Is It Over?

I am touched to hear that so many people are unhappy with the outcome of the UCO vs. WPRF brouhaha. We didn't know that there was not 10 or 12 million to be argued about. It was a surprise when it came to such a small amount. Concerned people became upset with the various stories that came out from week to week pertaining to the arbitration. A number of people felt happy to have the situation settled, regardless of how little it turned out to be. On the other hand, a large number of people couldn't find enough information about the proposed court case. They worried: Were they going to have to pay a large sum to the lawyers? Or were they going to receive a large sum for the rest of their lives? Now that it has been settled, these same people are not sure whether or not settling the arbitration for such a small amount, after all that worry, was worth it. Are you pleased with the ending? Would you rather have it still going on? I don't know, I don't think that I am a worrywart, but who knows, perhaps if I worried more about it, we would have gotten more money. Or, of course, I might have spent more money seeing the doctor to help soothe my nerves. What's your take on the situation?

MEDIATION SETTLEMENT REDUX

Hi All,
In a Comment stream;

Sue Cohen writes:

I do hope someone passed a towel to our esteemed U.C.O President George Lowenstein yesterday so he could wipe the copious amounts of egg from his face.
As we residents digest the whole sticky mess, surely one thing is certain - we will never know if this George chopped down any cherry trees in his youth!
By the way, where was Megalomaniac Myron with his cries of “show us the money” yesterday?

Left licking his wounds I guess like the rest of us who have been forced, to settle for a pittance payable in installments because, like The Colonel in Chief, he began to believe his own hype of what could possibly be achieved by ill-considered actions in the collection of the elusive millions.

Now was it ten, eleven or twelve? Does anyone actually remember?

There was however a positive side to Solomon’s absence yesterday - apart from the obvious one that delegates have finally acknowledged that UCO Vice President’s should at least possess an IQ larger than their collar size.

He wasn’t there, or if he was he was unfamiliarly silent, and unavailable or unwilling to lead the boo and hissing against the much maligned Jean Dowling.
At last we were finally allowed to hear what she had to say instead of the hearing her character assassinated or the ill-founded accusations of telling a pack of lies.

Seems obvious that the only lies in the pack came from the couple of jokers! and the Ace, the now wealthier Ms. Bleu.

We may of course never know what transpired at the mediation meeting but it seems hardly likely that Judge Major would have tolerated such a paltry settlement without a modicum of knowledge of the facts on both sides of the case and actual figures of money involved.

The financial cost of this fruitless exercise has been high and will be met by money used by UCO that should have been returned to it’s rightful owners - the residents.

Alas we duped mortals will now wait till next January before receiving our monthly stipend.

The cost to our credibility caused by this undignified behavior will merely enhance our already tarnished reputation in the media and outside the confines of our perimeters.

Course those eggy faces on the podium yesterday could be due to the sandwiches served at the mediation meeting - which was so thoughtfully shared (not the sandwiches the details of - they has tuna too!) by Phyllis Richland - pass that towel round when you are finished with it Mr. President!

Apr 5, 2008 9:29:00 PM

Mediation Settlement

The Delegates at the meeting this am voted to approve the proposed settlement. I am sure Dave will expound on this post. I for one am glad to see it happen so that we mat proceed to Village business and put this behind us

Drop UCO new building

Drop UCO building

We have learned this morning that UCO has accepted a settlement agreement from WPRF that is about $600,000 more than Mr. Levy's previous offer. It is far from the $12,000,000 anticipated by this Administration just a few months ago. After acceptance by the Delegates tomorrow, peace will therefore prevail again between UCO and WPRF in our Village. Good!

The timing is right so UCO should continue in this conciliatory mood by finally putting ego aside and negociate with our new friend ( Mr. Levy ) to lodge the UCO Office into the Main Clubhouse. It is much more reasonnable than constructing another building. Andre

money-wasting tracker

Excellent money-wasting tracker on the left hand side. I hope people are watching it. I suspect, with other fees and deductibles, it is more than that, as you say we are only just getting started.
Prez GL did say that with a simple delegate vote arbitration could be ended at any time, that would get us $1.8M less fees (I think). The end of arbitation will get us ????????

