Good morning,

We know yesterday’s email came as a shock to all of you.  We have been reading all your comments and questions.  Please continue to ask questions as they arise so we can all begin to wrap our heads around these additional expenses.  We will do our best to address them.

Is this inspection required?  Our law firm is listed as the agent of record and advised us to proceed.
(See attached letter from our attorneys, advising the Board to comply as well as a copy of the letter itself).

What is included in the Inspection?  Do we have do a Traditional Reserve Study.?

I have also attached the proposal from the engineering firm we have engaged, which highlights areas to be inspected.  The firm will also need access to 2 units from each building to do a very brief inspection for leaks and structural damage.  (See attached proposal).

Florida statute SB154 requires the Reserve Study been done once every 10 years, along with the Inspection.  We have NEVER had a reserve study done.

Why can’t we self insure or drop flood insurance?

It is the Board’s fiduciary responsibility to fully insure the property.  Insurance costs in Florida continue to increase at the rate of 50% a year.

Keep on asking questions, please.
The Board

Justins email:

Hi,

I had prepared a much more critical response but given that the board is demonstrating some diligence, I’ve revised this considerably.

Please see attachment SB 4-D.pdf, which is a bill passed last year in the Florida legislature and signed into law in 2022 that amends the Florida building codes. The rather clear and repeated definition of “buildings of three or more stories in height” in reference to those which are required to be recertified should be plainly evident even for those unfamiliar with legalese. While I would not be surprised that Broward County government, being among the most corrupt in the entire nation, would not be aligned with their own state’s (superior, in the authoritative sense) law, I had higher hopes in Oakland Park government. Oh well… However I would suggest firing the law firm who advises “complying” with a mandate that contradicts the spirit and authority of state law. My interpretation, may be off-base but someone having read the same text will need to prove otherwise.

I am less moved by your position on insurance but I am glad you acknowledge fiduciary responsibility. I’m not convinced the board fully understands that responsibility but I digress. We have the option to insure by any means. Yes that means going as far as self-insuring. While that approach would absolutely prove more difficult and involves a ton of risk, there’s nothing that prevents the association from simply declaring it. It would take a legal suit for anyone, state/county/city/whoever to prove otherwise in a court of law. Recognizing that option is unlikely to find support, at the very least, the board should have sought competitive quotes from alternative insurance carriers. There should have been negotiation as to the terms. Given that we are not listed in a FEMA flood zone (refer to the maps) and April demonstrated we can withstand the so-called 500-year event unscathed (although barely), should be evidence enough that flood insurance is usury and unnecessary. I fully concede that’s also a tough sell, but anybody acting in fiduciary capacity should have taken these steps intuitively and if they were, making it clear what efforts were being invested towards the communities best interest. Making statements like “Insurance costs in Florida continue to increase at the rate of 50% a year” is a pandering cop-out.

The board has also contradicted itself in emails. The email sent on 7/28/2023 indicated an insurance increase for 2024, yet the text of your message on 7/31/2023 refers to 2023. Which is it? What are the effective dates and policy terms? Your message of 7/31/2023 also refers to “unanticipated landscaping expenses to deal with before hurricane season”, where did this expense come from? You do hopefully realize we’re well into “hurricane season” season though I struggle to understand what that meteorological journalese has to do with landscaping.

Now lets break down the costs. Until otherwise corrected I am assuming insurance renews January 1st 2024, and the premium increases by $78,000. Assuming the city gets their way and we follow through with their extortion/inspection, that’s $24,000**. Combined we face $102,000 of increased liability in the 2024 annual budget (excluding all other items for sake of argument, although now is a good time to reevaluate all line expenses). So $102,000 divided by 112 units is ~$911 per unit annually, or ~$76 increase per month per unit, or $361/month when added to the existing fee of $285. Note this INCLUDES the cost of the specious inspection and does not separate that to a special assessment. And would set you up to be in position to REDUCE fees next year, wouldn’t that be refreshing for once? Which begs the question of how the board arrived at $399? And why would we start paying that 4-5 months in advance? Perhaps I don’t understand the “budget period” or other factors but those have not been adequately communicated by the board, therefore I’ve made these reasonable assumptions.

I hope that people start to realize that governments are not our friends. They are however, our employees, and they need to start acting like it and not the entitled children they behave like today. When was the last time you told your employer what to do or how to do their job? The same logic applies to our elected board of directors, although I would spare them the characterization as entitled children.

“We” likewise appreciate you for addressing these concerns and thank you kindly in advance.

Sincerely,

Justin Wehman (2945-101)

**I’m well aware the inspection cost will be due to a 3rd-party contractor and not the city, but it is not a contractor abusing their position of perceived authority and making paper terrorism threats through the mail against our community.