These records set out what was said and decided at the August 31, 2026 board meeting.
Quotes are verbatim from the meeting video posted on the Association website. The Association must keep that recording as an official record and post it for twelve months, so every quote here can be checked (§718.112(2)(c)1.; §718.111(12)(g)2.f.).
Owners who spoke are referred to by a letter. The owner who filed the records requests discussed in Item 7 is referred to as the new owner.
Written objections went to the board before the meeting on Items 3, 5, 6 and 7. Each is cited below. The recording tool in use was removed from the Zoom meeting partway through Item 5.1
Order of business: Item 5 was taken first, then Items 3, 4, 6 and 7. Item 4, ratifying the sale of Units 1004 and 1006, passed unanimously without discussion.
What was promised, and what has happened since
The next board meeting is Monday, September 28, 2026. This is the list to read before it. The survey deadline has passed without a survey, and none of the other open items has a written answer yet.
| Commitment | Who | Due | Status as of Sept 26 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electronic water-intrusion survey to all owners (motion, 5–0) | Property management | Sept 15 | Not sent |
| Survey results at a duly noticed board meeting | Marissa Carvajal | End of September | No survey, so no results |
| 1906 bids returned to the board | Capital | Sept 24 | Met — three bids and Capital's evaluation circulated Sept 24 |
| Review of prior 1906 repair work | Capital | Asked at the meeting | No written review provided |
| Written accounting of the panel program | Management | Requested Aug 30 | Not provided |
| Owners billed for panel drywall and paint | Management | After final invoice | Not billed |
Item 5 — Unit 1906: a generic repair sent out for bids
The board voted 4–0, with one abstention, to send Falcon's specification out for bids. The contract award is now on the September 28 agenda.
A diagnosis was already paid for. Robert Zimmerman brought Capital in before Capital was hired as owner's representative. Capital recommended Miami Curtain Wall Consultants (MCWC), which inspected the unit on April 21, 2026 and produced a detailed report. MCWC's invoice #4404608, dated April 28, totals $5,250.00 for that report, and it is billed not to the Association but to "Robert Zimmerman, 1000 Venetian Way, Unit 1906."
The scope now before the board was written by Falcon, not by MCWC.
What Capital said about Falcon's scope. Alex Forjan, Capital:
"for the most part, I would call it a generic specification because it has generic repairs in it"
"They don't know where the exact locations are"
What was raised. A written objection went to the board on August 30 that the 1906 materials were incomplete and not ready for approval.2 At the meeting the repair history was read into the record: an engineering investigation and balcony waterproofing in 2013; moisture assessment, wall-cavity drying, sliding-door and impact-glass work in 2015; a formal water test in 2019 with work through August 2020; stucco repair; balcony waterproofing in 2021; further work in 2023 and 2024.
The MCWC report identified a single drain serving the terrace above, unexplained plastic vents on the West Tower window wall, and a metal pipe on the 1906 balcony of unknown origin. None has been investigated. Robert Zimmerman said at the meeting that "Falcon is aware of the pipe." Asked whether Falcon's scope mirrors the MCWC report, Alex Forjan said MCWC "does address many of the same things that we're talking about here."
Whether Capital had reviewed that history. Asked whether he had reviewed the prior work, Alex Forjan said: "I did." Asked whether he had all of it: "I think I did." Sandeep Chugani then asked him to do it:
"Alex, my ask of you is to just please review what's been done. At least you have a chronology and a lineage."
"Frankly, I don't really think that history really means a lot right now because it's still there." — Alex Forjan
Rakesh Sarna on the history:
"Of course, I think there's no need to go into history. The patient is still sick. We need a doctor to get it fixed."
"It's no use doing an autopsy now. The patient is dead."
Robert Zimmerman:
"Rachel, you went to [the 1906 owner's] apartment just months ago and told him that within days someone was going to rip out his entire vanity and start working on this. So what has changed from when you're seeing it that urgently to now saying we should just wait?"
