02/02/22 BOD MEETING: SYNOPSIS AND COMMENTARY BY VICKI ROBERTS WITH ASSISTANCE FROM ARTHUR ANDELSON
Posted February 2, 2022. Your Editor provides the following synopsis of the February 2, 2022 Board meeting, with assistance from your Roving Reporter, and with commentary and satire indicated inbold blue and pictures.
All synopses and commentary are the property of your Editor and your Roving Reporter, Vicki Roberts and Arthur Andelson, are our independent work product, and are not affiliated with the HOA. Redistribution or republication of cartoons is strictly prohibited and may subject you to legal liability for copyright infringement. Bizarro cartoons are courtesy of Dan Piraro, www.Bizarro.com. Thank you, and you may now enjoy the show.
Editor’s Opening Monologue:
This edition is entitled “Won’t You Be My Valentine?”
(including results of the flawed survey, an unused yet exquisitely crafted realtor survey, allegedly overpaying PBB, and other juicy stuff!)
Happy Valentine’s Day to everyone! The best present you can give yourself is to be a valentine to yourself. Be kind to yourself. Be loving to yourself. If you receive a valentine gift from someone else, that’s just icing on the cake.
Anyway, sometimes matters of the heart can be tricky.
It’s especially disconcerting when your significant other forgets the big day; sometimes it’s helpful to throw out a couple of hints; sometimes it’s not.
Really, though, sometimes it’s just a little romance that we crave.
Sometimes it’s just a few kind words stated in a genteel fashion that is all that is needed.
Valentine’s Day is an important affirmation of your love for someone else; show them you mean it.
Who invented this pressure-filled day anyway? The stress involved is sometimes too much. Anyway, as long as it comes from the heart, that’s what’s important.
Although, admittedly, some people just don’t get the concept.
As I stated at the beginning of this monologue, the most important valentine gift you can receive is the one you give yourself. Treat yourself right and with respect and you will attract those who will respect you similarly. And really, why would you want to surround yourself with anyone else?
In conclusion, I want to wish everyone a happy Valentine’s Day, and I know that some Board members would prefer a different valentine’s presentation from me.
But alas, as Mick Jagger so famously sang, “you can’t always get what you want…”
And now on to the Board meeting where there’s sometimes no love lost.
Board Meeting: Audio and Video Up and Running; Zoom meeting online starts at 9:30am.
Board Members Present:
Jeff D. Green, President (Equal Board member)
Harvey Ginsberg, VP (Equal Board member)
Richard Greene, Treasurer (EqualBoard member)
Linda Arbeit (EqualBoard member)
Bob Dingee, Secretary (Equal Board member)
Sue Schmer (EqualBoard member)
Call to Order: Jeff D. Green.
Pledge of Allegiance: led by Linda Arbeit.
Jeff’s Opening Remarks and Announcements:
[Editor’s note: Jeff announced two new couples who just moved into our community. With respect to the first couple, he identified the wife as “Susan” but her name is Joelle, not Susan.
Jeff stated that all the Reme-Halos are installed in the clubhouse. Reminder from the Editor: the fan(s) have to be on 24/7 or they’re useless. These are the fan(s) attached to the A/C unit(s). The A/C does not have to be on; the fans, however, must be on at all times for the system to work.
Jeff also stated that the Board has not seen the survey results and will discuss the outcome at the next Board meeting.]
First Residents’ Input Session:
If you have a question or comment, raise your hand please.
[Editor’s note: no one asked to speak at this session.]
Approval of Minutes: January 12, 2022 Board meeting: Bob Dingee
Bob: Motion to approve the Minutes of the January 12, 2022 Board meeting. Jeff: seconded by Linda. All in favor? Unanimous.
[Editor’s note: Item #3 on New Business at the January 12, 2022 Board meeting concerned changing the sports center rules (club membership now required for league play; non-residents now allowed to be members of clubs). This motion went through many iterations, and the process was very confusing, difficult to follow, and lacked clarity.
