Sales Information for Lakewood Cove
Lakewood Cove is the name for the 70 new townhomes being built between Tivoli Court and Lake Worth Rd at the Lake Worth gate.
According to the builder (Lennar), they will be selling in the $400’s.
Link to the Lennar brochure with pictures and floor plans:https://online.flippingbook.com/view/510441362/
***************************************************************************************
Some pictures of the construction as of Nov 2022
It is very late but I feel that I have to let the community know what’s going on here. I just took my trash out because it gets picked up tomorrow morning. Our parking lot lights are out,and lights behind our building that are for security. A work order was put in to our maintenance department by our president on Wednesday. It is a simple fix. People need to be aware that they are paying for an
Inferior
maintenance department! Why are we paying them? This needs to be addressed & corrected.
Susan,
I hear your complaint and I am sympathetic to a point. However, I think the situation should be put into perspective.
First, the work order was made by your court president on Wednesday.
Second, your observation that the work was not completed was on Sunday.
Third, the maintenance department is closed on Saturday and Sunday.
Fourth, how many work orders from all courts and the FCO were submitted before yours?
Fifth, how many employees are employed by the maintenance department?
Sixth, will your court vote yes to hire more maintenance workers?
Seventh, your court is not required to use FCO maintenance.
Eighth, why didn’t your president contact a private contractor for the work?
When someone has unrealistic expectations they will often find they are not met.
Wow! Bill, You are explaining 1 through 8 that’s crazy ? too much information?
Susan,
You may be right. I do have a tendency to give a 10,000 word comment when a 200 word comment would probably do the trick. I know that is my way. It is just that I believe that the “devil is in the details” and my writing and discussions reflect that belief. The good news is that I don’t rape, pillage or steal!
A letter was just sent out by FCO President Ben Geller regarding some of the courts looking into obtaining a replacement property maintenance company instead of continuing to us the FCO Maintenance personnel.
My response to his letter.
Dear Ben Geller
Thank you for the update and letter and thank you for all that you and the other FCO Board members do in your highly paid positions in The Fountains Country Club. At least what is left of it.
My wife and I have been owners in The Fountains for almost seventeen years. We’ve seen a lot but we do not know everything. What we do know is there are a myriad of issues and problems presently within The Fountains.
About the only positive thing to arise out of the still ongoing pandemic is Zoom. The ability to attend both FCO and individual Court meetings remotely is a big plus not only for us but many others as well. We hope Zoom meeting access will continue.
My first question is why do owners have to specifically make a Zoom Access request to the FCO secretary? Why is there not a distribution owners list for each court and meeting and a combined larger distribution list combining all of the residents of every court to be notified of every FCO meeting?
Our experience with the FCO maintenance occurred almost a year and a half ago. Our condo is on the third floor and was occupied by a renter for the winter. Water began dripping down to the second floor and FCO maintenance was notified. I assume that two men responded as that fact was just mentioned in the recent FCO meeting which by the way the minutes of that meeting have still not been posted on the FCO website. We were charged $40.00 for that FCO Maintenance visit but the maintenance did absolutely nothing to clear a clogged Air Conditioner condensate drain. We were told we needed to call a plumber which we did at our expense.
The question that we and many others have is why can’t FCO Maintenance complete simple repairs? This is the reason some of the courts are looking into another property maintenance company where a single telephone call will result in a qualified response and resolution to simple problems.
As a owner living very close to the North Gate we’ve seen what a cluster that project turned out to be. Very costly, over budget, and poorly designed by two architects and now owned by Concert Golf.
Now there are discussions (presently on hold) to possibly waste another $400 to $500 thousand dollars to rebuild the Jog Road Gate House that would end up being owned by Concert Golf. If there are traffic issues during golf tournaments wouldn’t it be cheaper and simpler to hire a traffic control person for such a brief period? What a bizarre idea to waste money to replace a perfectly functioning gate house! Kind of reminds me of the rebuilding and redesign of the kitchen in the main dining room and the construction of The Pub. Neither one is open all the time and the famous weekly Sunday Brunch with the remodeled kitchen is a forgotten memory. These costly projects were supposed to attract new members. Has anyone checked lately on the decline of golf memberships within the United States?
The recent FCO meeting was in my opinion the most disgusting board meeting that I ever heard. Without the minutes in front of me I do not know specifically which FCO Board member was attacking my female court president for asking questions regarding finances and how the FCO was spending money, but this was not the first time FCO Board members were quite condescending to not only Northern Court Presidents but especially the female ones. You sir as FCO President need to not only put a stop to this childish behavior by other FCO Board members but speak out forcefully on this topic at the next FCO Board meeting.
Thank you.
Respectfully
Howard
I have been thinking about the questions I asked about changing property management companies. I decided that a comparable list should exist for the FCO to consider and hopefully provide the answers. The following is the result.
The following suggestions, criticism, comments, and questions address some reasons some courts are considering a new property manager. The compilation is from comments on the Blog, emails from readers, comments during FCO Board of Directors meetings, and other communications with owners. No attempt has been made to amend the substance of the communications I have read or heard, nor have I tried to answer the questions. This compilation is intended for the officers of the FCO Board of Directors in the hope that they will address or respond to the suggestions, criticisms, comments, and questions with an email to the residents in the North as was done with the email about North courts considering a new property management company. If I learn the answers I will share on the Blog.
I have grouped the responses into broad categories. Some of the remarks could have appeared in more than one category.
Cost Sharing
1. Why is square footage not a fair way to assess FCO fees charged for common expenses?
2. Why are FCO common expenses the same for each unit?
3. Why are the purchasers of houses in the Parcel D lot being charged substantially less for FCO common expenses than other Fountain’s owners?
4. Is the FCO requiring Concert to pay for the use of FCO common expenses for property owned by the POA?
5. Are members of Concert that are not Fountains residents charged a fee for use of FCO common expense roadways, especially those in the South?
Communications to Owners
1. It takes entirely too long for owners to receive minutes of FCO Board of Directors meetings.
2. What actions are the FCO Officers taking, if any, to abbreviate the timeframe it takes to publish and communicate meeting minutes?
3. Are FCO Board of Directors meetings recorded? If so, why are the recordings of FCO meetings, regularly scheduled or special meetings, not made available to all owners? If not, why not?
4. Are Executive Board meetings recorded? Are minutes of Executive Board meetings taken and shared with owners? If not, why not?
5. Are there any FCO meetings that do not require minutes be shared with owners? If so, what are the reasons and what excludes sharing?
Maintenance
1. Why is FCO maintenance unable to perform simple maintenance and repairs?
2. Why doesn’t FCO maintenance prepare a menu of services and repairs it is equipped to perform and the cost it will charge?
3. Why does FCO maintenance send more than one person to respond to a maintenance request knowing that a significant aspect of the costs for maintenance is labor? Could response times be shortened if one maintenance person responded to service requests?
4. How long does it take for FCO maintenance to respond to a request for service? Both to schedule the service and to provide the service?
5. Does FCO maintenance prioritize service requests? If so, how?
6. Precisely how are maintenance costs distributed among the Courts and to the FCO common expenses accounts?
7. Are there maintenance services and repairs that FCO maintenance does not perform? If so, what are they?
8. Is the FCO maintenance department staffed to respond to repairs and improvements to the common areas under the FCO, property owned by the courts, and homes owned by residents? If not all, which?
9. Maintenance issues are one of the primary reasons some courts are considering a different property management company.
Decisions
1. The replacement of the North gate house was poorly designed, very costly, and over budget.
2. The replacement was funded by Fountain’s owners to the benefit of the FCC and not owners. It is now owned by Concert.
3. Now there are discussions, and money already held in reserve, to waste another $500,000 plus to replace the South gate house that like the North gate house will not be owned by all Fountain’s owners.
4. Why, specifically, is the South gate house being replaced?
5. Why are the solutions to traffic problems not the responsibility of Concert if the reason is traffic issues because of golf tournaments or other events sponsored or scheduled by Concert?