The position then and now: the unit needs to be dried out. Nothing seen shows an emergency that requires a swing stage on this wall months before the building-wide restoration covers it. On June 5 the Unit 1906 communications were handed to Robert Zimmerman and Rakesh Sarna.
The survey. Sandeep Chugani asked what was being proposed. The proposal was a building-wide survey: "I think we should get an idea of everybody who is dealing with water intrusion because nobody else has been asked." Sandeep Chugani called it "a good suggestion." Robert Zimmerman made the survey motion.
The motions, as spoken:
-
"I move that we approve Falcon's project manual specifications for unit 1906 emergency repair for issuance to bidding. Authorized capital as the owner's representative to solicit and receive bids and present the resulting proposals to the board for consideration." — Moved by Julian Esses. Passed 4–0, one abstention.
-
"I move that property management by September 15th send out a survey, an electronic survey, to all unit owners requesting information about water intrusion into their apartment or into adjacent common areas with the results to be presented at a duly noticed board meeting by Marissa at the end of September." — Moved by Robert Zimmerman. Passed 5–0.
Where it stands. Falcon issued the specification for bidding on August 24, 2026. Three contractors bid: Fortify Restoration, Pro-Max Restoration & Paint, and CARE Construction.
One bidder was allowed to revise after the bids had been reviewed. Capital's Bid Evaluation Report of September 24 says so itself:
"Following the initial bid review, Pro-Max submitted revised Proposal #8013.1 dated September 24, 2026. The revised proposal has been incorporated into the comparison below."
Nothing in the report indicates Fortify or CARE was given the same opportunity. Their figures in the comparison are their original bids.
That revision raised Pro-Max's price by $5,150.00, and not one line of the repair scope changed. Sections A and B — the actual repair pricing — are identical to the cent in both versions. The whole increase sits in general conditions. The schedule went from 12 calendar days to 20.
Capital recommends Pro-Max on the revised bid, citing "the lowest comparable project cost" and "the shortest proposed schedule." Both are true of the revised figures. The board has not been shown that the recommended price is $5,150 above the bid that was opened, or that the schedule it is credited for is eight days longer than the one originally offered.
Pro-Max is the lowest of the three either way, against CARE at $57,965.52 and Fortify at $69,692.52.
All three bids line by line, and exactly what changed in the revision
Every figure below was checked against that contractor's own bid form, not against Capital's summary.
When each bid was submitted
| Bid | Dated |
|---|---|
| Fortify Restoration, #26-14109 | September 11, 2026 |
| Pro-Max Restoration & Paint, #8013 | September 11, 2026 |
| CARE Construction | September 23, 2026 |
| Pro-Max, revised #8013.1 | September 24, 2026 |
The three bids as compared
| Fortify | Pro-Max (revised) | CARE | |
|---|---|---|---|
| General conditions | $45,210.00 | $21,468.39 | $29,245.00 |
| Section A — lump sum | $4,050.00 | $4,740.17 | $10,000.00 |
| Section B — allowances | $14,515.00 | $11,046.94 | $14,568.00 |
| Shoring allowance | $2,000.00 | $2,000.00 | $2,000.00 |
| Subtotal | $65,775.00 | $39,255.50 | $55,813.00 |
| Permit | $2,551.00 est. | at cost, not quantified | $2,152.52 est. |
| Bond | $1,366.52 (2%) | $1,177.67 (3%) | not included |
| Total bid | $69,692.52 | $40,433.17 | $57,965.52 |
| Duration | 50 days | 20 days | 60 days |
| Access | 1 swing stage | 1 swing stage | single point work cage |
| Manpower | 4 | 2–5 | not stated |
The bottom lines are not strictly comparable. Pro-Max carries no permit figure where the other two estimated one, and CARE carries no bond where the other two priced one. Applying the same 4% permit basis the others used would put Pro-Max near $41,900 — still the lowest by a wide margin.
