I live in a West Boca community with lots of lakes.

Over the last four years, our community has been engaged in an ongoing dialogue about the gradual erosion of our lake banks and what to do about it. Initially, burrowing catfish were blamed. Then various experts came through to study the matter more thoroughly. A gradual consensus developed that the erosion was mainly caused naturally by wind.

It has been much more difficult to come to a consensus on what to do about lake bank erosion.

A couple of years ago, the Board of Directors appointed a committee of homeowners to study the issue in-depth, assess the extent of the erosion and make recommendations to remedy the problem.

The committee presented a comprehensive report to the Board. They researched five remedial techniques – concrete mat, rip rap, bulkhead, filter fabric, and geo filter tubes. They recommended the geo filter solution because it was both the best aesthetic solution and the cheapest of the five methods. They urged that the geo tube solution be implemented throughout the community in one fell swoop at a cost of about $750,000.

Soon thereafter, Wilma struck and the lake bank project took a back seat to healing the community’s wounds from by far the most damaging hurricane in its 20-year history.

The lake bank issue got back on the front burner in 2007. A new committee was established and made a report to the Board similar to the previous one, but this time it framed the issue with even greater urgency. The Board decided to call for the required homeowner vote on a special assessment to fund a community-wide remedy. The vote will take place at the Association’s 2008 Annual Members Meeting.

About 2/3 of our lake bank linear footage abuts lakefront owner lots and the remaining 1/3 abuts the Common Area. However, the lake banks are 100% owned by the Association. Per HOA counsel, the special assessment must be levied equally on all homeowners, regardless of whether their lots are lakefront or dry.

Both lake bank committees urged the Board to adopt their recommended course of action because a) it would improve the aesthetic quality of our community to the benefit of all b) the continued deterioration of our lake banks increases our community’s liability and c) our Governing Documents obligate the HOA to do so.

Dry lot owners make up 73% of the Association’s membership. Some take the view that the aesthetic result of restoring our lake banks will primarily benefit the 27% of owners who own lakefront lots. It has also been noted that the Documents require the HOA to maintain the lakes, but does not specifically refer to the lake banks. Additionally, the obligation to maintain the lakes is contingent upon the HOA having the funds to do so. If the special assessment is voted down, it would appear that the HOA will be off the hook.

Some dry lot owners point out that lakefront lot owners have the right to irrigate their landscaping by drawing free water from the lakes, but dry lot owners must use municipal water at considerable cost.

Interestingly, all six members of the 2005 committee were lakefront owners. When the new committee was appointed in 2007, eight of nine were lakefront owners. The ninth had a lake view from the rear of his house.

The Board itself is made up of 60% dry lot owners. In a straw poll, 80% of the Board favored piecemeal lake bank restoration over many years, financed by regular assessments rather than doing it all at once via a special assessment.

It appears that those who favor a $750,000 special assessment face an uphill battle. We’ll see next month.

Meanwhile, what’s up with the lake bank erosion issue in your community?

> Discuss this entry