6. Who benefits from replacement of the South gate house? Is the benefit worth the cost to homeowners?
7. Wouldn’t it be cheaper, simpler, and just as effective to hire a traffic control person for such a brief period and charge the costs back to Concert?
8. Replacing a perfectly working gate house is a waste of money and a bizarre idea.
9. Why does the weight or value of a Director’s vote not reflect the number of owners he/she represents, i.e., not just capital expenditures of $35,000 or more?
Convenience and Respect
1. The FCO should announce its intention to either hold or not hold Zoom meetings for all future FCO Board of Directors meetings.
2. Why is there no email notice sent to all Fountains owners to announce each upcoming FCO Board of Directors meeting?
3. Why do owners have to submit a Zoom access request to the FCO for each Zoom meeting?
4. Why won’t the FCO compile a distribution list of owners that ask for Zoom access to all future FCO Board of Directors meetings and automatically send the access code to those owners?
5. Why won’t the FCO compile a distribution list of owners in each court and send an email notice to announce each upcoming Court Board of Directors meeting?
6. Why are there no FCO Board of Directors meetings scheduled for June, July, and August? Zoom meetings allow Directors to participate from anywhere.
7. One or more Directors was disrespectful to another Director for asking questions regarding FCO finances and how the FCO is spending money. This was not the first time some Directors were condescending to a North court Director, especially female Directors.
8. The FCO Officers, especially the President must stop this poor behavior by any Director.
9. Expectations for the behavior of Directors should be scheduled as the first agenda item on the next FCO Board of Directors meeting.
10. Directors are still speaking without benefit of a microphone resulting in Zoom attendees not hearing what is said. This is disrespectful and someone must be given the role of ensuring that each speaker is talking into a microphone.
11. It is often unclear who is speaking. It would be helpful if the Zoom access email included a list of the FCO Board of Directors and Committee Chairpersons. Further, each speaker should state his/her full name.
12. Some Directors ask a question and when he/she does not like the answer asks the same question again. Why doesn’t the responder or the meeting Chair simply say “asked and answered” like in court?
Thank you Bill for your compilation list of questions for the present FCO Board to answer.
Another suggestion that I have is, in addition to the use of individual microphones by board members, the person speaking should be clearly identified by a name plate and the court that they represent.
Any resident owner or anyone else attending either a Court or FCO call on Zoom should be required to display their name or be dropped from the call after a brief warning. Just displaying “ipad” is not acceptable on a business type call in my opinion.
Many Tivoli Court residents have not forgotten previous FCO Board member positions that Tivoli Court residents pay for tree plantings along a new Lake Worth Road Wall along the perimeter of The Fountains on land that was not part of Tivoli Court.
So much wasted money in the past and a recent answer by one FCO Board member at the last FCO Board meeting was “that was the way things have always been done.”
Doing the same thing over and over, wasting money, and expecting a different result is insanity.
I am a retired financial professional who was involved in expense allocation for a large organization. I fail to see any basis for allocating FCO expenses by square footage of the units.
Analyzing the financial reports of the FCO, expenditures are for Fountains and Craft Halls, Common road maintenance, common area landscaping, security, legal fees spent for the benefit of the entire community, and the administration staffs. Maintenance costs are for the common areas, with any work done on individual units charged back to the Court/Unit owner. Clearly, a per unit charge is appropriate for all of these expenses, with one minor exception: if security costs could be broken down between the gates, the roads, the outside of units, responding to emergencies and the protection of the individual units, the unit protection costs could be allocated based on appraised value. (Assessed value would not be appropriate as it is affected by the operations of homestead exemptions.) This is not a significant portion of the FCO expenses and would involve a lot of effort to obtain the correct values.
Bottom line — per unit is perfectly reasonable. The 72% argument is spurious and unfounded. And, I live in a northern court. Votes on the budget and any cost over $35,000 are weighted by the number of units, which takes away the argument of “taxation without representation.”
The share of expenses to be borne by Concert is a matter involved in the current contract negotiations between Concert and the FCO (the resolution will benefit all units).
If any Court feels that the administration costs incurred by the FCO are too high, that, in my opinion, would be the only basis for withdrawal.
Gene,
Makes sense to me!
This is the letter that was received earlier today from FCO President Ben Geller that I copied below. His signature at the bottom of the letter did not copy.
——————————————————————–
FOUNTAINS CONDOMINIUM OPERATIONS, INC
4615 Fountains Drive, Suite B Lake Worth, Florida 33467
Tel: (561) 964-3600 Fax: (561) 641-5631 Email: info@fcocondo.com
May 18, 2021
Dear Fountains Residents in the North,
Several northern Courts have expressed for quite some time that they are unhappy with the current level of services and fees being charged with regards to the FCO shared expenses. These Courts feel that they may be able to save money and obtain additional services at the same time by using an outside property management company. While this may or may not be true, as they continue their research the answers will become clear. If your Court is considering leaving the FCO, there will more than likely be some significant changes without the proximity and convenience of having a full office staff and maintenance deparånent on-site. It may or may not save you money, or it may save only a small percent. Either way, this will be a major change for all involved, North and South.
The FCO will continue to work on a resolution with these Courts, but each Court will be making an individual decision on what they think is best for their Court. We hope to keep our system intact and keep all of our Courts and community united. We hope that individuals are not guided by anger over the current issues with Concert Golf, which are out of the FCO’s confrol. Much effort was put into protecting the residents the best way we could within our legal rights and authority. It has been costly, to say the least, between legal fees and equipment rentals. The South and the North have shared this expense throughout the process.
Now is the time to be involved in this vital decision that will affect your Court. You are encouraged to contact your Board, attend the meetings, ask the tough questions, and be sure you have all your facts before the final decisions are made by your Board members to make this significant change. The rumor mill is not the place to get information, and the Blog, although informative, does not always have all the accurate information either. Voice your opinions and preferences while you can, not after a decision has been made that may or may not upset you.
BE INVOLVED
BE INFORMED
BE HEARD
Sincerely,
Do the readers that describe problems at the Fountains really believe that at the heart of everything is the split between North and South courts? If so, why is that your opinion? Is that an opinion based on reality or conjecture? Is it used as a matter of convenience, albeit inaccurate?
I have lived at the Fountains for 20 years and I am unaware of any decision that pitted all South courts against all North courts. I recall issues, especially mandatory membership, with the Fountains Country Club (FCC) whereby all the South courts were held hostage by the POA that supported the FCC. But that only existed as an internal issue for the POA and the courts that it represented.
The mandatory membership issue was never an internal FCO squabble. The courts independently chose to require mandatory membership and when a court realized the impact of sales, rentals, home values, etc. chose to opt out of mandatory membership. Courts that opted out were sued by the FCO as were individual homeowners. Fortunately, the courts and homeowners won the court battles. Likewise, the owners in the South courts joined together to oust the POA leaders and eventually gained their freedom from mandatory membership.
Some may say the reason courts voted for mandatory membership is because they were lied to or misled by the FCC. This is true and borne out by court testimony. However, let’s not be gullible a second time and believe everything a prospective property management company may say to obtain our business. Know the facts and not the hype.
I raise this issue for two reasons. First, the decisions and expenditures of the FCO Board of Directors has never been made based on all South courts (10) and all North courts (9) opposing each other. Every vote or decision has had several or more North courts vote the same way as the South courts. What this proves is that the split is not between North and South, but between some North courts and some other North courts. Blaming the South is a matter of convenience and not accurate. It appears to be used to incite disharmony.
The second reason is to caution owners that allowing their Court’s Board of Directors to make rash and not well thought out decisions can hurt both financially and otherwise. Owners should demand that any Board considering leaving the FCO community does so with extreme caution and only after consideration of all the issues. Further, owners should demand that their Board’s not act without a vote by owners to opt for a new property management company. If it is best to use a new property management company, let’s do it. If not, let’s not.