What changed between Pro-Max's two bids
| Pro-Max | #8013, Sept 11 | #8013.1, Sept 24 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section G — general conditions | $16,468.39 | $21,468.39 | +$5,000.00 |
| Section A — lump sum | $4,740.17 | $4,740.17 | — |
| Section B — allowances | $11,046.94 | $11,046.94 | — |
| Shoring allowance | $2,000.00 | $2,000.00 | — |
| Bond, 3% | $1,027.67 | $1,177.67 | +$150.00 |
| Total | $35,283.17 | $40,433.17 | +$5,150.00 |
| Duration | 12 calendar days | 20 calendar days | +8 days |
| Manpower | 2 | 2–5 |
One figure in Capital's table does not match the bid it came from. Capital lists Fortify's general conditions as $42,210.00. Fortify's own bid form gives Total Section G as $45,210.00 — mobilization $19,950.00, general conditions $17,010.00, clean-up and demobilization $8,250.00. The difference is $3,000.00. Capital's subtotal and total for Fortify are both correct and reconcile against the bid form, so this is a transcription error in one cell rather than a pricing error. It is noted because the comparison table is the document the board is voting from.
Capital notes that the bidders "treated permitting and payment/performance bonding differently," and that "the ultimate construction cost will depend in part on actual repair quantities identified and approved during construction." Many of the excluded items are work the building-wide recertification will do on the same wall.
On September 25 a request went to the board that the September 28 item be listed for discussion only, with four questions:3
- What current condition makes this package urgent now? "Severity and duration" describes the history, not the present.
- How did Falcon evaluate the MCWC report the Association paid for, and which of its recommendations are included, deferred or excluded?
- What is the full financial commitment, including allowances, exclusions and overlap with the recertification scope?
- Why is a standalone repair being accelerated while the board-ordered survey has not gone out?
Documented urgent protection of the unit has support. Awarding the broader contract before these are answered does not.
Item 3 — Twelve sets of unapproved minutes
Minutes for twelve meetings, March 30 through August 13, 2026, remain unapproved. Approval was tabled 5–0.
At 4:45 p.m. on the day of the meeting an email went to the board and management stating that the drafts had wrong names, misidentified people, and inaccurately recorded motions and votes, and asking that each be checked against its recording before approval.4
An example given at the meeting: "I made the motion to make Robert secretary and it says that you did."
Sandeep Chugani: "Rachel are you suggesting that there are inconsistencies on the record on the video versus what the transcript or is this a malintent in the room"
Rakesh Sarna agreed to wait:
"We have waited three months. We can wait one more board meeting. Let's do it right for the integrity of the history of information."
They are still wrong. Two of the twelve have since been opened and checked again. The errors identified before the meeting are still in them.
Only approved minutes may be posted to the owners' website (§718.111(12)(g)2.e.), so owners have no posted record of any board decision since March 30.
Item 6 — Capital extended with no end date, and the panel program
The board voted 4–1 to continue Capital Contractor Services (CPWR, LLC) as owner's representative with no end date. The panel accounting asked for was not provided before the vote, and has not been provided since.
What was asked for first. On August 30 management was asked for a decision-ready package: Capital's oversight of CES, panels completed and remaining, problems and how they were resolved, amounts paid to CES, and a unit-by-unit account of drywall and paint repairs and who paid.5 On August 31 an offer was made to support a continuation of up to 60 days while that was produced.6
The President's answer. Julian Esses, by email that morning: "The proposed item does not involve any change in the terms of the existing agreement, just an authorization to continue engaged with Capital for the time being." At the meeting the item was introduced as approved for a three-month term: "It's now been four months, actually, or a bit over four months." Julian Esses: "our contract has no limit so we can extend this month a month." Rakesh Sarna: "We continue until further notice."
Rakesh Sarna: "We have an open contract. We can terminate them anytime." Sandeep Chugani: "that is our right, that is our part of our contractual thing. So we could do that anytime."
Other directors on Capital:
"They're creating a problem where one doesn't exist." — Rakesh Sarna
"I, as a director, don't have enough empirical data to say that capital is doing a bad job." — Rakesh Sarna
"I have no complaints about the path capital is taking." — Robert Zimmerman
Competitive bidding. Rachel Chee A Tow: "I did this while I was president, and I really need to apologize because we didn't competitively bid it out, and this would give us an opportunity to remedy that." Robert Zimmerman replied that "the previous board had bid it to three companies, maybe four." Rachel Chee A Tow: "I don't think the bids from 2024 are acceptable for something we did in 2026."
