Revitalization Ballot and Written Consent "WARNING"

I'm confused, our recent boards and management company have placed our resort in a financially stable place and they continue to work towards that.  That's why we needed the Sm all assessment for the water sewage/treatment plant so that we can remain financially stable and prepared for an catastrophe that might happen. Our water/sewage bills in the budget are far lower than if we were to have county water/sewer.  I Hayvn't seen anyone on this site recognize that.  Additionally, the board has no legal need to have the hoa members vote on the budget.  They have the legal right to develop and assess each owner without owner acceptance.  I don't think that the gurus on this site telling anyone the legal rights of the hoa board ... this is a great resort ... it is run well, and like any homeowner or business sometimes vendors/contractors don't do the job they were hired to do.  but the board continues to get work with our vendors/contractors to meet the terms of the contract.

what will happen if we don't sign?  pure chaos ... take a trip through some of the resorts mr. oneil has freed from their contracts ... are they in better condition than before?  don't we as owners have a responsibility to help make this a better place instead of trying to destroy any semblance of order?  if those complaining were actually putting as much effort into making this a better place instead of an "anything goes" place wouldn't it grow?  Is it perfect?  no.  Can it be improved? yes.  but it takes people willing to work together instead of creating havoc.

I don't understand. 

no one has to sign anything ... but what are you voting for if you don't cast your ballots?  Are you being led by people who want to start their own hoa because they are disgruntled and don't like living in a place where the rules were created for some sense of order?   I was born a boomer ... I am a rebel in many ways, but I also appreciate that we do have a great place to live.

Ask yourself, are those who don't want you to vote doing it to make the resort better or to make this place their little kingdom? 

warning posted:


That seems like a logical possibility but, unfortunately, it is not supported by the facts. The extra amount assessed for water & sewage is NOT earmarked for allocation to the Water & Sewer Reserves, nor was any evidence brought to bear on a formal inquiry regarding any proposed increases in the Operating Budget. In fact, the BOD obstructed the effort to validate the purported increase in water & sewer operating costs by not producing the records to support the requested increase.

It is anyone’s guess as to the true purpose of assessing an increase for water & sewer costs that are not evident upon either casual questioning, budget allocation to Reserves or formal scrutiny of the operating requirements for next fiscal year.




That may be true but it is not proven with the numbers.  And, even if true, does not justify assessing more for a line item that is ‘fiction”.   It is only logical that the “water/sewer bill” is lower than those on the outside—we OWN our own plant! That makes for some economy of scale and savings on administrative, regulatory and oversight expenses. Our TRUE costs are divided among many line items such as Administrative, Employee, Contracts, Engineering, Grounds, Maintenance Parts/Repair and Reserves, so our TRUE costs are much higher than $50/Q.


Please refer to the Bylaws; the membership must ratify the budget proposed by the BOD.




The BOD authority to assess is broad but it has statutory and contractual limitations.  It is not absolute, as you suggest.   Also, BOD cannot assess for an amenity that has not been adopted by Membership, according to Bylaws.   This has nothing to do with water & sewer, but speaks to the legal right to develop—they do not have that authority to spend in excess of $50K on a project i.e. “to develop” without owner approval. If you meant something else than that, please clarify.




People on the board do not offer legal advice.  Indeed, anything that might be construed as legal advice is followed by a written disclaimer.  Don't you think Members should understand their governance?  Reading and understanding governing documents is not rocket science.  Most issues discussed of a legal nature are cited as to document--be they SLohA documents or relevant statutes.  These are also readable, in their entirety, ON the board itself!    Additionally, the site administrator pays for legal opinions which benefits ALL Members, which it attributes to the legal source.   To remain ignorant and careless is to invite excess and abuse.  Is there a problem with open communication among members discussing issues of concern and common to all?




That is subject to debate as to any particular vendor at a particular point in time.  Overall, I would agree but without oversight of vendor work, it is human nature to become complacent and overly permissive with favored vendors. Vendors should not be “worked with” indefinitely; they are professionals and are expected to perform to a professional standard.




Do you have an example of one of these chaotic resorts? Has anyone assessed the true reasons for the supposed chaos?