Some will tell you that my issuing this caution is unfair and irrational. They may say that I am raising alarm that is unfounded. I disagree. Asking people to act rationally and in their best interests is never unfair or irrational. Please let me know if what I have said is incorrect. I will gladly recant and correct any inaccuracies or misstatements.
Perhaps one solution would be to make improvements to the current FCO Maintenance instead of replacing them?
If security refers a resident problem to the FCO, then the FCO should be able to take charge of the problem from beginning to end?
If its an irrigation problem just take care of it.
If its an electrical problem notify a qualified licensed electrician to take care of the problem.
If its a plumbing problem just notify a qualified licensed plumber to take care of the problem.
Just stop jerking owners/residents around by doing nothing but billing for doing nothing.
Isn’t that what we are paying for?
Howard,
Improvements to Fountains maintenance service would help all residents. It doesn’t matter if the changes are improved communications, response times, services provided, or costs.
Susan Shea offered her belief that the Fountains community should be the focus for everyone that lives in the Fountains. I responded that it is hard to do if we do not know who the Fountains will be. I was partially wrong in my response. There are actions that each side of the “stay or go” debate could take that would bring the focus back to the entire community. I am not privy to what the FCO or the Presidents are doing related to interacting with each about some Courts potentially using a new property management company. The following suggestions could have already been considered, underway, or rejected.
Let us start with what actions the “stay” contingent could take. First, the entire FCO Officers should seek a meeting with the Presidents of all courts contemplating leaving for another property management company. The meeting should have only two agenda items. One is for the Presidents to tell the FCO Officers specifically what they are hoping to gain by leaving. Two, is for the Presidents to tell the FCO Officers what specific changes they would make to improve FCO services or reduce costs. The meeting should include only the Officers and the Presidents because adding others could hinder open discussions. The discussions should only be to gain understanding about the Presidents input and not to debate whether the concerns or improvements are worthy of resolving or implementing. This will keep the meeting on target, civil, and prevent it from becoming unproductive. It should include all FCO Officers because together they represent the FCO. Also, it would signal the interests of more than one official, i.e., FCO President Ben Geller.
Second, the FCO Officers should convene immediately, or shortly thereafter, i.e., days, not weeks and have serious discussions about whether they will or will not support changes that would wholly or partially meet the expectations or wishes presented by the Presidents. The FCO Officers should immediately implement any actions they support and that do not require approval by the entire FCO Board of Directors. The FCO Officers should call a special meeting of the Board of Directors and include all other changes they support on the agenda for the Directors to vote for, or against. It would help if the FCO Officers lobbied other Directors to gain their support. The proposals should not be dependent upon any potential action by one or more Courts deciding to use a new property management company. Why would they if the FCO Officers think the proposals are in the best interests of the Fountains community?
Third, the FCO Officers should seek a follow-up meeting to reconvene with the Presidents that they met with originally. This meeting should be convened as soon as possible after the original meeting and after the FCO Officers have made decisions about what they will and will not support. This meeting should be like the first meeting except in reverse. The meeting should have only two agenda items. One is for the FCO Officers to tell the Presidents specifically what actions they are taking in response to the first meeting. This description should explain their rationale for referring, if applicable, certain decisions to the FCO Board of Directors. Two, is for the FCO Officers to tell the Presidents what specific changes they do not support and why. The Presidents should be reminded that as Directors on the FCO Board of Directors they have the right to propose agenda items whether the FCO Officers do or do not support the proposal. The meeting should include only the Officers and the Presidents because adding others could hinder open discussions. The discussions should only be to gain understanding about the FCO Officers decisions and not to debate whether the decisions are right or wrong. As mentioned, a couple sentences ago, the Presidents can place items on the FCO Board of Directors meeting agenda and try to elicit support from the body at large. This will keep the meeting on target, civil, and prevent it from becoming unproductive.
The above actions initiated by the FCO place the entire Fountains community as the primary focus by the FCO Officers and the Presidents considering a new property management company. Both will have to agree to have non-adversarial meetings whereby each can present their ideas and concerns. If taken, the actions require the FCO to take the first step. In turn, the Presidents will have reciprocated by accepting the FCO offer.
Now, let us follow-up with what actions the “go” contingent could take. First, the Presidents should change the focus from individual Courts to the entire Fountains community. If the Presidents are of the opinion that a property management company that is not incorporated under the FCO, Inc. banner may be better at serving the Fountains than the current arrangement, that is what they should explore. That is placing the Fountains community first.
Second, Presidents of Courts not presently contemplating using a new property management company should be asked to join the team conducting the review to reduce the likelihood of biased results. The Presidents should want to ensure that any bias does not result in misrepresentation of and harm to the people he/she represents.
The findings of any investigation could/should be presented to the FCO Board of Directors for consideration and potentially amend its charter. This approach would benefit the community regardless of the findings. It may establish that the current arrangement is equally or more effective than making a change. It may establish that a change in the Articles of Incorporation is warranted. It may find the current arrangement acceptable but identify improvements that could be made. Worse case, the FCO Board of Directors disagrees with findings that a President thinks are crucial and then the Court still has the option to go its own way. Regardless of the outcome the community is first, and the parochial needs of any specific Court become secondary – not forgotten, just not primary.
The above actions initiated by the Presidents place the entire Fountains community as the primary focus by the FCO Board of Directors and the Presidents considering a new property management company. It allows them to still go their own way if a break from the FCO is warranted.
I wonder if either side will take these or other steps to work together for the good of the community? What do you think?
It is important to have as many facts as possible before engaging the community. Have the board and court representatives vet 3 management companies together. Let the management companies present their information and let the Fountains representatives ask questions. Then, have the board and court representatives decide if they want to move forward with an open meeting involving the management companies, board, court representative and the Fountains home owners, All of this can be done via zoom. This way all the truths and lies will be cleared up and the the emotional thinkers will have the facts vs what they think they know. It is important to get the true facts about how a new management company would work when most people are guessing and sharing their opinions. I am not sure our own board and Court representatives have clarity with how a new management company may or may not be a good change. They only know what they know. Time to get the hard cold facts.
Will the FCO make any changes to how its maintenance department does business to resolve some of the concerns expressed by readers? The answer is unknown, but the conditions for change are favorable. First, there are new leaders at all levels of the FCO. There are several new Directors, a new slate of Officers, and a new Maintenance Manager. These people are not the same as those that instituted the current practices and as such are not wedded to past practices. They are more likely to make changes. The other consideration is whether the issues that have been expressed are as widespread as one might believe? Are significant changes even necessary? Recent comments by David seem to indicate that FCO maintenance is performing better than I thought. I still think some change may make the FCO better, I am just no longer sure how drastic the changes need be. I know there are communications between the FCO and the courts about maintenance issues. I only hope the FCO is encouraging suggestions from its employees because people actually doing the work often have the best ideas for improvements.
While there are many thoughts by others that an outside contractor would be less expensive in providing maintenance and repair services, I find that difficult to believe. First, most outside companies will charge portal to portal labor costs, i.e., when the service person leaves from the company site or the site of its prior service call until it departs the FCO location where it is performing the service or repair. Sometimes companies hide the added hours by increasing the hourly rate. Obviously, no contractor business is located nearly as close as FCO maintenance. Secondly, outside contractors are profit-making businesses and would not survive without building in a profit margin on all service calls. The FCO is a not-for-profit venture, and no such charges are added for service and repair work. Ask property management companies if they will guarantee outside contractors will charge the same or less than the FCO for like services. Furthermore, ask the FCO if it will allow its maintenance department to provide services to courts and households that are not using the FCO as their property management company. My guess is they will not. Seems to me that projecting a significant or any cost savings for maintenance is questionable and likely unrealistic.
Hi Bill,
As a former 15 year resident of the Fountains and avid reader of the blog since it’s inception I find it despairing because of the of dark cloud and chaos there.
I was committed to remove mandatory membership in the north and south (CAMM), attacker of the POA, fought to stop GL Homes to build by the bridge which has stalled, a critic of Concert from day one, and a board member of my court. The situation at the Fountains became so distressing we were forced to leave my once beautiful happy home and community.