Correction to the Article of Ms. Tetro in the UCO reporter

I have heard some complaints about the evaluation made by UCO Treasurer Dorothy Tetro, concerning the WPRF budget and just on what the 70% is based.

There is no question that she was not present when discussions began about the RENT ABATEMENT for CASUALITY LOSS. In those discussions both sides AGREED ALL of our payments are RENT.
It is therefore the entire payment against which the abated amount is calculated… FOR THE CASUALITY LOSS. I am amazed that this team, requesting reelection, still does not have a clear understanding of the “dispute”

I hope it has become clearer that we DO NOT HAVE ANY expectation or entitlement to abated rent during any renovation staging. The real dispute, regardless of the multiple fantasy claims of others, is clear! The millennium agreement provides for rent abatement for CASUALITY LOSS ONLY. Our responsibility for delays caused as a result of our efforts to combine “RENOVATIONS” while using the insurances claims money in recover, was to be sure, a difficult operation. The alternative was to permit the insurance money to replace wallpaper, carpet and NOT MAKE ADA COMPLIANT CHANGES TO REST ROOMS AND ENTRANCES. We replaced rotted window frames and windows to preserve the insurance replaced interior improvements eliminating the need for assessments after the insurance funding was completed.

We should be able to discuss openly with WPRF the time line of delays, many of which were permit inspections that repeatedly failed. We should remember both sides mutually agreed to accept the finished report of the CH2MHILL engineering study, that has not been released to the Delegate Assembly and, if memory serves me was about $ 1,600,000.00 they felt was due to residents.
How can they justify 11 Million???

So why are we in arbitration? The engineering report clearly approximates the offer by WPRF. It was a good beginning for opening a serious discussion, and yet, even now, it would seem the UCO Treasurer is unaware of the fundamentals of our COMPLAINT. THE UCO VICE-PRESIDET AND PRESIDENT HAVE FAILED TO EXPLAIN TO EVEN ONE OF UCO’S OFFICERS THE NATURE OF OUR COMPLAINT? At this late date, how is it possible that 7 Officers are not on the “same page” on this dispute?

They have a rally on March 2, 2008; perhaps you should attend and demand an explanation of these important differences. Why do they continue to bash others rather than present their vision of just how we may WIN/LOSE the arbitration? Why have they no vision of major changes to IMPROVE services in this village? Why do we need a office building, which incidentally has INCREASED IN COSTS SINCE THEIR ILLFATED IMPROPERLY NOTICED MEETING, CALLED A “POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, WITH NO NEED TO CHECK-IN". Ask about the increased costs and delays that they cannot justify. Remember this plan was approved, and still it has been 6 months since all was completed, in September 2007. Do you remember their complaint that it took the prior Administration 8 months for permits to completely renovate a 35+ year old building necessitating many code upgrades. Why then has a new building approved and contracts signed failed to begin for the last 6 months?

Attend the rally, hear them speak, decide if you may count on “progress” from this group who has spent most of their effort touting themselves as the “good guys”. Can we believe the next two years will be any different? Just who can you trust, those whose ego drives them to make our decisions or those who want
YOU to DECIDE? It’s up to
Y O U !!
We should be voting for
C H A N G E! They have had their chance and floundered. Now it is "YOUR" CHANCE

Ed Black

CH2MHILL REPORT ON THE RESTORATION OF THE CV CLUBHOUSE

In the Comment stream of another Post; Elaine expresses an interest in the Summary Report of the Engineering study Commissioned by UCO regarding the Restoration of the Clubhouse.

This Report is reputed to have cost the Unit Owners of CV $70,000.00. Have you seen this report? Does it support our claims for $11,000,000.00?