The figures used in the debate did not match.
"Two electrical panel installations were poorly done that we know of out of 31." — Rakesh Sarna
"based on the evidence of 2 divided by 31" — Sandeep Chugani
"40 panels were done. 39 were part of the plan. One was added on after the fact." — Marissa Carvajal, minutes later
The electrical panel program
Capital's scope includes oversight of the CES panel program, and the panels are part of the 40-year recertification. Nobody has yet said in writing who was responsible for quality control.
Drywall and paint that should not have been needed. The new panels were larger than the old ones. With a careful cutout they would have fit with no drywall or paint work. The new owner raised this with Capital at the start:
"I made the comment right away about the cutouts. Did they take that into account and use that information for the rest of the units to make sure that we weren't going to be paying that extra drywall work"
"I wasn't exactly clear who was leading the project, who was the project manager, who was going to make sure that CES was going to be doing a good job."
The June 26 repair proposal charges $450 per technician per day with no total.5 Owners have not been billed, and no cost for the additional work has been reported. Marissa Carvajal: "We just got the final invoice from the company that did the drywall, at which point we will bill the owners."
Labeling and placement.
- An owner (Unit 201): "I had mine done and I was told they were inspected. I want to know who inspected it because none of it is labeled correctly."
- At Unit 1702 the panel was mounted too high. Rakesh Sarna: "She can't even reach without using a stool." The owner asked for help on July 28 and reported no acknowledgment two days later.7
What owners need in writing: who inspected each installation and signed off, what the extra drywall and paint work cost, who pays for it, why reserve funds were used, and what Capital did as overseer.
Three things seen in the records that have never been explained to owners
These are from the Association's own financial packages and permit records. Each was raised with management and none has a written answer.
- CES was paid from reserves. Panel replacement is not a reserve item. No board vote reallocating reserve funds to it has been identified.
- The CES permit was used to cover at least two electrical panels that had already been replaced — replacements done without a permit of their own, before the program began.
The supporting pages have not been published here. They are available to any owner who asks.
Item 7 — Limits on owners' records requests
The proposed rules were tabled. Sandeep Chugani and Rakesh Sarna abstained on tabling, then pressed to adopt the rules anyway.
What was proposed. Counsel-drafted rules, circulated with the August 28 meeting notice, limiting owners to three records requests and one written inquiry a month.
The objection, sent the day before the vote. On August 30 a written objection went to every director, management and Association counsel, with a request that it be attached to the minutes as Exhibit A.8 The provisions objected to:
- Rule 2 caps inspection at four hours in one business day a month, with no continuation if that is not enough.
- Rules 1 and 15 let management return a request as deficient without saying the 10-working-day clock keeps running.
- Rule 3 bars asking for the same record again for 30 days, even when the first production was incomplete.
- Rule 12 lets management treat a request as "harassment," which makes an owner's motive relevant.
- Rules 5 and 11 make electronic copies discretionary, and only on a USB drive the owner buys.
- Rule 7 leaves out the production checklist the statute requires.
- Rule 6 lets management point owners to the website with no duty to keep it complete.
- Rule 18 adds a one-subject, no-subparts limit on written inquiries that the statute does not contain.
The draft minutes do not mention the objection or the request to attach it.
What the law says. An association "may adopt reasonable rules regarding the frequency, time, location, notice, and manner of record inspections and copying but may not require a member to demonstrate any purpose or state any reason for the inspection" (§718.111(12)(c)1.a.). A limit of one written inquiry per unit every 30 days is expressly allowed (§718.112(2)(a)2.).
The stated reason, and what management said. Julian Esses: "The only point here is to prevent management from being overwhelmed with records requests." Earlier, to the new owner: "This is not meant to be retaliatory in any way, shape, or form. I didn't want to even mention that it was you."
