The Westchase Community Association Board of Directors held a special meeting on Tues., Aug. 27, to further discuss the candidates for property management following interviews held with incumbent Greenacre Properties Inc. (GPI) on Aug. 12 and Inframark on Aug. 16.
Vice President Michele DelSordo kicked off the conversation by informing the audience that both Greenacre and Inframark had submitted revised proposals based on feedback garnered during the interview process. DelSordo explained that the revised proposals allowed the board to make an apples-to-apples comparison.
She added that GPI had come back with a revised proposal that would increase the office staff to 3 full-time employees (currently there are two full-time and one part-time) and also add in a weekly compliance coordinator visit to help manage violations. As with their original proposal, they recommended sticking with the current third-party vendor, SouthEast Leasing, to handle facilities staffing. Even with these changes, the price would remain the same year-over-year.
At the board’s request, Inframark dropped their office staff from 4 to 3 full-time employees. This brought their pricing down. They also recommended a third-party vendor (Cooksey Swim) to handle facilities staffing.
DelSordo informed the audience that in 2023, Westchase homeowners paid $364 in HOA assessments. While the 2025 budget has not been finalized, the projected assessments are $411 – that is with no change to property management costs. DelSordo went on to add that over 1,000 Westchase residents pay additional fees to sub-associations. In addition, she noted that CDD assessments are increasing across the board, with some communities with special assessments seeing larger increases. She then referenced increased prices at the grocery store and gas pump, as well as increased utilities costs. “I can’t control the above; what I can control are the property management fees,” she said.
DelSordo added that GPI had stepped up and they had come back to the table with increased offerings with no fee increase. She also noted that the board could have been more proactive with GPI.
She then moved to enter into contract negotiations with Greenacre but with a three-year agreement.
Director Rick Goldstein seconded the motion, and the board entered a discussion period. Goldstein said he took four things into consideration: 1) what do we need; 2) what can we afford; 3) what is the cost; 4) how much will be added to the annual assessments. He said that he felt the services being offered by both companies were the same, but Inframark’s came with added costs. He cited an additional $38,000 to implement violations and $22,000 to manage modifications. (Treasurer Michiel Oostenbrink would later refute those dollar amounts.) Goldstein also took issue with Cooksey Swim, stating that the company is based in California and when he called to inquire, they were not familiar with Inframark or Westchase.
Director Terry Boyd commended DelSordo for admitting the board could have been more proactive with GPI, adding that he is ready to move forward to be sure we get the best out of the community’s property management company. “I prefer to work with someone who is an arm’s length away, not miles away,” he said, referring to the fact that GPI is based in Tampa and Inframark is based in Texas.
Director Jim Brinker said his main concern is the people. He added that with Inframark, he had concerns with their employee retention rate, which is middle of the road. He was also concerned with who would be selected as Community Association Manager, as well as the timeframe for the transition period. For those reasons, he did not feel Inframark was right for the community at this time.
Director Michiel Oostenbrink began by reminding the audience that he had served on the RFP committee and had over 1,000 hours invested in this process. He noted that Inframark scored over 100 points more than the committee’s second choice and was voted the number one choice by four committee members. He added that one of the biggest things missing at this point is a facilities/maintenance expert. “We have 60-plus projects that are past their useful life,” he added. He went on to inform the audience that the board has struggled to find qualified vendors and to create a scope of work that translates into successful bids. He pointed to the fact that fellow board member Jack Maurer has a background in the construction industry, and they had been leveraging that knowledge when that really should be coming from the property management company. “There are so many things we need to do better. GPI has had the opportunity and things aren’t really changing,” he said.
Oostenbrink went on to say that the community has been taking a reactive versus a proactive approach to projects and that without the maintenance expertise, he fears a lot of money will be wasted. He reiterated that the property manager should be handling the bids and scope of work…not the volunteers.
He then addressed Goldstein’s concerns with Cooksey Swim, stating that, at the end of the day, it’s a non-factor, since the board could choose to continue to work with SouthEast Leasing. There were ways to work around those additional costs, but the key concern is having the maintenance and project management oversight, he explained. Oostenbrink then said that the difference in cost between Greenacre and Inframark is just $25 per household per year and that the final decision should not be about cost; rather it should be based on finding the best property management company.
He also addressed Golstein’s concerns with the additional fees, stating that Inframark addressed the majority of the ancillary fees in their revised proposal and the ones that remain are the fees that are few and far between. He pointed to additional add-on features Inframark offers at a minimal cost. “This decision should not be about cost. This decision should be about making sure we are getting the best property management company to handle everything we need to be able to move forward to stay a premiere community in Florida, if not the country…for those reasons my vote goes towards Inframark.”