The Light of Truth thinks NOT!

Furthermore, in search of a more promising report, UCO has committed more of our money for yet further Engineering studies; in hopes no doubt for a "better answer"

Following is the introduction to The CH2MHILL report;

every Unit Owner should rise , every Delegate should DEMAND that UCO release the entire document so that the Unit Owners and the Delegates may see that Myron Solomon's unconstrained fantasies of Mob Hysteria millions are below contempt.

UCO; tell the truth; release the full report; we paid for it:

-----------------------------------------------------------


MEETING SUMMARY
CH2MHILL

ATTENDEES:
COPIES:
FROM: DATE:
Mark Scaffidi/Group One Randy Liebig /Yoshino Architects
File, Attendees, Mark levy/WPRF, George Loewenstein/UCO
R.Valladares/CH2M HILL June 13, 2006

Meeting was held on June 7, 2006. The purpose of the meeting focused on receiving information that was previously requested in prior meetings.
Pete Scaffidi and Randy Liebig provided the following items and they include the following:

A. Architectural - Yoshino drawings for the auditorium (dated 4/21/2006) which are underreview by the city. Permit is pending. UCO is waiting for WPRF to present a written scopeof work and the associated costs (Not attached).

Action Item: Scope and cost are to be presented to UCO for review and approval

B. Sound system quotation from Acoutech Corp. dated Oct. 26, 2004. Quote states that is for Century Village Boca Raton. Pete stated that this was the list developed to replace the damaged equipment submitted to the Insurance Company (Zurich). It includes material only and does not include labor. Quote: $27,567.36 (Attachment 1).

Action Items: Group One shall provide an updated quotation that shall include labor. CH2M HILL recommends that Acoutech Corp. provide two quotations; one for replacement (insured) and one for requested upgrades.

C. Sound System Quotation by Commercial Sound & Design Group, Inc. dated March 16,2006. Quotation includes UCO's request to upgrade the system and provides a total quote of$101,121.19 comprised of labor and materials (Attachment 2).

Action item: A) WPRF to provide the scope of work to UCO for review and approval. Note that selection of equipment was made by WPRF personnel (Abbey Koffler) for compatibility with other facilities. CH2M HILL recommends that Sound System provide two quotations; one for replacement (insured) and one for requested upgrades.

D. Provided the original scope of work for damages covered under Insurance (total of 137 pages). The information provided is a listing of quantities and labor to be provided and does not include any cost associated with the work. Pete Scaffidi stated that the approximate dollar amount for the scope of the work was $3.5 million. (No drawing or specifications were furnished for the work - Attachment 3)
MEETING SUMMARY 06_07_2006.DOC


Action Item: Group One will provide the cost per the original scope of the work

E. Provided a list of damages as it applied to "contents". The list provided makes a distinction between "personal items" and "non-personal" items. Pete stated that items stated as personal were not covered by insurance. Pete confirmed that if the items were provided under the "operational budget", these then would be covered. Pete will re-evaluate the list and may move some items into the non-personal column (list provided -Attachment 4).
Action items: A) Group One to meet with Zurich and reconcile the list to include all items that are not "personal items". B) UCO to review the attached list and provide concurrence.

F. Schedule of the Auditorium. Group One proved a list of tasks with start and end date for each task. This, per say is not a CPM schedule and lacks logic and a critical path.

Work is scheduled to begin June 26, 2006 and to finish by October 31, 2006. This does not meet the criteria of a CPM, however WPRF remains responsible for managing the work. (Attachment5)

G. List of: 1. pre existing and unforeseen conditions that affected the work, 2. Code enforcement upgrades, 3. Material Procurements, 4. Insurance delays, 5. Concurrent Delays.This list is comprised of the Following (no attachment):

I. Existing Conditions: (Group One/Yosino, in response to code inspection requirements, provided the following list of items that were required by code to comply with the ongoing repair work. All of the items with exception to item 5 were assessed to WPRF)

