The Shaker Village clubhouse. {Google Maps}
By Kathleen Johnson
Just when you hoped that Tamarac politics would be more above board and transparent than in the past, I find it hasn’t changed much, at least not with some elected officials. Please bear with me as this may seem long, but this shakedown has many issues.
Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Marlon Bolton and City Attorney Hans Ottinot seem to have violated city procedures, Florida Statute, and public policy by a backroom deal in which they conspired to have the city purchase land belonging to a private community, Shaker Village, at Canterbury Lane in Tamarac.
Without full commission approval, a contract was drawn up by the “city attorney” between the City of Tamarac and Shaker Village, even after he was confronted for doing so at a commission budget workshop. I put the city attorney in quotes because Ottinot appears to work at the behest of one commissioner, Bolton, and takes his direction from him rather than the entire commission or what is best for the city, his actual client for which we pay him. And this deal with Shaker Village is terrible for the city.
Make no mistake; this was intentional. If given transparency in the process, Tamarac residents would have spoken out loud and clearly that this deal is terrible for the residents of Tamarac and the residents of any HOAs in the city. Residents spoke out forcefully about the Colony West Golf Course and successfully stopped that project.
Unfortunately, the same night the Shaker Village deal came up for a vote, most residents, rightfully happy with the golf course project being pulled, left the meeting before it was discussed. Very few people knew what was coming and the enormous cost to the city that it would have in more than one way.
This vote and process not only violates city procedure and policies (buying a private community’s land and rescuing them from the liens against them) but there are many reasons it is bad public policy. Each commissioner and the city attorney were advised by real estate attorney and Mayor Michelle J. Gomez, who cited State and case law, and by title underwriters who were consulted for advice on a clear title for this issue (for title searches and insurance issues associated with this purchase owned by 358 homeowners) that this could not go forward because Shaker Village must get the approval of 75% of their HOA members/residents. This is because each resident owns a portion of the common property.
Yet, the attorney and three commissioners refused to heed any warnings and proceeded with the vote to purchase this property, which was a 3-2 vote, so it passed. This violates Shaker Village’s Governing Documents (by-laws) and Florida Statute 718.113 regarding the powers of HOA boards. It sets a bad precedent for any HOA to be able to sell common land without the community’s approval or, as the case here, each owner’s approval. One board of five individuals cannot decide for an entire community, even if they feel it is in the best interest of that community. Exhibit D_0005
There are reasons for laws such as this, and they are to protect the community as a whole. As the HOA president of Mainlands Four, I know my limitations. Anything of this magnitude is required to have the entire community vote. The Shaker Village Board is no different and has not gotten the necessary votes. If every Shaker Village resident was for this deal, the board would have sought the 75% vote required to make it happen legally, wouldn’t they? Yet they have not done so. Why? Would you want someone else to be able to vote to terminate your ownership of your property without your consent? I don’t.
Bolton, using his pressure and private meetings with the HOA Board to get this deal done, stands to benefit financially from this deal, not only with this deal but in continued financial gain. How? Because he, using the name of his church (which is a whole other issue), purchased the Shaker Village residence where he is living. He (and his church) would be assessed for monies owed to the city if this deal was not done and for needed infrastructure for Shaker Village. Exhibit B_0007
Shaker Village and its residents owe the city around $12 million in code violations and fines to date. Some of it is against individual owners, and at least $3 million is against the HOA for the common area property on which the destroyed clubhouse sits (meaning all owners collectively owe that money). That would necessitate the funds to collect the fines through a special assessment against each homeowner. Bolton (by proxy through his church) is a homeowner.
The contract that Ottinot drew up states that all money owed in debt is to be wiped clean so that each home and the common properties have clear title, meaning every homeowner in Shaker Village benefits financially from this sale, and Tamarac taxpayers suffer monies that should rightfully be collected to assist all residents in keeping our taxes low.