Director Jack Maurer noted that due to his background in construction management, he has a specific eye for some of the problems with the bid process as it stands. “I don’t want to just rubber stamp things. I don’t want to say, ‘We have three bids, let’s just pick one.’ I want the work to be done properly.”
He added he has had concerns with some of the work being done on the property and when addressing those concerns, he had been told that he could shy away the contractors from coming to the community. “I don’t agree with that either. I believe we should always negotiate the best price for this community, the best job for this community. I don’t believe in sub-par work, sub-par standards. This community deserves the highest standard we can ask for and we need to demand that…not just with price but with the expertise that walks in the door.” “
Maurer spoke to his time serving on the RFP Discovery Committee “We found a lot of astonishing things…we’re really not up to par with things that are given to the communities around us. It’s not that we were doing anything wrong; we were just trying to investigate and find out what we could have.”
In reference to his concerns with facility maintenance, he said, “We have a concept: Let it break, get a new, let it break, get a new. It’s not Let it break, let’s figure out how we can make it last longer…and then when we get a new be more responsible along the way.”
He added that GPI has known about this RFP for more than a year. “I’m not looking at a vision…. it’s a reaction, it’s not a prevention and I can’t keep feeling good about myself knowing that what I’m selling you is reactions. You’ve already demanded more,” he said.
Maurer noted that his fellow board members all made valid points. In the end, he said that there is a progression with Inframark and not with GPI.
DelSordo chimed in to make it clear that she was not casting her vote purely due to cost; however, she felt uncomfortable with the uncertainty of the ancillary costs with Inframark.
Oostenbrink countered by asking, “What is the cost of actually using GPI – how much is being wasted?”
Yesner then took the floor. “When I looked at these two companies, it was a very hard decision for me,” he said. He added that he began by reaching out to his contacts in the legal industry and what he learned was that both companies have tremendous reputations in the industry.
He then reached out to individuals the RFP Discovery Committee had interviewed – he spoke with members of our Westchase CDD Board and staff and learned they are all happy with Inframark, but he said he realized they were happy with the Association Manager, not necessarily Inframark.
He said he then asked each company if they had a community that they had taken from the other and he was able to speak to a president of a community that Greenacre had taken from Inframark and they couldn’t stand Inframark. He was not able to find the same scenario with Inframark.
“What it came down to, if we’re going to make the switch, the price of Inframark concerns me,” Yesner said. “If we’re going to make that switch, Inframark needs to be head and shoulders above Greenacre. If they are not head and shoulders above Greenacre, then, for me, price becomes a factor. If Inframark was cheaper, maybe that’s a reason to make the switch, because they are in my mind just as good. I have to side with Greenacre after reviewing what the RFP committee did, which was tremendously useful, and doing my own due diligence, that’s the way I’m leaning.”
After all board members had spoken, Yesner opened the floor to audience comments.
There were a number of residents in the audience, many of whom are voting members, and most were in attendance at both interview sessions.
A resident addressed the board, saying they need to hold GPI accountable with the Key Performance Indicators outlined in the RFP. Oostenbrink spoke to this, adding that someone on the board needs to be assigned to monitor the property management company’s performance. Boyd said he’d be happy to take on that role.
Wycliff VM Teresa Lanzar, who served on the RFP committee, added that there is also a list of deliverables in the RFP and that needs to be part of the contract as well to make it easier for the board to keep track of the property manager’s performance.
Woodbay VM Cal Hargreaves asked why the board would put any more work on their shoulders and expressed frustration with the process. Stamford VM Jamie Kolev agreed: “Why would you do more when there’s the potential for a company to do it for you for just a few bucks more?”
A discussion ensued regarding concerns about filling the current void in facilities maintenance.
Bridges VM Dawn Gingrich asked how GPI was able to increase staffing and add a weekly compliance manager without raising their costs. There was no clear answer.
Gingrich also stated that the she understands the knowledge of our community is there with GPI. “That doesn’t change their level of expertise, where they are currently lacking. Not just the office staff, GPI in general,” she said. “I feel like you’re keeping GPI and then piecemealing to make all of the other things happen when Inframark has the head and shoulders above them, but it’s the cost.”
Boyd interjected that he was not convinced Inframark was going to give us everything they claimed they would give us. An argument ensued regarding confusion over potential ancillary fees from Inframark for violation mailings, with Oostenbrink and Radcliffe VM Eric Holt pointing out that those fees only apply at the fining level.
Yesner interjected to bring the meeting back to order. “We’re all doing what we think is best based on the information that we have available. That is the best we can do. It’s what we do every day in our lives,” he said.
He then called for a vote on DelSordo’s motion to negotiate a three-year contract with Greenacre. The motion passed 5-2, with Oostenbrink and Maurer dissenting.