Bill you have plenty to say I have a question. Have you ever been on a FCO committee? Member of CAMM? Have you ever been a board member or president of you court? If not you must. If you and others are not vocal and have a say at FCO level the Fountains is doomed.
Have you noticed the blog is dormant you have 18 of the last 38 posts. Why? This is because the majority are sitting on their hands or are oblivious to what is going on around them.
If this absence of involvement continues which it unfortunately will many others and you to will eventually leave through the front gate and follow me to a more serene surrounding.
As Sue Shea notes “JUST SAYING”.
Hello Ex-Fountaineer,
I think I know who you are, and it is great to read a comment from you. I always enjoyed your comments on this Blog and while I am happy you made a move that brought you happiness, the Fountains was a better place with you here.
No, I have never served in any capacity on my court’s board of directors or any committees (FCO committees either). Until the past couple years my wife and I spent little time, i.e., weeks not months, physically at our Fountains home and I thought I could not serve the court well without having more of a physical presence. Also, I considered helping CAMM in some manner, but when I approached Sharon Harrington at the meeting that CAMM held at the synagogue she basically brushed me off. My guess is she was probably flustered with all the activity and so I did not take it personally, but I made no further overtures to ask what I could do to help. However, I did post many comments on the Blog in support of CAMM. I was not a supporter of the FCC selling its property to Concert, although once the sale was made, I was cautiously optimistic that Concert would be a good neighbor. (That is the only issue I think you and I disagreed upon.) Also, I have said before that people that volunteer for unpaid leadership roles do so because they genuinely believe they can and will make a positive difference, or because they enjoy being in the spotlight and power it gives them over others. I am not interested in seeking to serve as a president of a court because I still think I do not spend enough time physically at the Fountains to do the job justice. Also, I could care less about being in the spotlight or having power over others. Who knows, if my court ever needed someone to help as an officer or on a committee and the help did not require more time physically at the Fountains, I might consider stepping up. However, not as its president because I do think a person that lives year-round at the Fountains is more suited for the role as president.
I really do not know why there are not more owners commenting about what is happening in the community. My guess is that it is mostly a combination of two things. One, the issues affecting owners are not nearly as widespread and onerous to the entire Fountains community as were mandatory membership and the sale of the FCC. Two, owners are apathetic about the current issues at the Fountains.
The primary issues currently mentioned on the Blog relate to the remediation and impact of construction projects within the Fountains, and some courts contemplating leaving the FCO for another property management company. Neither issue hits their pocketbook like mandatory membership.
The remediation and construction projects impact the entire community, but not to the same degree. The impact is less the farther someone lives from the development and construction projects. The farther one lives from the projects impacts the degree of dust and potential health impact. Also, many owners have never believed that their health was at risk, regardless of where they reside. One other reason is that the projects are not having significant impact on home values or sales.
I cannot think of any reason that owners are apathetic about the goings on in the community they live. I guess they are content and satisfied with the job everyone representing them have done and are doing. I am more bothered by the seeming lack of involvement by some court leaders or the lack of substantive and timely communication by the leaders at all levels.
Who knows, there is always the possibility that my wife and I could move elsewhere. I only hope that if we do, it is because we found a better place and not that we become disenchanted with the Fountains. If I win Powerball or Mega Millions, we will move to a place that is oceanfront!
Anyway, it was nice to read a comment from you. Take care and stay healthy!
Hello Everyone, I recently found a handicap parking tag that is to be hung on the rear view mirror. I found it on Versailles Court. I have tried unsuccessfully to find the owner of this tag, including calling Yonkers PVB which has its phone number on the tag. I will drop it to the FCO. If you know anyone who may have lost it, please direct them to the FCO. I can’t imagine it would be easy to get replaced!
One of our readers sent an email about an article in today’s Palm Beach Post. The articles is written by Mike Diamond and is about the potential development of Forest Oaks Golf Course (I think it used to be called Lucerne Lakes Golf Course). It is the golf course across the street from the Gourmet Deli House and the Bank of America on Lake Worth Road.
I cannot locate it on the Palm Beach Post website, but it is in the paper edition today, June 1. If you have a paper version you may want to read it. I will post a link to the article when it is available online.
Thank you for sharing!!!
I have the article. If you want I can scan and post it. (maybe!!!)
David,
Thank you for the offer, but because of copyright infringement I don’t think we can copy it to our Blog. However, the article is now available on the Palm Beach Post website.
Clicking the following link will take you to the article written by Mike Diamond in the Palm Beach Post about potential development of Forest Oaks Golf Course.
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/local/lakeworth/2021/06/02/forest-oaks-golf-club-could-soon-home-350-townhomes-100-houses/7477841002/
The questions below were received from a reader. Your input is welcome if anyone has answers or information that would shed light on the answers. I do not know the answers.
Are permits pulled for the Townhomes west of the Lake Worth Gate?
What is the status of the rental units behind Tivoli Court and south of Jog Road that will have their own gate?
How soon will construction start?
Wondering what is taking so long to start the infrastructure?
Thank you.
It’s a secret government project.Behind Tivoli they are making a landing field for ufo’s. They landed FATHERS DAY. The aliens Dug holes put up fences then took off. I’ll keep looking and keep everyone up to date. LOL LOL LOL
What are the frequent complaints made about the FCO that could easily be fixed with minimal effort or costs to the FCO? Why has the FCO taken no action to accommodate the complaints and improve service to the community? These complaints were described about a month ago on this blog and I am perplexed by the FCO Board of Directors lack of action to date. Following are the easily fixed complaints.
1. Decide to hereinafter hold all meetings via Zoom or via another online meeting provider. No resident has asked to discontinue holding Zoom meetings and many have asked that they be continued.
2. Notify residents via email about upcoming regularly scheduled and special meetings of the FCO Board of Directors. If residents do not provide an email address it would be incumbent on them to monitor the FCO website to obtain that information. No resident has asked to not be notified and many have asked to be notified.
3. Find a means to prevent residents from having to submit a meeting-by-meeting request to the FCO to gain access to FCO Board of Directors meetings. Either create an email distribution list of residents that wish to be included or send email notifications about planned meetings with a link to access the meeting. No resident has asked to continue the current practice and many have asked for the change.
4. Provide more timely minutes of meetings whether using existing staff resources committing to expediting the production and review process or using a transcription service to assist. No resident has praised the lengthy delay in receiving the minutes and many have asked to receive the minutes more quickly.
The FCO is fully knowledgeable about these issues, and it is beyond me why it chooses to do nothing, or act quickly rather than delay if the FCO plans to implement any of these improvements. It is like it intentionally chooses to subject itself to complaints and dissatisfaction by residents. Anyone that has read other comments I have made know I like using quotes, etc. to make my points. Here is a paraprosdokian to consider. “Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.” A corollary at the FCO could be. Knowledge is knowing that residents are upset about correctable situations. Wisdom is not ignoring those situations. So, can one question the wisdom possessed by the FCO?
There are other changes that could be made equally as easily. But why not start with the low hanging fruit.
-Please add me to your resident notification list regarding the construction progress on the plots of land surrounding my development at Tivoli Court In The Fountains.
This article was published in the South Florida Business Journal on June 28, 2021:
“Lennar Buys Golf Course Development Site Near Lake Worth Beach
Brian Bandel
Jun 28, 2021, 2:38pm EDT
Lennar Homes purchased part of the Fountains Country Club west of Lake Worth Beach to build a multifamily community there.
The property at 4404 Charleston St., near the southwest corner of Jog Road and Lake Worth Road, actually changed hands twice in a few days. First, Concert Fountains Properties, managed by Peter J. Nanula in Newport Coast, California, sold about 62.6 acres of the 163.6-acre golf course for $2.66 million to Lynx Zuckerman at Palm Beach I LLC, managed by Michael McCarty in Coconut Creek. Lennar Homes, part of Miami-based homebuilder Lennar Corp. (NYSE: LEN), then purchased the land for $4.9 million.