Oscar Borras, Executive Vice President of Operations, KWPMC:
"the record requests that we've received have been managed in office with existing personnel"
"So there hasn't been a bandwidth issue with being able to fulfill the records requests."
Rakesh Sarna, in response: "we need to call a spade a spade. What brought this up? … If there's no resource issue, then what brought this up?" The management office now has a general manager, an assistant property manager and an administrative assistant — more staff than it has had before. A single property manager previously handled records requests along with everything else.
What was requested. The new owner said she asked about closed board meetings, the security contractor, the general manager, the West Tower elevators, parking, assessments, and the change of president.
Not one of those is an unusual request. Every item on that list is a record the Association is already required by statute to keep and to have on hand — minutes, contracts, bids, and "all other written records of the association … related to the operation of the association" (§718.111(12)(a)6., 9., 11.e., 16., 21.). She was not asking the Association to produce anything new. She was asking to see documents that should already exist.
The volume. Marissa Carvajal reported nine requests plus one written inquiry from one owner, dated August 10, which she described as comprising over 200 questions. The new owner: "which was really only nine."
The owner's intent, raised repeatedly:
"Toward what end are people requesting so much information?" — Owner P
"What information do you want to know about who owns which parking spot?" — Rakesh Sarna
"But asking for 200 questions, I refuse to even read what you asked for." — Rakesh Sarna
"It is not the ask that people struggle with. It is what is the intent and the malintent." — Sandeep Chugani
"We have two requests made by a director while the meeting is in process. There is a director typing away." — Sandeep Chugani
Robert Zimmerman: "we obviously can't consider the intent of a request. A request is request. And one may make a request for any reason one wishes."
Owner P, to the new owner: "Don't get me started [the new owner] because if you do you will be sorry." Later, on security: "again [the new owner], shows your lack of knowledge … this is like the dumbest conversation ever."
After the item was tabled. Rakesh Sarna: "If everyone feels we're not going to have too many requests, then why don't we vote on getting three requests done? Counsel has approved it." Sandeep Chugani then made both of his remarks on intent quoted above, beginning: "what is the intent behind these requests?"
Management's commitment. Oscar Borras: "We're going to put in the payroll to be able to update those records at no expense to the association since it is our responsibility."
Since the meeting
One owner's request took two days. At 10:24 a.m. on September 1, Owner P — who asked at the meeting what the records requests were for — requested copies of every records request and written inquiry made June 1 through September 1. Management sent them at 6:45 p.m. on September 3.9 The production omitted the August 30 written request.
The new owner's requests took the full statutory period. Her requests, dated August 10, were answered at the 10-working-day deadline, with invitations to inspect records in the office rather than electronic copies. Several of the checklists she received state that records the Association is required to keep do not exist. Those responses were put to the board in writing on September 25, and the documents remain outstanding.
The survey has not gone out. The September 15 deadline passed. An owner with long-running water intrusion wrote on September 24 that she had asked and was told the survey "had not yet been distributed." Results were due at a duly noticed board meeting by the end of September.
Next meeting: Monday, September 28, 2026. The 1906 contract award is on the agenda, with a request that it be listed for discussion only.3
Errors in the draft minutes for August 31, 2026
Two vote records in the draft minutes leave out a director, and Florida law requires "a vote or abstention for each member present" to be recorded (§718.111(1)(b)). These corrections go to the board before the draft is approved.