(As a separate issue, with the reversal of these two rules, does this mean that non-resident club members have voting rights? Why is that? And do these non-resident club members enjoy the same rights as HOA members when there may be competing requests for the same timeslots for play on HOA courts? And how is that actually enforced?
So, let’s say you and your spouse show up at 4pm to play pickleball and all four courts are taken, and one of the courts has two residents playing with their non-resident club-member guests. Do you have to sit on the sidelines and not play on an HOA asset that you pay for in that scenario?)
In any event, motions should be restated before voting, because when you have motions changed multiple times before the vote, it creates confusion as to what was actually voted on, and isn’t clarity generally preferred over confusion?]
Property Manager’s Report:
Deborah: …mow…14th and 15th… new patio chairs…careful with your jewelry not to scratch them…
1. Landscaping: [Editor’s note: Shelly Andreas graciously emailed the report to your Editor for inclusion herein; thank you, Shelly:]
“Landscape Meeting January 13, 2022
The meeting took place in the pool area under the portico. All members were present. The purpose of the meeting was to prioritize the common areas that need revitalization in 2022.
All members present agreed upon the following:
Revitalization of the Military Trail Fountain.
Sod and/or ground cover along CLB where the soil is exposed since the ficus removal.
Fountain in front of the clubhouse. Removal of the pots on both sides and replace with orbs.
Fitness center and entrance to pool.
Barry & Shelly co-chairs”
2. Entertainment: [Editor’s note: events modified as necessary; all information per e-blasts.]
3. Facilities: Barbara Gordon: meeting last week, looking into ADA toilets for the entire clubhouse…will get bids in… self-flushing or lever… will keep you posted.
[Editor’s note: Many important items are still being ignored. Details are found on our page entitled“Agenda Items.”]
NEW ENTRIES ON OUR LIST:
[none at this time.]
1. 2022 Residents Survey Results – Deborah Balka
[Editor’s note: some of the survey questions, as most people know, were skewed, and some of them were downright misleading, thus making the value of the results questionable at best. With that disclaimer, the survey results were reported and are now posted on the HOA website under Documents.
Here it is in a nutshell: there were over 400 households that responded. Half of them wanted no change to the clubhouse, 27% wanted to refresh it, and 23% wanted to refurbish it. As for the fitness center, 56% wanted no change, 24% wanted a refresh, and 19% wanted a repurpose.
As for the HOA taking temporary ownership of the mailboxes, which is a completely illegal endeavor by the way, it was almost even: 52% said yes; 48% said no. Replacing the mailboxes and posts only interested 49%; 38% wanted no change and 14% wanted to repair only. As to how you all felt about 2 mailboxes per post, you resoundingly rejected that, 65% to 35%.
Pickleball hard courts with an estimate of about $250 per household: again, it was tight: 52% said no; 48% said yes.
Reducing the threshold for a community vote to pass from 75% to 66 2/3%: 54% said yes, 46% said no. Given that reality, this will likely fail if a formal vote is taken because 75% is required to change the rule.
UPDATE: February 3, 2022
75% is required under the following parts of our governing documents:
1. Article II, section B (page 1-4) (to acquire, sell, or mortgage realty),
2. Article IV, section F.1 (page 1-7) (to convey or mortgage the common area),
3. Article X (page 2-3) (to dissolve the corporation), and
4. Article VII, section E (page 1-14) (alterations, improvements, or modifications to common areas that exceed 1% of the budget).
66 2/3% is required under the following parts of our governing documents:
1. To change or amend the Covenants (Article XII, Section F, page 1-27), and
2. To change or amend the Articles of Incorporation (Article XII, page 2-3)
Therefore, to change the percentage requirement under any of the first four items listed above only requires a 2/3 vote because the vote concerns changing the Covenants and/or Articles of Incorporation, and not any of the actual acts referenced in the sections that require the 75% vote.
Kudos and thanks to Director Sue Schmer for correcting the record.