After a rezoning process started in 2019, Palm Beach County approved the site for a garden-style project with 318 units, a clubhouse and a pool.
Concert Fountains still owns most of the Fountains Country Club. An affiliate of GL Homes bought 46 acres of the Fountains Country Club from Concert Fountains in 2019, but construction hasn’t started on that land.
This continues the trend of South Florida golf clubs being redeveloped with homes to meet the demand for more housing.”
The following comment was received from the writer of the letter and he asked that it be published on the blog. Thanks for contributing.
Dear Trevi Ct. BOD Member, 6/10/21
Over the past 2 months we have had 4 meetings with property management companies. The various Presidents of 6(?) courts have been looking into the possibility of us leaving the FCO and hiring an outside property management company. I have heard various reasons for this from several Presidents ranging from lower monthly maintenance charges to more efficient management.
I do not want to discuss the other court’s Boards, which have been referred to, by people in the know, as mildly efficient to totally dysfunctional. I want to limit my comments to Trevi Ct. only and concentrate on the cons of going with an outside management company.
As far as the FCO is concerned, I can only speak of my relationship with them, professionally speaking, as it pertains to how they handle our needs on behalf of the court.
As you know I do all of the interviews for rentals and sales in the court. Prior to my getting notification, from Rhonda Patterson, a very extensive, background check has been completed. A task, that is certainly not an easy one, that has been done by Rhonda both efficiently and in a timely manner.
Are there ways that the FCO can be run more efficiently? Probably, but that is incumbent upon the various Presidents of the 19 courts to be proactive about and bring about that change. Maybe those issues should be addressed in greater detail when Debbie Poulette leaves and Lisa Dawn Wax assumes the role of Executive Director of the FCO on Jan 1, 2022.
My main connection with the FCO is through the Maintenance Dept. I have had the responsibility of hiring the last two Heads of Maintenance, that being John Becker and Juan Miranda. My background, professionally speaking, was in construction for over 40 years in New York City.I have dealt with some of the largest property management companies in the U.S. who manage hundreds of high rise office buildings in most of the major cities in the U.S. I have seen, first hand, some of the shenanigans that take place within property management companies. I have seen building superintendents, and in some cases the CAMs employed by the management companies, conduct business and let me tell you it isn’t pretty. In most cases it all works on the honor system. The owners of the buildings and the owners of the property management companies have the honor while the CAM and the building superintendent have the system. In most cases the sub-contractor is not selected based upon his overall professionalism, response time or lowest price, but how much he/she is willing to “kick back” to either of the two individuals mentioned above.
In my opinion Trevi Ct. does not need a property manager. We do, in house, everything a property manager would do in conjunction with the FCO. I am directly involved with everything concerning maintenance and I can tell you, unequivocally, that we save huge amounts of money by dealing with our “in house” maintenance dept. and not hiring an outside contractor to change a lightbulb, which if Gus, our court cleaner, did it or our maintenance dept. did it, we would save +/- $150.00. Please be aware that many times we cannot put a price tag on the convenience of having our maintenance dept. respond to correct problems within minutes rather than days as happens more frequently than most of our residents are aware.
The question we have asked at every interview was “how long is the contract for and how much notice do we have to give to terminate; which says to me that we are not sure if leaving the FCO is the right thing to do.
I know I have gone on a little too long with this letter but I sincerely believe, with regard to Trevi Ct., if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. If there are problems with the FCO let the damn Presidents come up with viable solutions to the problems and have them correct them. Running away will not solve the existing problems it will just change them and in my mind not for the better.
(The following mentioned enclosure was sent to the Trevi Ct. BOD but not included here)
I have enclosed with this letter a list of maintenance issues Trevi Ct. has had in the last +/- 10 months, as well as a list of the reasons why maintenance had to be at our court. I have sent these lists to the last two management companies we interviewed. I know what the repairs cost our court, so perhaps you can call them and get a cost to do the same repair.
If you want to discuss any of this with me I will be happy to do so. If I am wrong with my assessment of the situation I will gladly admit it but I don’t think I am. Don’t compare Trevi Ct. with any of the other courts who are looking to leave the FCO as we are different.
We should not leave the FCO.
Thank you for your time,
David Greenholz
P.S.-Since I first sent this letter I have received a response from one of the Management Companies and can tell you that the costs they would charge Trevi Ct. for services rendered is exponentially higher than what our maintenance department charges.
DG
David…Your note is dated June 10 and the following letter was sent to all residents by the FCO for Ben Geller, FCO President on June 29. It appears that no decision has been made by your or any other court yet. Have you heard anything of late?
My reading of Ben’s note leads me to believe that he is through with the games he thinks some courts are playing and is ready to let them walk without further wasting his time. I know he has made overtures before and which have been largely spurned by Northern courts.
If one or more courts choose a new property management company I think the financial impact on the remaining courts will be minimal or non existent. Since I have heard nothing recent from my court I am under the impression its Board intends to remain in the FCO. I intuitively think the courts that leave will ultimately take on a greater financial burden than they think and more than they have under the FCO.
Regardless, I wish any court that leaves well and hope they don’t have buyers regret. I am curious, do you know if the courts are seeking a vote from their owners or are they too caught up in their own self-importance that they think getting approval from their owners is an unnecessary burden? I quoted Potter Stewart before and it is worth repeating, “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.” We will learn whether and which court boards are ethical and which are not.
If there is one constant to this blog since I became a reader it is that it has always asked for owners input on issues and for its representatives to act accordingly. I hope that philosophy is true for all issues and not only for issues of particular interest to people that want change.
The note residents received from the FCO follows in its entirety except for Ben’s signature.
Fountains Residents
The FCO (Fountains Condominium Operations) consists of the entire office staff located centrally on the property of the Fountains residential community. Its sole purpose is for the support of all of our residents and to implement those policies enacted, from time to time, by a duly elected board of residents representing each and every court in the Fountains. Meetings of this board are held monthly from September thru May, where matters of common interest to the community are discussed. For example, this past year the board voted to increase the security vehicle hours on Saturday and Sunday to ensure further safety and security for all of our residents. Current events and updates concerning the pandemic were discussed each month. During these meetings, interested residents are encouraged to attend and share their point of view, as well. Sometimes discussion can be contentious, but most of the time the entire community shares similar concerns. In addition to the office staff overseen by our executive director, we employ a maintenance department to help and repair wherever necessary in the entire community. When lights on the roadways go out, maintenance is there to fix it. When something breaks or needs to be cleaned up, maintenance is on the job. On occasion, the maintenance personnel is there to trouble shoot and help with individual resident issues, as well, for an additional fee. These services, from office staff to maintenance department, all in support of you, the resident, are funded completely by a portion of each of our monthly home owners dues. We are all equally served by the FCO and therefore, unless your particular court has determined otherwise, we all contribute equally each month based on a predetermined annual budget. The FCO has no control over the Concert Fountains Country Club. That is a completely separate entity which owns all of the land and golf courses, all of the buildings and roadways, of the former Fountains Country Club. We interact on certain matters such as landscaping and road maintenance, on Craft Hall and Fountains Hall, but for all intents and purposes, Concert golf and the FCO are completely separate entities, and in fact have always been separate even in the days of the Fountains Country Club.
At this point in time, several of the original Northern courts are contemplating leaving the FCO in the belief that they will save money for their residents and receive better services, as well. As stated above, the FCO is a not for profit agency, located on the Fountains property, whose SOLE purpose is for the residents of this community. I have been invited to a meeting of these several courts where I am to try to convince these courts not to leave the Fountains FCO.
