SBRM COA Voting Info

April 18, 2023 

1. The financial transaction would be a mortgage putting the deeds in the COA name at closing, instead of only after each annual payment is made.
2. Instead of giving up the Upper Tennis Courts, they would be relocated to behind the guard booth.
3. Beachside would no longer get access to the RO Inlet.
4. Beachside and the COA would equally share the cost of repair and protection of the pool deck.

• The board has the authority to bring the Property Purchase Proposal to the owners for approval per
  • The COA ByLaws Art II, Section 2(l), in defining the powers of the board of directors, says that  those powers include “Making of repairs, additions and improvements to or alterations of the Condominium Property” 
  • The VI Code (28 VIC Sec 905(e) regarding condominium common areas says that "The necessary work of maintenance, repair and replacement of the common areas and facilities and the making of any additions or improvements thereto shall be carried out only as provided herein and in the bylaws." 
• The Board has replied to owners asking questions about the proposal and has listened to owner suggestions.  The Board has not called owners to solicit favorable votes.
• Regarding Financial Advice:  the December 2021 Property and Generator Assessment Notice stated “The PROPERTY invoice will be sent this week in order for owners to make a payment in 2021.  …  As indicated in other communications – owners are advised to consult their accountants – the COA cannot advise owners on what can be written off as an expense for tax purposes. “
• Here are some items in italics that the Board pursued based on recommendations from the Balanced View Team in the summer of 2021.  Many attempts were made by the Board as well as by legal counsel to no avail.  The "global settlement" we hoped to get was not viable.
  • Restrict Beachside and their tenants use of the land between the buildings and the water - prevent or limit the placement of tents and kiosks.   Beachside would not accept any restrictions because it would limit the revenue opportunity of that land.
  • Reduce the noise level and hours of noisy operation of Beachside tenant events. Beachside would not accept any noise concessions.  Beachside responded that they acquire the relevant VI permits for their venues and events and abide by those permits (e.g. 11pm for Full Moon parties).
  • Purchase the Pool Deck and Pool Buildings.   Beachside would not include anything in the deal that they believe has revenue potential.
  • Dedicate specific areas of the Pool Deck exclusively to the COA.  Allow the COA to use the Pool Bar.  Beachside rejected any restrictions to their use of the Pool Deck and unrestricted use by the COA of the Pool Bar Building.
  • Drop the lawsuits against the COA and the named Directors.  Beachside was not willing to settle any of the lawsuits despite many requests by the board as well as by legal counsel Maria Hodge.
• The COA has the right to oppose “material” issues with Beachside permits.  The terms in Exhibit 5 are reciprocal - neither party will oppose applications the other makes that don’t affect them.
  • “…the COA agrees that it will not oppose any application by the Beachside Parties… that does not materially interfere with the COA’s use of or access to … or its rights and enjoyment of its other existing property, including access from Smith Bay Road. …
  • … the parties agree that the Beachside Parties will not oppose any application by the COA, … for the development of  the COA Parcels, nor for the construction of Multipurpose Courts … that does not materially interfere with the Beachside Parties’ use of or access to the Beachside Parties’ property.
• Regarding the April 16 email from the Balanced View Team, as stated in that email, the COA was not notified of the permit application for the Sea Salt construction.  The Board was not apprised of the building permits or planned construction of Sea Salt.