1. Separation (shaft) in Party room to second floor ceiling Joist - Yosino stated that this was required by code.
2. Separation of buildings between party room and theater - (comment same as itemone).
3. Underground sanitary plumbing (damaged sanitary pipe).
4. Brick around window and doors not filled (Required for new windows installation-cell fill, upgrade)


5. Locker room exterior soffit. It is understood that this item was settled under the two thirds, one third (See Millennium Amendment page 4 of 32 Paragraph O.2.i)

6. Lack of Fire Blocking Throughout the building (Required by code)
7. Entry between Card room and hallway over separation was made of wood. It had to be changed to concrete. (Also shaft wall was built on header and two side walls for the required rated enclosure)

II. Code Enforcement Upgrades: (Group One/Yosino, in response to code inspection requirements, provided the following to meet the fire ratings required by code. All of the items were assessed to WPRF)


MEETING SUMMARY 06 07_2006.DOC
COPYRIGHT 2006 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL


1. Four hour rated wall: The south and west wall of the lobby, and the north wall ofthe theatre up to the roof were rated per code.
2. Four hour wall extension to exterior soffit: The front of the Southside of the porte-cochere.
3. Fill in of all existing masonry opening throughout complete building to meet firecode requirements.
4. Shaft ceilings in rated hallways (Three hallways). Above drop ceiling Group Onehad to provide one hour rated corridors, and in order to achieve this they installed ashaft ceiling per code requirements.
5. Rated staircases: A 2 hour rated stair case was required per code at two locations.
6. A/C dampers in rated ceilings required by code
7. Fire stop and draft stop: Throughout the building this was required for fire code compliance.
8. Electrical panels - 8 panels affected and changed out to meet U.L listing per code.
9. Installed ADA bathrooms - Entrance to hallway bathrooms modified 1st & 2nd floors modified to be ADA compliant.

10. Fire rated doors - single and double doors within hallway were required to meet fire rating.
11. Fire proof spray of the staircase floor joists: At the stair cases and downstairs hallway ceilings the spray was required per code.
III. Material Procurements - Delays
1. Windows. Held up the stucco and drywall (3 weeks)
2. Exterior doors. Frames were in, but glass delayed the work by 2 weeks
3. Stucco Foam - Porte-cohere: Still on order. (No real delay at this time)
4. Drywall - (No delay)
IV. Insurance delays
1. Agreement to allow demolition of certain areas in order to begin: Due tonegotiations and mold investigations. (3 to 4 weeks)
2. Industrial hygienist (mold report required by Zurich adjuster - Damaged or wet drywall and ductwork. (Per item one above)
V. Concurrent delays - Labor - Failed Inspections - Non Performance
1. Stucco labor. Inability to procure labor
2. Tile installer lack of man power. Inability to procure labor

MEETING SUMMARY 06 07 2006.DOC
COPYRIGHT 2006 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

3. Failed inspections - 28 of 19 inspections were code related new items discovered by inspectors. 9 inspection were related to Sub-contractor for items to be corrected
Action Item:
H. A set of Signed and sealed sketches showing changes to the work (Attachment 6) that include:




Description
Drawing Number
Comments

Lobby soffit Framing - Overhang
SK03-31A
Requested by UCO
New Concrete Slab Framing @ Shaft
SK06-10B
Required by code (occurred at the separation between the Buildings.
Detail @ Soffit Framing (roof)
SK01-20B
Compensated under the 70/30 agreement
Elevation @ New Interior CMU openings
SK05-25B
(reason and number of opening) UCO?
Slab Repair for openings
SK05-25A
Used for the sanitary line fix
Metal Framing Opening Enclosure Detail at existing window openings
SK06-21A

Detail @ Concrete Wall Extension
SK01-20A
Required by code for 4 hour fire rating
Section @ New opening in CMU Wall
SK05-25C
Requested by UCO
Existing CMU Openings Block -Up
SK05-25D
Requested by UCO part of the Arch. Program/space allocations
Metal Framing Opening Enclosure Detail (Alternate to detail 4 of drawing S-3
SK06-10A
?
New Concrete Slab Framing @ Shaft
SK06-10B