Reduce the limit of the Board’s spending from 1% to ½% of the budget: 63% said yes, 37% said no. Again, you need 75% to effectuate this change.
Update: same as above in red.
Any change to an amenity to require a community vote regardless of cost: 78% said yes, 22% said no.
Painting the houses with possibly a new color: 60% said yes, 24% said no, and 17% had no opinion.]
Jeff: I’m shocked by some of the answers, not others.
2. Update on COVID restrictions – Harvey Ginsberg
[Editor’s note: short answer: nothing’s changed. Explanation: Harvey graciously emailed your Editor his remarks for inclusion herein; thank you, Harvey:]
Harvey: “The Medical Advisory Group met last Wednesday to consider changes to the current COVID restrictions for indoor activities. According to the available data, it appears that the current Omicron variant surge has peaked, and the number of cases is starting to come down.
However, the numbers haven’t decreased to the level that we feel comfortable loosening the mandatory mask and no guest policy at this time, given that our demographic as an elderly community with possible multiple comorbidities puts us at greater risk.
Therefore, it’s the recommendation of the group that the current mandatory mask requirement and no indoor guest policy remain in place pending further evaluation. We will be meeting again prior to the next Board meeting to evaluate the data and make further recommendations as appropriate.”
[Editor’s note: Jeff stated that there was no vote necessary at this time; Deborah stated that the health fair expo is March 29th currently scheduled in the ballroom and vendors need to know; Harvey stated that at the next Board meeting they will have some idea.]
3. Allstate – Stormwater Cleaning – Plat Two – $4550 - Bob Dingee
Bob: ongoing periodic maintenance… Landon Pod… to clean the storm drains… dig out underground collection areas. Motion to accept. Linda: second. Richard: including in the budget that was approved. Harvey: what is Plat 2? Bob: it’s Landon pod. Jeff: all in favor? Unanimous.
1. Fire Inspection - $1025 – Jeffrey Green
Jeff: we have a fire inspection agreement, conducted quarterly… June, September, December, and March. New contract for next year. Motion to accept. Second: Bob. All in favor? Unanimous.
2. PBB – Root mounds - $1350 – Linda Arbeit
Linda: landscaping proposal #03-22, reground and level the root mounds, three addresses on Landon Circle…mound… hazard… motion to accept. Harvey: second. Jeff: all in favor? Unanimous.
[Editor’s note: see our Roving Reporter, Arthur Andelson’s comment and question in the Second Residents’ Input Session about this as to why we are paying PBB to what Arthur suggests is their failure to properly remove the trees in the first place.]
3. PBB – Root pruning - $2340 – Linda Arbeit
Linda: landscaping proposal #05-22, on the side of 5262 Wycombe, the roots are starting to, encroaching on the side wall of the house. Motion to accept. Sue: second. Richard: the two items are included in the budget [this one and the previous one]. Jeff: all in favor? Unanimous.
4. Sale/Lease Application Fees – Richard Greene
[Editor’s note: this is a money-making enterprise whereby anyone who wants to “buy in” to this HOA must first pay a $300 application fee which goes into the HOA’s coffers. The same is true if you want to rent a home here: pay up; but potential renters pay $150. Richard noted there are not too many renters.
This is separate from the “capital investment” also required of a purchaser once accepted.
Richard stated that it has been the same fees for over ten years, he mentioned inflation, and then he moved to increase each amount by $100, Jeff seconded it, and it passed unanimously. The application fees are now $400 for buyers and $250 for renters.]