The residents of Shaker Village would no longer owe money collectively or individually, meaning Bolton gains a tremendous financial advantage at the expense of Tamarac taxpayers. He refused to recuse himself when confronted about this conflict of interest and that he should not be voting on this project. In addition, he gains financially as Shaker Village will no longer assess for the upkeep of the property, utility bills, and insurance, which will result in a drop in insurance and maintenance fees, all of which will now be the taxpayers of Tamarac’s responsibility. Why should we bail out a private community that mismanaged funds, refused to work with the city to rectify things, and be burdened with the bill for a dilapidated property for years?
So $12 million in public funds will not be collected. Then another $12 million will be spent. There are many other reasons this is bad for Tamarac taxpayers.
The deal calls for Tamarac to pay Shaker Village $1.94 million for the property valued at 1.25 million. The entire three tracks of the common area were valued at 1.94 million, but we are only purchasing one (1) track! One! Why are we overpaying? Why are we paying at all? They owe the city $3 million for fines against that property. Now we not only wipe out their debt but pay for the privilege to do so. Unacceptable.
Again, the money paid would belong to the residents of Shaker Village. Bolton benefits personally, either because he will get that money directly or it will be used to repair the infrastructure that is needed and required, negating Bolton’s property being assessed for that improvement cost as would typically occur, not to mention the future financial gains outlined. That doesn’t even include the recommended $8-10 million to tear down and rebuild the clubhouse into a community center that could only hold about 75-100 individuals with only 25 parking spaces when we have a community center two miles down the road.
It would also include a shared use agreement between Shaker Village and the city. Why is the city entering into a Shared Use Agreement with a private community to use a city-owned facility? Again, Tamarac taxpayers would foot the bill for a community center and all future expenses – insurance, upkeep, building maintenance, and utilities.
The list goes on, to the tune of approximately $100,000 per year. Also, it sets a precedent for other HOAs, mine included, that see the unfairness of this. Why should all Tamarac taxpayers rebuild someone’s clubhouse for them when they were given insurance money to rebuild their clubhouse but did not, and then give them extra/special privileges to use it? If the city owns it and we taxpayers are paying for it to be built, SV should have no more rights to use it than any other resident of Tamarac. Why is this special shared-use agreement even required in the contract? Is it even legal?
If you keep track of the numbers, this deal will cost Tamarac taxpayers, us, $24 million minimally and at least $100,000 per year in upkeep and maintenance.
The city attempted to work with Shaker Village in 2019 to repair the clubhouse, but the community did nothing. Now they are asking the taxpayers of Tamarac to absorb the costs. How is this fair and equitable for all residents of Tamarac?
To summarize, the deal sets a poor precedent. It burdens taxpayers with legal fees (much of which Ottinot will collect as billable hours), payouts, and unfair and unwise practices that fit the needs of one Commissioner at the expense of the others and one community of 358 at the expense of the 72,000 residents of the city.
- Why is the board working without resident consent?
- Would you want someone else to be able to vote to terminate your ownership of your property without your consent?
- Why did Marlon Bolton not recuse himself from this vote due to a conflict of interest? Is the vote even legal because he did not?
- Why should we bail out a private community that mismanaged funds, refused to work with the city to rectify things, and be burdened with the bill for a dilapidated property for years?
- Why should their code violations and fines be wiped clear to the tune of $12 million?
- Why are we overpaying for this property? Why are we paying at all?
- Why is the city entering into a Shared Use Agreement with a private community to use a city-owned facility?
- Why should all Tamarac taxpayers rebuild someone’s clubhouse for them when they were given insurance money to rebuild their clubhouse but did not, and then give them extra/special privileges to use it?
- Is this deal even legal?
- What happened to the transparency everyone promised in their campaigns?
This project is not in the best interest of ALL residents of Tamarac. The contract between the City and Shaker Village may be signed by July 31. It cannot go forward.
We, the citizens of Tamarac, deserve to be heard on this issue. $24 million of our hard-earned money is at stake.