Partial Roof Plan Storm Drain System
SK-P-1
Chiller roof drain (WPRF)
Canopy Foundation-Schedules & Notes
SK02-03A
Requested by UCO (work stopped)
Preliminary inventory of items to be presented to UCO, WPR, Zurich




i
1
MEETING SUMMARY 06 07 2006.DOC
COPYRIGHT 2006 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

I. Theater -Preliminary inventory of items to be presented to Zurich, UCO, WPRF (Three Lists - Attachments 7,8,&9). Purpose of the list is to clarify items to be covered by insurance. Items not covered will then be presented for determination as a WPRF or UCO cost. The inventory includes the following:

Item Description
UCO ...WPRF... Zurich
General Demolition - per hour
X ...........X............ X
Stage lighting system
X

X
Rough-in for audio/visual
X

X
Interior duct work - fiber board
X ............X ............X
A/C package units
X ............X ............X
Steel structural a/c units
X ............X............ X
Concealed fire protection system
X ............X ............X
Sound system
X ............X
Suspended ceiling system - Standard grade 2'x4'
X

X
Framing & rough Carpentry

X
X
Framing for design of ceiling
X


Framing for new design of dressing rooms
X


Steel door- 6' opening
X

X
Hearing impaired system
X

X
Wall insulation
X ............X ............X
Post construction clean
X

X
5/8" drywall 0 type C - hung, taped
X

X
Steel joist rigging for light and sound system
X

X
Metal handrail system
X ............X............ X
Walk way lighting system
X

X
Theater screen
X

X
Frame platform to accept wood floor
X


Install hardwood 2-1/4 oak floor for platform
X


Concrete overlay ADA ramp interior of Theater
X ............X

Floor covering - carpet
X


MEETING SUMMARY 06_07_2006.DOC
COPYRIGHT 2006 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

Finish Carpentry/Trim work
X


Plumbing and fixtures for ADA bathrooms

X

Roof repair for Wilma

X

Concrete ADA ramps

X

Chair lift for platform

X

Action item: Group One to meet with Zurich and report finding

J. Received, via mail, the drawings for the Architectural/Yoshino - dated 2/18/2005, HVAC/Hill York mechanical drawings, and the Fire Protection/Farmer & Irwin drawings

General Items of Discussion

1. Auditorium:

a. Lighting major renovation required in order to permit use as anAuditorium / Theatre.

Action item: Yoshino to identify lighting and the cost of ADA and life safety Group One to provide the cost of these as a separate item

b. Yoshino provided the lighting requirements for the theater as shown in contract drawing E2.3. Yoshino stated that the criteria provides for two separate use areas The upper level designated for normal theatre lighting, and, 2. The lower leveldesignated for meeting use. The legend on the drawing makes distinction betweenthree areas: front, middle and rear. Lighting levels in the lower area were increase to meet the use for meetings. This function was considered and upgrade per UCCrequest. Typical industry lighting standards for and auditorium assembly are 1and for auditorium reading 30 to 50 fc's (Attachment 10). The average, as stated in the drawings, is: Front -17 fc, Middle -16.2 fc, Rear -13.4 fc which meet the criteria for auditorium assembly only.
c. Discussed and listed the existing platform lighting: spot light in projection booth,and 16 Altman Lekos lighting, 12 - 4X6 Fresnels, 6 foot 3 color strips, and 18 dimmerpack.