The purpose and functions of the FCO speaks for itself, as it has for over 40 years. To contend that you will get better service at less of a cost from a For Profit management company is a concept that has been explored many times in the past. Such “for profit” management companies have a responsibility to make a profit for their owners. The FCO has no such motive and simply has the responsibility to service the residents of the Fountains. Each venture, in the past, led those very same courts to realize that the best interest of the residents is served right here in the Fountains by the FCO. Is it possible that improvement can be made in the workings of the FCO??? Perhaps enhanced computer programs in the office, modifications to how the maintenance department charges for services should be explored, and will be. But rest assured, the FCO will be here in the Fountains for as many courts as value the devotion and expertise of the staff, and the dedication of all the employees who are here to help us enjoy our lives in our community. I will not be attending this “meeting” The decision to stay or leave is all in your hands.
David, No disrespect to you at all. But have you thought God forbid something happened to you? Do you have a plan in place to make sure that Trevi Residents are protected to the extent they are today? As you let everybody know they are very fortunate to have a person like YOU in their community? You support an adore the FCO and the maintenance department but do you really know the truth? You say that you save your court a lot of money? If you are so concerned? you must have a protection plan as a backup? What has happened in this community is people have relied on words of people and they come and go as we all know. Considerations that residents in this community, century need to be knowledgeable! Ask questions, you are entitled to ask questions of your management company. If you don’t particularly care for your President you should be able to contact the management company and have protection. Where is the transparency and Protection?
David and Bill, I hear and understand what the both of you are stating in your comments? Not so sure you understand? Have either of you read and studied the financials for your individual courts? Have either of you ever contacted the FCO office for clarification on how your money’s are being spent? If you have requested information are you simply directed back to your individual Presidents? The management company the “FCO” Is hired by you the resident, paid by you the resident, and should answer to you the resident. The FCO is in fact Non Profit, as Ben Geller stated. Have you considered the fact that we are supporting a 4 profit Country Club “Concert Golf”? If you want to believe that your condo fees go entirely to a nonprofit corporation you are wrong. Contact your management company office and ask for an accounting of how much money goes to the community how much money goes to benefit Concert Golf. You won’t get an answer from them. The “Powers that Be” should have hired a forensic accountant years ago. Your Presidents never agreed to that because some wanted to keep you in the dark? Unfortunately that has worked for some 40 plus years. Important information in the financials of each court is disguised! If people were aware they would realize it to be cheaper had a Forensic Accountant been on it. The leadership from our management company, the FCO and the board of directors have let us down a slippery slope. We are left in a position to negotiate with a 4 profit company which your leaders continue to give more and more money to at the detriment of residents that live here. How many of our presidents are part of the package with concert golf? I’m not sure but are they the people that should be negotiating contracts and community issues? The destruction of the community in the North is horrific. Think about it!
Susan,
Your comments are interesting, albeit incorrect in concept. For example, the vast majority of any funds paid to “Concert Golf” is directly for the use of the property owned by Concert Golf, of which the majority is roads. That budget item will still be paid by any court leaving the FCO. You have to remember that any fee charged by a for profit property management company is for the work they perform and does not include those fees the residents of the court will still be obligated to pay the FCO, which include roads, etc. Also, you do not mention that the FCO performs the property management company functions for the shared properties of all the courts (i.e., the property nt solely within the purview of a court). These fees are also not included in the fees a for profit property management company is quoting you.
As for a forensic accountant, I believe I am asked by my court annually to vote on the hiring of a forensic accountant and to my knowledge the court has always voted against because of the costs. I wonder if your court or any other courts have voted likewise? When you were president of Gefion did you pay for a forensic accountant to review your court’s accounts?
I don’t recall my president ever keeping me in the dark. Maybe I didn’t know what to look for or the proper questions to ask to be fully knowledgeable, but it was not through some grand scheme by my president or others to hide information from me.
You have reached a lot of negative conclusions about what is being done by the Presidents and FCO Board of Directors, but I can’t comprehend why. If ANY current or past President has specific knowledge (i.e., data, facts, but not opinions) that supports your conclusions I would love to have them share that on this blog for all to read. I would also love to have them explain why they have not published these facts previously.
I can only deal with facts that I have and not with others opinions of unstated facts. I am not against any court deciding to stay or leave. I am against any such decision being made by anyone other than the residents that will be affected by such a decision. Boards represent the residents, but should not presume to make such a momentous decision without first obtaining their permission to do so. If they choose not to solicit a vote on the decision, why not? What are they afraid of? Are they afraid their residents may not agree?
If a Board opts to hire a for profit management company without obtaining their residents approval, they are the ones hiding and scheming against their residents.
OK!You and I have to agree to disagree. I have no clue how old you are? all I can say is that you obviously are NOT Tech savy? What is your motive do you have a 100% residents concerns or your own concerns for your ego?
Susan,
Yes, we will have to agree to disagree.
I take your lack of a response to any of my specific comments and my questions reflects that you have no reasonable answers. I could be wrong, and you are simply someone that does not handle differing opinions well. Or there is another unknown reason you choose to avoid meaningful dialogue.
I do provide the following answers in response to your comments. I am 73 years old and now you know my age. What is your age? And, do either answers have any bearing on the discussion? I do not expect answers, nor do I really need them.
Since I have no idea how you define “tech savy” I will accept your conclusion that I am not. Although I must say I find that comment a little confusing because nothing said in my past post had anything to do with technical expertise. Would you care to explain what you were thinking? Oh, never mind, you can’t or won’t explain what you were thinking.
You ask my motive. My motive is simple. I want residents to be treated with dignity and respect by the people they have elected to represent them. I want the people that represent them to act with intelligence and information and not with emotion and half truths or incomplete data. I want transparency at the court leadership level as I do at the FCO level. I do not want people without the appropriate background acting without first obtaining input from people that do have the experience or technical, legal, etc. backgrounds about the decisions they are planning to make.
You ask if I have 100% residents concerns or my own concerns for my ego. Frankly, both! Whenever someone provides information that is understandable and accurate the entire community (at least those that read the blog) and I learn something. The community and I learn something about the topic or about the commenter. It is always amusing to me that someone with strongly held opinions only think people of like mind care about the community as a whole. THAT is what I consider someone with an unreasonably large ego.
Bill, I never intended to spar with you. I have been avoiding the blog until I pulled it up this weekend. I always believed the FCO was an organization to protect and collect moneys for the residents in our community. What comes to mind is bad memories of the lawsuit with the FCC in regards to mandatory membership. 6 courts funded the lawsuit when it should have been the responsibility of the FCO to pay for that suit. All residents in this community benefited from the conclusion of that suit In way of increased property values. It’s time to look into other options for the community. If every resident is going to contribute funds it should be to the benefit of residents. Not in any way the benefit the Country Club. Many people in this community were sued, and come up with thousands of dollars in attorney fees on their own.
Money’s collected to enhance the Quality of life Should benefit the community and not the Country Club. I support the community looking into other options. My hope is that this can become a community United for the benefit of ALL the people in the community. Forgive me if I offended you in any way.
Susan,
I never thought you wanted to spar with me. In fact, I thought the opposite since you never addressed anything I said in my comment. In fact, you chose to attack me personally referring to my age, technical knowledge, and interest in the community. Classic examples of someone trying to avoid sparring over the issues.
I am sorry you avoided the blog. Although I am not surprised because it appears that anyone that supports departing the FCO has not taken the opportunity to provide the community with any information. I wonder of what they are afraid. If their agenda is righteous, I would think they would be sharing everything they know with the entire community in as many venues as possible. Is it possible that they, and maybe you, are the ones thinking about themselves and not the community as a whole?
I agree with the roles you see for the FCO, i.e., an organization to protect and collect moneys for the residents. However, I think its role is much broader and includes much more.
I know a lot about the lawsuit. I cannot say all because there is much I probably do not know. While it is your opinion the FCO should have funded the lawsuit, I do not agree. The decision to become a court requiring mandatory membership was made by each court and not collectively by the FCO. It was an agreement each court made with the FCC and not the FCO. Why then should the six courts have expected the FCO to ride in on its white horse and save them from themselves? Especially when most courts kept mandatory membership until the bitter end and the FCO was not a concerned party. Is it not your opinion that the FCO represents everyone? If I wanted to criticize anyone for not funding the lawsuit it would be the courts that also voted to end mandatory membership after the courts initially won their case and before the appeals were over. Following your train of thought, I guess you think the FCO should fund any costs that may befall the courts that choose another property management company if things do not pan out the way they intend.
