were feasible, but to bring the Bathhouse up to current County Codes would, in addition to the repairs, may not be cost effective to do when compared to replacing the Bathhouse.
However, a licensed building contractor provided an opinion, after reading the bathhouse engineering report and seeing the Bathhouse, that the Bathhouse could be repaired for safe use, including some paver repairs, within a two-week period, which would have the Pool Area in a position to be opened. The question becomes, does it make sense to demolish a building that could be remedied for use within two weeks? Further, a cost analysis between repair and restore, and demolition, was never apparently considered since the Pool Residents never saw an analysis or were told of one. The ACSA jumped into a replacement Bathhouse mode without a discussion with the Pool Residents, who will be paying for this rushed and careless decision.
It also should be considered that the vision of Aquarina began with its construction in the mid 1980’s. This Bathhouse along with Aquarina’s first three neighborhoods, i.e. Tidewater, Egret Trace, and Blue Heron, emerged as top scale architectural and constructed buildings, with the best and most modern materials, to set a tone for what Aquarina would represent, a timeless designed community for those who wanted the best. To this day these neighborhoods and its Bathhouse still stand out as, not outdated, but classic and contemporary as ever. The Bathhouse was designed and built to blend and stand within the pastoral and peaceful setting among the oak trees and pond in this Pool Area. Replacing the Bathhouse with a boxed concrete block building with a metal roof will appear institutional, and be a blot on the setting we now have to enjoy. I have never seen a 1980’s building demolished unless it was uninhabitable because of significant existing destruction, or it had to be moved. The basic structure of the Bathhouse is intact. The needed repairs are a new roof and reworked support beams for the paver overhang area. Toilets and sinks could be replaced. This type of repair and restoration would not trigger County Codes for other upgrade replacements and additions, since the building will be in a repair state and remain intact.
Any demolition will have consequences other than the removal of the bathhouse. A demolition event is not self-contained, especially for a building that is nestled and affixed into a pastoral and pool setting. There is perimeter collateral damage to consider for additional repair and replacement items from the demolition equipment and the removal process for the debris.
A repair and restore process for the Bathhouse eliminates this destructive consequence. Does it make any sense that a 1985 building that could be repaired for County approved use within a two-week period be demolished? Further, $8,000 of refurbished Pool furniture has been stored in the bathhouse to secure it during the past hurricane season by the second Pool Committee that wanted to demolish the whole Pool Area. The irony of it all. None of this Committee’s actions makes any sense. Yet it appears that the now third Pool Committee may be following this unreasonable and expensive path. BTW – we’re still waiting for a report from this Committee on the announcement of their second meeting. All Pool matters are being “slow walked”, while the Pool Residents wait. Where’s the Soil Report for which we paid?
To say again , this Bathhouse was constructed at the time of the original construction of the three neighborhoods that are still striving In Aquarina, i.e. Tidewater, Egret Trace, and Blue Heron. The bathhouse was built with the same focus that the German developer used on these three neighborhoods’ classic and timeless design, upgraded materials, and precision construction to set a tone for Aquarina Community.
Let’s look at these points of action with the Bathhouse.
- All licensed and professional evaluations, i.e. an engineering report, a soil study, and a building contractor evaluation did not recommend demolishing of any of the Pool Area. It was suggested that if the bathhouse was to be upgraded to current County Codes, that a replacement may be more cost effective; however, a repair and restore of the current Bathhouse was considered a feasible choice, especially when the cost should be lower for repair and restore rather than replacement.
- Any announcement that the Pool Area needed to be demolished was from unlicensed and non-professional laymen, where a propagandized and theatrical display of contrived information and misinformation was displayed to a shocked and puzzled audience of Pool Residents.
- A cost-effective approach should be the path for a Pool Area repair and restoration, which would be to replace the roof and replace the support beams for the paver overhang, and change out the toilets and sinks of the Bathhouse, and address the few settled pavers that surround the Pool. BTW – the Pool gutter has been mentioned for repair. It needs explaining, since the assumption was that the slight unlevel nature was from Pool settling, which apparently is not the case.
- Demolishing the Bathhouse, hauling the debris away, and going through a replacement building, which is at least a six-month process, as we’re witnessing now with the “slow walked” Pool matter, is absolutely not cost-effective nor time-effective for the Pool to be opened sooner.
- No general costs estimates have been disclosed to the Pool Residents for a repair and restore approach as apposed to a replacement. However, work has been ordered for a Bathhouse replacement with no explanation for and no sharing of these costs. Isn’t great when you can spend someone else’s money without discussion or recourse? The ACSA did it with The Brassie Grille, and it’s doing it with the Pool Area.
- Misinformation was provided that the Bathhouse was condemned, which discouraged a LSP Committee suggestion to temporarily open the Pool Area while the ongoing Bathhouse replacement process passes. A two-week remediation period before a re-opening resulted in being squashed before it could be reviewed and considered because of this misinformation.
It appears that a First Service Residential employee, whom we pay, and a non-Resident, is directing the Pool matter. The released information from the employee on what is occurring with the Pool Area remediation is limited, contrived, and in some cases withheld. Why? The ACSA should be working hand in hand with the Pool Residents with complete transparency and co-operation. Unfortunately, this is not happening, while the Pool Area sits abandoned. The ACSA has provided no data or information with its unreasonable actions with the Pool Area, other than questionable and limited information from what can be considered shill behavior from its spokespersons.
The current path of an extended period for replacement of the Bathhouse makes no sense, and it cannot be defended with reasonable facts. The reasonable facts call for a repair and restoring of the Bathhouse and the tuning up of some pavers, which all could be done in a few weeks. The Pool Residents are being held hostage with their Pool by an ACSA Board, which is obviously more interested in flexing its power and control, instead of its fiduciary responsibility to its Residents.
The current and third LSP Committee would be more effective for the Pool Residents if it was more proactive by asking questions and wanting explanations during these occasional held meetings, one meeting so far. One person, not being a committee member, should not be directing these meetings. The meetings should be dialogue of discussions among all the members, after all, two Chair positions were voted into place to lead the committee. Further, any decisions with the Pool matters, especially cost decisions, should be presented to the Pool Residents at an open meeting, since they’re using and paying the for the Pool Area.
BREAKING UPDATE
There has been one announced LSP Committee Meeting, an orientation meeting. However, just released to the Pool Residents was an announcement of decisions for Pool work to be done, e.g. Pool paver, gutter, and back-fill work, and a request for building contractors’ proposals. When was an LSP Committee Meeting announced to present these work decisions to the Pool Residents for explanation and discussion?
What appears is a pretend Pool Committee for optics, while behind the scenes decisions are made for the Pool Residents, who have not been giving a right to participate. The Pool Committee is made up of ACSA chosen volunteers, who are expected to be the voice of the three Pool Communities, at least 140 Residents. However, these volunteers appear to be listeners to the First Residential spokesperson, who orchestrates the meetings, just one to date, and directs what will be done with the Pool, what appears to be with no discussion among our volunteer representatives, other than them being ACSA conduits rather than filters for what the ACSA has planned for the Pool.
Please, LSP Committee Member Volunteers, stand up for your fellow 140 Pool Residents, ask questions for explanations from the ACSA on its decisions. There are cost effective alternatives to discuss. These Pool Residents overwhelmingly asked for a dialogue on a parallel path for a Pool opening. Now we should also have a dialogue on repair and restore of the Bathhouse, rather than a destructive demolition.
The 140 Pool Residents have spoken, we need our volunteer representatives to speak up for them, not just be lectured to on what will occur with the Pool Area.
NOT THIS WAY
BUT THIS WAY