Action item: Group One to provide the insured replacement cost for the damaged existing lighting and will also provide a cost for UCO's upgrade request. The cost are to include labor and material for proper comparison

d. WPRF to provide a full quote for pre-existing conditions with material and laborcost per Acoutech Corp. system. In addition, they are to take Commercial Sound &Design Group (design basis) and request a quotation from Acoutech Corp.
2. Group One is working on the following items:
a. Group One will meet with Zurich to identify additional items covered under insurance

MEETING SUMMARY 06_07_2006.DOC
COPYRIGHT 2006 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL



■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■
b. Group One will reconcile "Contents" list with Zurich and provide findings
c. Group One will provide UCO with a written scope of work for the auditorium,and will separately identify upgrade requests for UCO's review and approval.

d. Group One will provide baseline-insurance cost (quotations) for:
1. Auditorium (I.e. lighting, sound system, ADA, Life Safety etc.)
2. Original building damages without upgrades. The quantity survey (scope)has been provided.

3. General Conditions - AIA
Group One and Yoshino clarified that no conditions per AIA were provided for any of the previous work. They stated that for the Theater they will use the AIA conditions. WPRF to confirm and advise.
END OF DOCUMENT

UCO Article by M. Solomon

So! Mr. Solomon, Y O U convinced the Executive Board and Delegate Assembly to go into Arbitration, WITHOUT ANY FACTS OR DETAILS AS TO WHY WE ARE SO ENTITLED TO FULL ABATEMENT.
Have you read the Millennium Agreement, especially as it clearly states: “Lessor agrees that, should any significant portion of the recreation facilities become unusable as the result of a casualty, Lessor will use its best effort to restore same to use as soon as reasonably possible. However, during such period of unusability, Lessee’s rent will be reduced proportionately”. That covers returning the clubhouse to EXACTLY the same condition as it was prior to the “casualty”, with leaking windows and doors, wallpapered walls, replacement carpeting that became flooded during rainstorms. JUST as soon as we began to modify the original clubhouse, WE CREATED DELAYS THAT WERE NOT CAUSED BY CASUALTY! Meaning, clearly, that we would NOT BE COVERED for those periods of time where delays were due to UPGRADES TO IMPROVE THE MORE THAN 35 YEAR OLD CLUBHOUSE.
Have you seen the CH2MHILL REPORT, AND DOES IT AGREE WITH YOU OR NOT?
Apparently, you believe the proof needed to compel Arbitrators to FIND IN OUR FAVOR, is that “we are old”. The contract, HOWEVER, is clearly against your VIEW!
Perhaps the residents, after losing the case THAT YOU CONVINCED EVERYONE TO PROCEED WITH, will feel compelled to enter into a legal claim against you for FAILING YOUR FIDUCARY RESPONSIBILITY TERRIBLY!

I would be personally opposed to such an action, because we have already been sufficiently embroiled in TOO much UNSUBSTANTIATED LEGAL MANEUVERING.

Ed Black

RICHER THAN CROESUS

In another Post,

Anonymous said...

AN OPEN QUESTION FOR THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF UCO:

Why did you hire an architect to complete drawings for an awning in front of the clubhouse only to find your permit request REJECTED by COUNTY?

Shouldn’t you have made certain that a permit could be issued?

WHY waste the money? Just how much money did you WASTE?

Was this item budgeted?

You continually speak of keeping costs down,

HOW'S THAT WORKING FOR YOU?

Feb 23, 2008 2:20:00 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------

The Light of Truth asks;

-----------------

1) Where do you think all of this money is coming from; we are taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from Legally approved Budget lines to fund UCO's mad legal adventure in search of millions of fantasy dollars from WPRF.

-------------------

Has UCO studied the Resident's Reserve Accounting pertaining to the Clubhouse Restoration?

-------------------

Has UCO studied the CH2M HILL Engineering Report?

-------------------

Do either support UCO's insane Legal fiasco?

-------------------

How long will UCO persist; How much of OUR money will UCO squander in fruitless endeavor?

----------------------

How long will the Delegates be pushed by Solomon's wild Mob tactics?

------------------------

Tell the Delegates the Truth, release the key documents referenced above, and then Resign En-Mass and let the adults clean up your mess!

------------------------

LoT