| Draft minutes | Page | What happened | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Item 6: "4 votes in favor by Julian Esses, Rakesh Sarna, Sandeep Chugani" | 3 | Four votes, three names; Robert Zimmerman's vote is missing | Vote record |
| Item 8: "all directors present voting in favor" — four names | 4 | Five directors were present; Sandeep Chugani is omitted | Vote record |
| Item 5: Robert Zimmerman moved to approve the specification | 2 | Julian Esses moved (00:57:52) | Attribution |
| Item 5: motion to "approve" the specification | 2 | Motion was "for issuance to bidding," with bids to return to the board | Substance |
| Item 5: survey raised by "owners of several other units" | 2 | Raised by directors | Attribution |
| Item 5: survey results "presented to the Board" | 2 | "at a duly noticed board meeting"; survey also covers "adjacent common areas" | Substance |
| Item 5: no mention of the recording tool | 2 | A written request asked that the minutes record its removal and the objection1 | Omission |
| Item 6: Robert Zimmerman "confirmed the Association retains the right to terminate" | 3 | Said by Rakesh Sarna and Sandeep Chugani | Attribution |
| Item 7: rules justified by management's workload | 3 | KWPMC said there was no bandwidth issue | Omission |
| Item 7: no mention of the written objection | 3 | Sent August 30, with a request that it be attached as Exhibit A8 | Omission |
| Item 7: KWPMC to prioritize website work | 3 | Committed to add staff "at no expense to the association" | Omission |
| Item 2: "Management established that a quorum… was present" | 1 | Robert Zimmerman, as secretary, confirmed quorum at Julian Esses's request | Minor |
Notes
1 Recording tool. At about 7:52 p.m. a notetaker in the meeting was removed from the Association's Zoom session. Sandeep Chugani identified it and instructed the general manager to remove it. She confirmed in writing: "I was instructed to." An objection was made at once, and in writing to the board on September 1, asking that the minutes record the removal and the objection. The draft minutes do not.
The statute, and the response from the board
"A unit owner may tape record or videotape the meetings" (§718.112(2)(c)). No Association rule on recording tools has been identified.
Robert Zimmerman replied that the right to record the meeting "is not in dispute," but that the statute does not require the Association to admit a third-party AI service into its Zoom session; his account is that the manager cancelled an unfamiliar prompt and nothing was said aloud.
Sandeep Chugani replied on September 2 that the matter "will be subject to legal review."
The Association has been asked to preserve the Zoom chat and participant logs, which will show the sequence.
2 "Item 5 – Unit 1906 Materials Are Incomplete and Not Ready for Approval," email to the board and management, August 30, 2026.
3 "Before today's notice — Item 6 should not be noticed for approval," email to the board and management, September 25, 2026.
4 "Accuracy of Minutes Scheduled for Approval Tonight," email to the board and management, August 31, 2026, 4:45 p.m.
5 "Agenda Item 6 – Information Required Before Continuing Capital's Engagement," email to the board and management, August 30, 2026.
6 Reply to Julian Esses in the same thread, August 31, 2026, 4:34 p.m.
7 Unit 1702 owner's email to management, "Request for Assistance Following Electrical Panel Replacement," July 28, 2026; her follow-up July 30; management's reply August 7.
8 "Agenda Item 7 — Formal Written Objection, Request to Table, and Request for Attachment to Minutes," email to all directors, management and Association counsel, August 30, 2026.
9 "Request for Information," Owner P's request, September 1, 2026, 10:24 a.m.; management's production, September 3, 2026, 6:45 p.m.
10 Email to the board and management on the new owner's records requests and checklists, September 25, 2026.
11 "Unit 1906 Bids," management to the board, September 24, 2026, attaching CARE Construction's proposal, Capital Contractor Services' Bid Evaluation Report of September 24, 2026 (prepared by Alex Forjan), and Pro-Max revised proposal #8013.1. The Fortify Restoration bid (#26-14109) and the original Pro-Max proposal were circulated September 22, 2026.
Sources
- Meeting video, August 31, 2026, posted on the Association website; times in brackets are from the video
- Draft minutes of the August 31, 2026 special meeting, pages 1–4
- Miami Curtain Wall Consultants invoice #4404608, April 28, 2026
- Capital Contractor Services, Bid Evaluation Report, Unit 1906 Emergency Repairs, prepared by Alex Forjan, September 24, 2026
- Fortify Restoration, Bid #26-14109, 11 September 2026
- CARE Construction, proposal for Unit 1906, 23 September 2026
- Pro-Max Restoration & Paint, proposal #8013, 11 September 2026, and revised proposal #8013.1, 24 September 2026
- §718.111 and §718.112, Florida Statutes (2025 edition; any 2026 amendments not checked)