1
22 July 2023
Addressed to: Ole Board board@olelely-resort.com and Ole GM- Michele Boose, 
mboose@olelely-resort.com
Reference
: 
Recommendations from Facilities & Infrastructure Committee – Ole’ Roofing 
Project dated 07/12/2023 
Subject: Urgent Appeal Regarding Proposed Special Assessment - Advocating for a 
Case-by-Case Approach 
Dear Ms. Boose Ole GM, and Ole Management Board,
We trust this message finds you well. This notice serves to invoke the rights vested in the 
proprietors under prevailing law and association rules. As committed stakeholders in the Ole' 
community, we write to express deep concern about the recently proposed reference Special 
Assessment, which estimates a monumental total of $11,769,588 or $18,891.79 per unit (623 
units).
The lack of prior consultation or transparency before arriving at this significant fiduciary 
decision is disconcerting. Given the considerable financial implications, we believe it is 
incumbent upon the committee, as part of their duty of care, to consult with us, the unit owners. 
The principles of good governance and procedural fairness dictate that matters of this magnitude 
should be subjected to democratic scrutiny via a voting process.
While we understand the necessity of maintaining the structural integrity of our community, 
particularly our roofs, the recommendation for comprehensive roof replacements seems to 
bypass the practical, cost-effective option of a case-by-case approach. Considering that as 
recently as 2012, a hefty amount of $4,236,348 was disbursed for roof repairs, the rationale for 
wholesale replacement is unclear and possibly unwarranted.
Therefore, we propose that an alternate independent inspection of each roofing structure be 
conducted to validate the assumptions and results (presented in the “Ole Repair versus 
Replacement Matrix 4/6/23”). This would enable us to assess the individual condition of each 
roof, identify those in urgent need of repair or replacement (including complete warrantee for 
those replaced), and allocate resources where they are most needed. This targeted, pragmatic 
approach would not only potentially save substantial funds but also uphold our collective 
fiduciary responsibility.
Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind the inherent unpredictability of natural disasters like 
hurricanes. Although we must consider these risks, a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis is 
needed before making substantial financial commitments based largely on these unpredictable 
factors.

2
With respect to the "Ole Repair versus Replacement Matrix," issued on April 6, 2023, the 
associated costs projected to exceed $13M necessitate a more thorough examination of the 
criteria employed to establish such expenditure. The owners need to have a complete 
understanding of the information delineating the methodology employed in evaluating the 
associated risk levels for replacements and additional documentation used to arrive at the 
spreadsheet.
The aforementioned spreadsheet reveals that the sole determinant appears to be the age of the 
units (not to mention that the overall roof average is only 14 years of age) the wall flashing ratio, 
which consists of the the wall surface covered by a thin, galvanized steel or aluminum layer 
designed to avert water infiltration into the structure through joints or as part of a weather-
resistant barrier system. In the context of the existing Ole defects within the roofing assembly, it 
becomes imperative to identify additional critical components required for evaluation.
Several queries as itemzed below remain to be addressed. 
- Upon what parameters is the classification of "Medium" founded? 
- What precipitates the necessity for the replacement of a roof merely nine years in 
age?
- The spreadsheet is deficient in that it fails to provide age-related data for three 
properties, marked instead with an unknown designation “?”
- We question whether the wall flashing ratio is the sole criterion, or if there exist other 
building codes requiring evaluation and assessment, and if so, what these codes are?
- What formula has been employed to derive the cost ratio percentage?
-  There is inconsistency in the data presented. To illustrate, if the properties listed in 
the table extract below are all rated as "Medium" and each possesses a 43% WFR, 
why is it that certain roofs are earmarked for replacement while others are deemed 
suitable for repair? 
Est. 
REPAIR
Cost 
Est. Replace
Cost 
MED 43% X 
  
$  84,750 $  84,750 $  198,720 
MED 43% 
  
x $  198,720 $  85,200 $  198,720 
MED 43% 
  
x $  198,720 $  85,200 $  198,720 
In closing, we urge the board to defer any decisions pertaining to the replacement of roofs until 
the owners have exercised their right to review the relevant roof repair/replacement supporting 
records, as mandated by Florida Senate Bill 630. The Ole owners will need more information to 
decide on the repair – replace alternatives, along with a robust cost-benefit analysis before we 
precede any significant financial commitment, and some owners are still in dark regarding this 
inititive.

3
We look forward to a constructive dialogue on this matter, with our shared objective of 
preserving and enhancing our community.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, considering our perspective and looking 
forward to your timely reply to all.
Best regards,
Ole Owners:
cassara38@gmail.com; 
ppettinicchio@gmail.com; 
samhiram@hotmail.com; 
d.ricard@hotmail.com; 
ennio@enmarhomes.ca; 
Kathyhiram@gmail.com; 
Ndambro45@msn.com; 
gulfcoastsupreme@gmail.com; 
mamaguelasac@gmail.com; 
rjbayona@hotmail.com; 
ecabrita@ocvinj.com; 
gildablee4@gmail.com; 
oldorchardhomes@rogers.com
psviana2000@yahoo.com
joann.martinho@yahoo.com
jcruzhusain@gmail.com
saleem1668@aol.com
echomannj@yahoo.com
marccaron@zing-net.ca
Gwk809@mail.com
jnhstn@gmail.com
tzenga@cmtigroup.com
Note – Ole owner names and respective unit numbers to follow.