There is much one can say about the appearance of order versus the substance of an order based on law and adherence to “fiduciary duty”. SLohA has been operating in an orderly but illusory manner for many years. One must bear in mind that, in the absence of underlying authority of the Covenants, there is a CRISIS of risk management for all owners ---and that crisis has nothing to do with rules about porches and such menial matters.

Let’s ask what can be done short and long term to make it a better place and not resurrect the same flawed governance based on illegally-derived documents that threatens to now bring SLohA to its knees.   SLohA should have done many things differently two years ago but its choices were arrogant and motivated by others’ agendas—in the name of Members’ best interests.   SLohA’s actions are now contested and its continued “enforcement agenda” wrapped in a public relations mantra of “protecting property values” will likely embroil the corporation in future litigation for the next decade.
 



It is nearly impossible to work together when one is blocked out of the process. BOD has progressively shut down input into the governance of SLohA by owners. We are not yet at the point where “working together is even possible”. Even the Organizing Committee was set up “secretly” and Owners were kept in the dark and not invited to serve on the committee. One owner who volunteered, in writing, was ignored. Letter not even acknowledged. Working together? I can offer examples of 4 years of exclusive and selective treatment of owners.  Give me one example of meaningful and lasting inclusion.




The only vote that counts is YES. Presumably, if you vote yes, you also welcome having restrictions reimposed on your lot because your vote requires your signature to count--and your signature is your consent to be reimposed upon.

The catch is—if you vote NO—presumably you DON’T want restrictions on your parcel but if you sign (as instructed)—YOU GIVE WRITTEN CONSENT THAT SLohA CAN REIMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON YOUR LOT!  The NO vote is meaningless--but the Written Consent to reimpose is presumably not what you want! 

The only people that need vote are the YESSES!
 
Those who vote NO to the revitalization are actually voting YES to reimposition of the Covenants on their parcel if revitalization is successful!  This naive act of voting NO could limit your future property rights, such as homestead.




I prefer that people think for themselves after gathering FACTS rather than follow the herd or place their future in the hands of pool gossips. Society (and baby boomers) accept reasonable rules applied fairly, consistently and with restraint.




No, those of us who do not vote do so for many reasons; have sought professional advice to not sign the Consent, personal caution, protection of our investment and possible fear of being victimized like 66SS… There are probably many more reasons, but I doubt if “kingdom-building” is one of them.  (I could be wrong!  Anyone out there--thinking of a kingdom?)

I wish to answer one of your charges regarding the proposed increase in the sewer/water assessment. If you review my post of November 20, I did not state that I was opposed to the increase. Rather, I indicated that there should be more detail given as to why such a large increase was necessary. Specifically, what recent discoveries have been made about the condition of SLohA's water/sewer system which has caused the Board and Management to believe that we have been under-budgeting for future repairs/replacement. Have recent inspections of the system components revealed that they are wearing out faster that previously projected? Mine is not an unreasonable request. In fact, if this were a regulated utility under the jurisdiction of the Florida PSC, such detail would be mandatory as part of an application for a rate increase. In my 32 years of government service, I have rarely seen a rate increase request of more than 10% for a public utility. When an increase of 20% is proposed, it should certainly raise eyebrows

Dear Pilgrim
First of all, I disagree with your statement that - with the exception of the payment on the SBA loan - "general assessments and the water/sewer monies all go to the same place it really doesn't matter where you add the $10.00/qtr fee.". If that is so, S-bag is in violation of G.A.A.P. (generally accepted accounting principles). As such, the auditors would be required to issue a "qualified opinion" . That would have a huge negative impact because banks will not lend to a corporation which has received a qualified opinion by its auditors.
By statute, as well as by IRS regulation, reserves are for the sole purpose of replacing or repairing capital assets. Reserves cannot be used to cover annual operating expenses. If they are, the corporation is, technically, operating at a deficit.
Secondly, your statement that "the BOD feels that the less they say, the less that will get interpreted wrong" should alarm all Saddlebaggers. One doesn't countervail (alleged) misinterpretations by stonewalling. The Board and the Manager have both an ethical and a fiduciary duty to provide full and clear information about the financial position of the corporation. "Trust us" is not an acceptable response. Since its founding, the survival of our American Republic greatly depends upon the peoples'  skepticism concerning the statements and actions of government officials. Otherwise we would have long ago devolved into an autocracy.
Finally, I take great exception to the allegation that Ms. Tg has been able to delude many of us with false information. I consider myself a friend of S u e's, but I also keep an independent mind. And - at the risk of sounding hubristic - my academic training, as well as my career background is more than adequate for me to read and understand the financial statements of S-bag.  I deeply resent the implication that they are too complicated for me to comprehend.