You keep saying the residents should not spend any of their funds to benefit the country club. Is there some donation program the FCO manages that sends residents money to the FCC without receiving a benefit in return? There may have traditionally been examples way back when, but I cannot think of any to date. The only residents’ money that is provided to the FCC is given to benefit residents. You can look at the FCO financials and see what we receive and how much it costs. What I do not understand is you seem to think the departing courts will not contribute money to the FCC. Who do you think owns the roadways, etc., and will receive the funds (or in some cases property maintenance) that those courts that leave will continue to pay for? The FCC among others is who.
Since I only see the courts that are considering leaving working in concert with themselves and not the FCO as a whole, I find it incongruous that you think their efforts could possibly lead to uniting the community as a whole for the benefit of the entire community.
I got halfway through your diatribe. Sorry you feel the way you do, again I never meant to attack you or offend you.
Hello. I live in Tivoli Court..Mr President of the FCO.. Please tell me the real advantage of staying with the FCO rather than using a private management company??
Have you ever wondered why your monthly maintenance is so high?
.
Five courts are currently contemplating a decison to switch to an outside Property Manager, which frankly is as close as you can get to a no-brainer. All of the facts are compelling in the direction of not renewing the FCO contract that expires December 31, for continuation of the property management services that the FCO (Fountains Condominium Operations) has been providing since 1972.
.
Each of the 19 courts within the Fountains is an incorporated business. The FCO is an incorporated business as well. So one incorported business is offering another incorporated business a contract renewal, and the prudence of that decision is being analyzed by 5 courts (D’Este, Tivoli, Trevi, Esedra, Gefion).
.
Why consider switching?
.
Throughout all of South Florida, thousands of condominium properties are being managed by outside professional PM companies. None of these properties have an FCO. Therefore, it makes sense that these outside companies include at least everything the FCO does, and it turns out, they do much more for less cost. In fact, nothing the FCO does is unique — all communities need their paperwork processed according to Florida statutes.
.
The FCO claims to be non-profit. But they charge much more for their services, and deliver less. Other companies are more efficient in terms of economies of scale, innovation and their extensive use of technology, and they pass those savings along to their customers. This is unlike the FCO, which has refused to change with the times and still uses an extremely antiquated accounting system, plus has no system to keep track of maintenance requests or purchase applications or to retrieve most documents, invoices, etc.
.
There is no reason to continue with the FCO out of sentimentality.
.
Why is it a no-brainer?
.
First, the outside PM firms offer a 30-day cancellation clause where they can be fired and replaced after a 30-day notice. The FCO is offering a 10-year renewal contract! Right there, it is worth it to switch. End of no-brainer.
.
If it turns out the PM is not a good fit, there are lots more that will be a fit for the court’s needs. In fact, it is typical for a community to have several Property Managers — Aberdeen has 5. Lucerne Lakes and Via Poinciana are other examples of communities who also employ multiple PM companies.
.
In fact, it is happening in the Fountains. The new Concert development between Trevi Court and Lake Worth Rd. will be getting their own outside PM, and then paying the FCO for their share of common expenses such as Security. So it’s already happening.
.
Second, these firms charge much less to provide many more services. They routinely walk the court to look for problems. The FCO has never done this. They write Requests for Proposals such as for roof replacement or painting, send out for sealed bids, present them at a Board meeting, vet the vendors, and supervise the work. The FCO does none of this, except to make sure the vendor is licensed and has insurance.
.
Third, they handle the problem of residents who misbehave, which is now a heavy burden on the court’s Board of Directors. In fact, the model of neighbors disciplining other neighbors is a poor one. It’s better to have a neutral entity send letters and enforce the rules, which are established for everyone’s enjoyment and to keep strong property values.
.
Fourth, maintenance. This is where significant savings can be made. The Fountains has an in-house maintenance crew of a manager, secretary, and 4 workers. When comparing the cost of “in-house” maintenance to using an outside vendor from the recommended list of a property manager, the cost right now of in-house FCO maintenance includes:
.
* Your court’s share of all their yearly salaries, taxes and benefits (whether you use them or not!)
* On top of that, an hourly charge for workers to actually come and fix something.
* On top of that, if the work is done poorly and must be redone, the court will pay full price again (no guarantees)
* On top of that, your court’s share of the FCO Maintainance Barn, golf carts, uniforms, dumpster, phone, electricity and ‘miscellaneous” items (see page 3 of your court’s monthly financial report)
.
An outside PM will just bill for the services as needed. Frankly, they are appalled at the way this is being billed.
.
How much can be saved?
.
In 2018, the FCO prepared a report for all the court presidents to see the impact on the 2019 budget if Esedra and Gefion courts got their own PM. For Esedra (same size as Tivoli, Trevi and Luxemburg), although there would still be a charge of $100,000 for common expenses like Security, the amount not paid would have been $205,000. The cost to replace the FCO with an outside PM for most North courts is well under $100,000.
.
The FCO claims to be non-profit. But they charge more and deliver less.
.
Does a Property Manager help plan for the future?
.
Yes, they will offer an assessment of the current state of repair (or disrepair) and suggest an approach to meet the needs of buildings which are over 50 years old. Almost all the elevators have never been replaced, and they have a life expectancy of 20-25 years. The parts are now off the market. When an elevator breaks down, it is a scramble to find used parts or fabricate them. The courts need to capture these savings to be able to afford the maintenance needs. An outside PM offers:
.
* Shorter contract
* Lower cost
* More service
* A successful model, all over South Florida
.
This is the time to switch. Please support your Board as it comes under pressure to continue the status quo and resist the appeal to sentimentality. They are courageously gathering facts and standing up to misinformation on your behalf, to realign the court’s finances and prepare for the future.
.
Karen Kelly, former President of Esedra Court (2018)
Until recently, Fountains resident for 20+ years
Karen,
Thank you for expressing reasons why hiring a for profit property management company would be good for any court. I am only sorry that such a comment was from an ex-resident/ex-President and not one of the court presidents considering the change.
Your willingness to involve Esedra Court residents in such a momentous decision was outstanding and reflects what I desire from the five court presidents currently considering the change.
I ask the five presidents to address the cost savings you think will be gained if they switch to a new property management company (although I am not as concerned since Luxemburg Court is not one of the five). The cost savings I would like compared are:
Maintenance. The costs you quote reflect only the FCO side of the equation. Have the courts received comparable quotes from private contractors for the maintenance work they had done this or last year.
The concern about in-house versus private contractor maintenance is not of a concern to me except through a true comparison of both. There are often economies of scale to in-house workers that lead to overall savings. For example, a court pays the hourly salary of the FCO employee for work performed. The worker’s actual salary will be considerably less than the hourly rate a contractor will charge for the same work.
Property management for non-court property that is managed and maintained by the FCO for all courts. The courts regularly forget to mention that maintenance is regularly made to property their residents enjoy by simply living in a multi-court property. Who do they think should pay for that privilege? They want to live here nd reap the benefits without seeming to want to pay their fair share.
Shorter contract. A shorter contract makes a tremendous amount of sense when contracting with a property management company that has no commitment to the long term health and maintenance of the court property. It doesn’t pay for the roadways, it is not responsible for contracts with the security company, it doesn’t matter whether funds are available to pay for such future expenses. It isn’t negotiating for long term use of the property it does not own, etc. If the for profit property management company were to sign contracts and have responsibility for funding such long term contracts they would want multi-year contracts as well. In scale, it is similar to the reason most commercial property leases are for 5, 10, 15, 20 years, etc., and most household leases are for one year.
Non-profit versus for profit. The FCO, regardless of how it is described is clearly a non-profit organization. The fees it charges and its expenditures can be easily documented. Can the same be true a for profit property management company? Have the property management companies that the courts are considering included in writing that they will open their books for the boards and residents to see?