5. Realtor Survey – Sue Schmer
[Editor’s note: this was an exquisitely crafted survey which sought input from the people who buy and sell real estate in this community. Sue graciously emailed your Editor her remarks and motion for inclusion herein; thank you, Sue:]
Sue: “The LRP Committee proposed that a Realtor Survey be distributed to help provide additional information to the Board as we move forward in the process of long-range planning. All of you were given a copy of the survey which is included in the Board packet. The rationale for this survey is as follows:
1. It can be useful when compared to our residents’ survey.
2. Realtors who buy or sell homes in 55+ communities have been identified by the former Long- Range Planning Committee.
3. The survey is well constructed and will not take much time to complete. It is in Jot form. Participation is optional.
4. We should consider and value the work product of all committees and discuss it at an open Board meeting.
5. I have proposed a means by which to gather the information that is time efficient.
6. No analysis of the survey results will be done as the decision to use the data collected will be up to the next Board, just as the residents’ survey will be.
7. The only thing that would need to change is the introductory wording to read the Board of Directors of Cascade Lakes, instead of the LRP Committee of Cascade Lakes.
I make the following motion: THAT THE REALTOR SURVEY, WITH WORDING MODIFICATIONS, BE SENT TO REALTORS PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY THE FORMER LONG-RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE BEGINNING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2022, WITH A RETURN DATE OF MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28,2022. DETERMINATION AS TO HOW THE INFORMATION COLLECTED WILL BE USED WILL BE MADE BY THE NEXT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.”
[Editor’s note: Harvey seconded it for purposes of discussion even though he stated that he opposed it. We appreciate that he seconded it so that there could be an open discussion about it.]
Harvey: there are two reasons for not buying here: lack of a café and no regulation pickleball courts. It’s a waste of time… Concentrate on what the residents told us in the survey…
Bob: I’m opposed, too… not needed… I go along with Harvey… more interested in the people who bought in the last six months.
Jeff: I’m against it as well, especially after Deborah[presented the survey results]. Every house sold within three to four days; prices are going sky high. Harvey said it perfectly…no pickleball [hard courts] and café… 7-8 realtors who sell here, maybe… ridiculous.
Linda: I’m against the survey for the same reasons that Harvey said; we’re not in the business of selling homes. We’re in the business of providing amenities for our residents here; and providing those amenities and different amenities to invite other prospective residents to come into Cascade Lakes.
I am against sending a residents’ [sic] survey out; we know why people won’t buy here; we know why people are buying here, so I am against it, and again, I with Jeff, I agree with Harvey, and I agree with Bob.
Richard: the last Treasurers’ meeting I was discussing how we were selling houses like hotcakes; and a lot of communities are not doing as well as we are. So, there’s something that’s attracting the people to this; I see no reason to send anything to the realtors at this point because, as Harvey says, we know what people are buying here, and there’s good reasons why people are buying here, so I see no reason for the survey.
Sue: if you looked at the survey, there are reasons why people buy and they are in ranked order why they don’t… long-range planning – well done… and at some point some of you sort of agreed… I was told assume nothing.
When Eileen Olitsky and I, when she was on the Board, did an informal survey from the realtors living here, believe it or not, the one thing that stood out more than any other was that they had friends or relatives living here. We are assuming that in the long run prices will continue to rise. That may or may not be the economic trend.
And as I said to you back and forth, there would be no more than two dozen people who would respond if they choose to; and I did provide a means by which to gather the information, and not to be decided on or not to be used until the next Board decides that this may be useful.
So, for comparison purposes, to honor the work of the former Long-Range Planning and just for comparison purposes, I think the more data that you gather, the better the decision-making will be.
Harvey: I’d like to call the question please.
Jeff: all in favor? One. Opposed? Five. Motion fails, five to one. Thank you.
Second Residents’ Input Session:
1. Valerie Rogoff: Corbel Lake. I think the more information you get; a residents’ survey is great, but it would be interesting to find out what the real estate people say. Jeff: thank you.
2. Arthur Andelson: Landon Circle. On New Business item #2, talks about the mounds. Palm Beach Broward was already paid to do this job and it was substandard; I don’t understand why we’re going back to pay them to do their job properly. That’s the question.
[Editor’s note: Arthur, your Roving Reporter, explains: “PBB was paid to remove the trees; they then put sod over the mound they left where the tree once stood. That sod was higher than the rest of the sod because it was placed on top of the mound. This was clearly going to result in a hazard that would need to be dealt with. Why did PBB not properly flatten the area when they removed the tree? Who puts sod on a root mound?