Audited financial statements are required for associations with annual revenues of $500,000 or more
Clearly S-bag's annual budget is in excess of $500,000. Isn't all this addressed in the audits?
Will a forensic audit be covered by the Insurance carrier as part of the legal fee in the pending cases?

The previous inquiry w/r to a SLAP was directed to a previous post by the Grnt household.

The last audit was done "as of March 31, 2014"; it is true that next year's audit might reveal the irregularity in adopting an unlawful budget.  This should be placed in the official record in specific correspondence directed to the BOD and Management Company in order to come to the attention of the Auditor.

Forensic audit for financial monkey business--there is no relationship to the pending cases


Editor Note:  SLAP Lawsuit--SLohA is no longer subject to this statute, but this explains the reference made in the above question.

FS 720.304(4)
(4) It is the intent of the Legislature to protect the right of parcel owners to exercise their rights to instruct their representatives and petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution. The Legislature recognizes that “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” or “SLAPP” suits, as they are typically called, have occurred when members are sued by individuals, business entities, or governmental entities arising out of a parcel owner’s appearance and presentation before a governmental entity on matters related to the homeowners’ association. However, it is the public policy of this state that government entities, business organizations, and individuals not engage in SLAPP suits because such actions are inconsistent with the right of parcel owners to participate in the state’s institutions of government. Therefore, the Legislature finds and declares that prohibiting such lawsuits by governmental entities, business entities, and individuals against parcel owners who address matters concerning their homeowners’ association will preserve this fundamental state policy, preserve the constitutional rights of parcel owners, and assure the continuation of representative government in this state. It is the intent of the Legislature that such lawsuits be expeditiously disposed of by the courts.
(a) As used in this subsection, the term “governmental entity” means the state, including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, the independent establishments of the state, counties, municipalities, districts, authorities, boards, or commissions, or any agencies of these branches which are subject to chapter 286.
(b) A governmental entity, business organization, or individual in this state may not file or cause to be filed through its employees or agents any lawsuit, cause of action, claim, cross-claim, or counterclaim against a parcel owner without merit and solely because such parcel owner has exercised the right to instruct his or her representatives or the right to petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state, as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution.
(c) A parcel owner sued by a governmental entity, business organization, or individual in violation of this section has a right to an expeditious resolution of a claim that the suit is in violation of this section. A parcel owner may petition the court for an order dismissing the action or granting final judgment in favor of that parcel owner. The petitioner may file a motion for summary judgment, together with supplemental affidavits, seeking a determination that the governmental entity’s, business organization’s, or individual’s lawsuit has been brought in violation of this section. The governmental entity, business organization, or individual sH all thereafter file its response and any supplemental affidavits. As soon as practicable, the court sH all set a hearing on the petitioner’s motion, which sH all be held at the earliest possible time after the filing of the governmental entity’s, business organization’s or individual’s response. The court may award the parcel owner sued by the governmental entity, business organization, or individual actual damages arising from the governmental entity’s, individual’s, or business organization’s violation of this section. A court may treble the damages awarded to a prevailing parcel owner and sH all state the basis for the treble damages award in its judgment. The court sH all award the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section.
(d) Homeowners’ associations may not expend association funds in prosecuting a SLAPP suit against a parcel owner.

sideliner posted:



Though I cannot speak for the Grants,  I am very certain that every legal tool at Mr. O'N eel (Attny)'s disposal will be brought to bear in answering this complaint in the most vigorous way imaginable and to the limit of the law.  Mr. O'N eel (Attny) may seem quiet, but he is a pit bull when it comes to defending his client. 

I am betting that the Grnt's will consider setting up their own board on this forum (like Tg, 66SS and Ath's) to allow others to follow the progress of the lawsuit.  People should be informed who the lawsuit-slappy people are in SLR.  Stay tuned.