Cronyism. Are the for profit property management companies getting kick backs, etc., from contractors they refer for work for the courts? Is there a mechanism in place that allows courts to monitor any potential such action?
There are likely many additional questions that would be asked if meetings that encouraged attendance by all potentially impacted residents were held. Whenever the FCO holds meetings that are broadly attended by residents I am always amazed about the inciteful questions and comments I hear others make.
Regardless of the above, I am grateful that someone/anyone is providing information about any potential change.
Had I known that Karen Kelly was sending this letter to the Blog, I would have asked her to put my name on it also. She is 1000% correct and can back up everything she says with facts, not opinions or strange cult-like allegiance to an antiquated organization called the FCO.
The FCO has been running the Fountains for over 40 years and has had these last three years to show us how they can improve. The only improvements we have experienced are a new paint job and counters in the FCO office. Their systems are antiquated and the approval process for new residents in the Fountains takes 30 days, plus more if the application is missing one piece of information. This puts much stress on potential residents and their agents. The new property management companies that have been interviewed say it would take them 3 to 10 days, at most 2 weeks, to complete the approval process.
Letters written by the current FCO President and his supporters have been circulated via email to Fountains residents. These letters are full of sentimental misinformation and devoid of facts. They are full of fear of the unknown which clouds the truth.
I urge everyone concerned to support the efforts being put forward by the Court presidents and residents of the Courts seeking a better way.
Hello -if the FCO Board of Directors and the FCO office and employees think they can improve services and communication with the 5 Courts that want to leave to a private for profit management company then sit down and have a face to face meeting. The FCO does not fully understand communication services economics and finances. The FCO should offer the 5 Courts a one year extension on the contract that expires 12/31/2021 and show the 5 Courts that they can work with them by improving services and reducing costs. FCO please think like a businessman for once.,.It’s in your hands if the 5 courts will leave .. they were forced to make this decision because of a lack of services business finance economics intelligence by the FCO Board Members…too many FCO board members are not qualified to be president of their court.. they win on popularity not business ability .
Thank you Karen, you hit the nail on the head !! Many residents don’t have an idea of what is going on here.
I am appalled that the fco wants us to vote for another worthless contract with Concert. They (FCO) have not made concert make good on any of the things they are responsible for.
The biggest thing is the destruction of our property that was once so beautiful, now horrific. Starting with the disrepair of our roads, our frontage, and the overall trashy look at our community.
Residents, it’s past time to pay attention on what’s happening here.
Put your mouth where your money is (property ownership).
Proponents of a for-profit property management company consistently do several things meant to misdirect residents when they are considering a change.
First, they cite opinions frequently and present those opinions as facts. I can only presume that their intent is to get others to believe something simply because it is said repetitively.
Second, they rarely if ever refer to an outside property management company as a for-profit property management company. To do so would highlight the fact that the property management company will charge you, the owners, a fee that puts your money in their pockets and provides you with nothing in return.
Third, they never present sufficient facts that would allow others to ascertain if the opinions given are factual. The most oft heard comment is that the FCO costs residents too much. That is akin to someone complaining about the high costs at Aldi, Walmart, or Costco without providing comparable costs charged by their competitors, e.g., Publix, Winn-Dixie, Whole Foods, etc.
Fourth, they always state that the for-profit property management company performs the same or more services for less cost. This is by far the most inaccurate statement. It is ludicrous to think that the services they are asking the for-profit property management company to provide are the same services as the FCO provides. The outside for-profit property management company is only being tasked with the services that support a specific court and its fees reflect that limited role. The FCO provides, without making a profit, property management services for each court. Additionally, it provides property management services for property that is beyond the rubric of any or all courts, e.g., roadways, buildings used for recreation and community events, etc. It negotiates agreements with third parties that own the property we use to enjoy the community in which we live. (They conveniently fail to mention that by statute the fees we pay to Concert are required and cannot be ignored as some may wish.) There are substantially more services provided by the FCO as well. For example, the maintenance costs you pay the FCO is not for nothing. You are paying for work performed. The outside for-profit property management company does no repairs or maintenance. It might make referrals to contractors, but you will be paying such contractors for-profit fees unlike the FCO’s lower cost non-profit fees.
Fifth, they never mention how many clients are served by the project manager assigned to serve your court by the for-profit property management company. The maximum the FCO serves is 19 (could be as many as 25 according to the FCO’s governing documents). Being one of 19 or 25 is far less than the number may be. Has your court president asked that a maximum be included in the contract that they will saddle you with?
Again, it is incumbent on your representatives contemplating a change to provide you with complete information. Do not trust ANYONE that identifies or lists only positive impacts of a change. They have either not performed a proper analysis of the issue or are purposely misrepresenting the facts. Every change has both positive and negative consequences.
Bill:
“Howard, thank you for your questions, we will address them at the Monday Meeting.”
Below are some answers to a few of my questions in regards to leaving the FCO for another management company.
Below are some answers to a few questions that I had in regards to the possibility of some courts leaving the FCO.
How would leaving the FCO affect the use of Craft Hall in regards to Hotwire?
How many elevator telephone lines are there among the five courts that are proposing to leave the FCO?
How much would it cost to replace those telephone lines including installation and monthly maintenance?
Currently those elevator telephone lines are auto ringdown to security here in the Fountains.
If we were to leave the FCO where would those autodial lines terminate and how far away would that be?
I personally checked the elevator phone in my building to make sure it reaches security but does anyone else check those elevator telephones on a weekly basis?
Not everyone carries a cell phone all the time and getting stuck in an elevator without a cell phone or a working elevator emergency telephone could be deadly.
1- “Security? There should be no change as long as the courts continue to share the costs as they are currently doing. They will also need to share in the costs of all FCO personnel involved with security.
2- Road maintenance? Again, there should be no change as long as the courts continue to share the costs as they are currently doing
3- Gate access? See Security answer
4- Bar codes? See Security answer
5- FCO Approval and background checks of renters? No. There will be no more use of the secretarial staff.”
How will the road maintenance, Gate access, Bar Codes, and background checks of renters be handled?
As I look at the attached FCO budget will leaving the FCO still provide the annual Fountains Directories?
In speaking to numerous residents around the pool,(some here over 40 years) in the pub, at the bar, in the lounge, in the men’s card room having breakfast, we have concluded that perhaps improvements to the current FCO are needed but we think that leaving the FCO in an attempt to try and save a few dollars would be a mistake.
Any maintenance company is going to low ball a first year contract and then sharply raise prices in succeeding years.
Once a decision is made to leave, attempting to go back will be either very costly or impossible?
I don’t want to take up too much of your time at the next meeting but perhaps you could address these issues and concerns.
Thank you
Howard
I forgot to mention the annual directories that the FCO publishes and distributes.
This article was published in the South Florida Business Journal on June 28, 2021:
“Lennar Buys Golf Course Development Site Near Lake Worth Beach
Brian Bandel
Jun 28, 2021, 2:38pm EDT
Lennar Homes purchased part of the Fountains Country Club west of Lake Worth Beach to build a multifamily community there.
The property at 4404 Charleston St., near the southwest corner of Jog Road and Lake Worth Road, actually changed hands twice in a few days. First, Concert Fountains Properties, managed by Peter J. Nanula in Newport Coast, California, sold about 62.6 acres of the 163.6-acre golf course for $2.66 million to Lynx Zuckerman at Palm Beach I LLC, managed by Michael McCarty in Coconut Creek. Lennar Homes, part of Miami-based homebuilder Lennar Corp. (NYSE: LEN), then purchased the land for $4.9 million.
After a rezoning process started in 2019, Palm Beach County approved the site for a garden-style project with 318 units, a clubhouse and a pool.
Concert Fountains still owns most of the Fountains Country Club. An affiliate of GL Homes bought 46 acres of the Fountains Country Club from Concert Fountains in 2019, but construction hasn’t started on that land.
This continues the trend of South Florida golf clubs being redeveloped with homes to meet the demand for more housing.”