It appears to me that they ground up the roots but didn’t do it properly or adequately to remove the remaining root mound. Why should we pay them again for something they were paid to do properly and failed to complete?”]
Jeff: we’ll look into it, Arthur. Arthur: thank you.
3. Seymour (Skip) Jacobs: $1,000 fire inspection – who performs that? Deborah: Summer Sprinklers. They have to report to the Fire Department.
4. Mark Goodman: [Editor’s note: Mark stated essentially the same thing he wrote in the Chat function as follows:] “We received approval for 2 mailboxes on one post a few years ago when I was on the Board. - from the PostMaster General in D.C. to the head County Postmaster in West Palm Beach to the 2 Boynton Beach P.O.’s.”
[Editor’s note: Deborah inquired if Mark had any written documentation; apparently it was only a verbal approval.
Who was it who said that a verbal agreement is not worth the paper it’s written on? Answer: The joke is generally attributed to Australian/Irish politician Bryan O’Loghlen. Sir Bryan O'Loghlen, 3rd Baronet (pronounced and sometimes spelt Brian O'Lochlen) (27 June 1828 – 31 October 1905), Australian colonial politician, was the 13th Premier of Victoria, although it is also reported that it did circulate anonymously as a joke during that time period.]
5. Dorothy Waxman: [referring to the water drainage:] were all the pods checked? Deborah: absolutely. Dorothy: the houses are selling well. I’m a broker over 50 years in real estate on Long Island. We have a really nice community[here]… eventually, if houses aren’t selling, and it’s pinpointed to the pickleball surface, maybe we’d get more… I moved here for the indoor pool, so I’m very happy. Cafes could be problematic… Thank you.
Round Table Discussion:
Harvey: I want to thank all the residents who participated in the survey…will not let it fall on deaf ears… next Board, ad hoc committee with Board members and residents to develop an action plan… biggest priority is to get the threshold down from 75 to 66 2/3.
[Editor’s note: Harvey, the residents just told you they don’t want that (the vote was 54% to 46% which isn’t even at your desired 66 2/3% amount. Why, therefore, is that your biggest priority?]
Linda: I have nothing, thank you.
Bob: I second Harvey, and thank Deb for doing all the work [on the survey].
Richard: thank all the residents who responded to the survey… it’s important to know how they feel. Thank Deb and Susan [Hersh, her assistant].
Sue: I echo Richard’s comments. Thanks for all who did participate.
Jeff: thank Deb for doing such a good job and keeping it a secret from everyone… next meeting is February 16th at 9:30am. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Sue: motion to adjourn. Linda: second. All in favor? Unanimous. [adjourned at 10:19am.]
Jeff: We do have some work to do on the survey because I’m shocked by some of the answers.
[Editor’s note: the fact that Jeff is “shocked” by your responses necessarily means that he is somewhat out of touch with the residents and what they want. We venture to say that most people were not shocked and that the results were consistent with what we and others expected. We certainly didn’t notice any huge surprises.
Maybe the realtor survey would also provide some “shocking” data as well as additional information that no one is particularly aware of; why not send it out to a limited number of realtors and collect the information and use it for long-term planning so that the community can be well prepared for the future? What’s the harm? The cost is zero, and there may be substantial benefits to having the information.]
[Editor’s further note: A big shout-out to Zoom operator Mike Blackman, Arnie Green and, as backup if needed, Anita Goodman, for doing a great job administering the Zoom meeting. We thank them for their continued service and volunteerism.]
And so concludes the Board meeting of February 2, 2022; next meeting: February 16, 2022 at 9:30am.
Thought for the Day:
You’re never too old to celebrate Valentine's Day with your loved one or with yourself!
1. Don’t forget to join the community on the Cascade Lakes Boynton Beach Facebook Page, a place where you can interact and communicate! Click here: