Cumulative Financial Exposure Estimate
A $4.85M project morphed into $10M+ in exposure — with no owner vote, no transparent scope, and no regulatory action.
| Category | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| Construction Contract | $4.85 million |
| Window Replacements (128 units) | $1.2M–$1.9 million |
| City of Plantation Fines (projected) (Excluded from $7.8 M because it existed before the project commenced) | $1.5+ million |
| Emergency Repairs & Arbitration Fees | $50K+ |
| Estimated Total Exposure | $9M–$10M+ |
How a $4.85M Contract Ballooned Into $7.8M+ of Owner Burden
What started as a $4.85 million construction project at Omega Villas has now spiraled into an economic disaster for dozens of homeowners. Here’s how the numbers break down—and why this may be one of the most costly HOA mismanagement cases in Florida.
The Construction Contract – $4.85 Million
Awarded to Austro Construction for a full exterior renovation project
Unauthorized Construction Scope
- No owner vote was held for major material changes as required under FS §718.113(2) for added/removed features
- Added features included installation of furring strips on wood-frame units, removal of existing insulation, and led to widespread window replacements
- While I was provided access to certain RFPs and bidding records, no substantial scope changes, approved change orders, or full owner disclosures were ever presented regarding the addition of furring strips, removal of insulation, or the resulting window replacement fallout. To date, no documentation has been provided showing that these structural deviations were authorized by a Board vote or disclosed community-wide as required under FS §718.113(2)
Forced Window Replacements – Est. $1.2M+
- Dozens of owners pressured to replace windows after furring strips pushed windows out of code
- $10,000–$20,000 per unit x ~80+ homes affected
- No vote, no legal obligation, no association reimbursement
Supporting Documentation: Window Scope Manipulation
The following documents demonstrate what may be a coordinated maneuver between the engineering firm, legal counsel, and Board to replace functioning windows — without a safety mandate, without a vote, and without financial disclosures. This pattern supports broader concerns of vendor collusion and scope manipulation.
Below are documents that raise serious concerns about how window removals were justified by the Board and its vendors:
- NOA Product Approval (window specification) – Used to support replacement of functioning windows at owner expense. Pairing this with the EOR letter shows a pattern of liability shifting and financial offloading.
- Engineer of Record Letter (April 2024) – Confirms City did not require window replacements. Suggests windows were deteriorated but reinstallation was allowed — while the engineer distances themselves from liability.
The email exchange below reveals how the Board’s attorney used the EOR letter — not to inform owners, but to pressure compliance, create legal distance, and avoid providing requested documentation. This owner had already ordered windows, yet was still sent the letter and threatened with legal escalation.
This thread supports ongoing concerns of vendor collusion, legal intimidation, and disregard for owner rights.
Refer also to contractor behavior patterns documented in Exhibit X.
City of Plantation Confirmation: Window Replacement Not Required
In January 2024, the City of Plantation clarified that window replacement was not required unless windows were unsafe or failed inspection.
Further, Assistant Building Inspector Carmen confirmed via email that if a specific window model was unavailable, owners could replace them with “like kind and quality” windows — as permitted under applicable building codes.
This directly undermines the narrative pushed by the Board and its legal counsel that mass replacement was required. It also confirms that cost-saving alternatives were ignored, and owners were left with misleading information and inflated expenses.
Refer to the two PDFs below from the City of Plantation!
Devaluation & Owner Losses – Est. $1.5M+
- Property values suppressed due to construction chaos and unresolved city fines
- Owners unable to refinance or sell due to open permits and defective construction
- Increased utility bills from missing insulation, HVAC damage, and code noncompliance
Special Assessments – Up to $1,000+/Month
- Many owners now paying massively inflated monthly assessments
- No transparent budget audit
- Assessment increases tied to mismanaged funds and lack of insurance coverage for damage
The True Cost of Silence
This isn’t just about bad construction—this is a financial extraction scheme dressed up as “renovation.” The community was left with:
- A contract not followed
- Materials removed or altered without consent
- No proper inspection from the City
- Escalating costs and retaliatory foreclosures
Legal + Consultant Costs – Est. $250K+
- Substantial legal fees have been paid by the HOA with no clear public accounting or owner vote
- No engineering or consultant budget has been disclosed, despite structural alterations and code-related work
- Legal expenditures appear to be used against homeowners raising concerns, rather than defending the community’s long-term interests
Arbitration Retaliation
- Whistleblower targeted with arbitration demand.
- Case dismissed — but $2,844.06 in legal fees awarded against homeowner.
- Used as a financial punishment for speaking out.
- In this one example of escalating retaliation, the Board could have resolved a minor arbitration matter over $500 in disputed charges. Instead:
- They involved Association counsel
- Extended the mediation process into prolonged legal hours
- And after I voluntarily withdrew the arbitration, they still pursued me for legal fees — ultimately obtaining a $2,844.06 award against me
- This use of HOA legal resources appears not only excessive, but punitive.
DBPR Statutory Violation On/After 7/1/2024 Law Change
Under changes to Florida law effective July 1, 2024, including new DBPR enforcement authority, associations were specifically warned not to use legal processes to target owners arbitrarily or suppress whistleblowers.
Yet this case was pursued after the statutory change, and appears to directly violate the spirit — and potentially the letter — of that legislation.
City Fines – Ongoing & Unresolved
- As of early 2025, the City of Plantation has issued over $1 million in fines, largely tied to unpermitted or mismanaged work in Phase 2.
- These fines are a direct result of years of deferred repairs, scope confusion, and unresolved code violations.
- Total fines are expected to exceed $1.5 million before construction concludes.
- City of Plantation Fines
Why It Matters
This isn’t just a costly renovation. It’s a breakdown of fiduciary duty, regulatory oversight, and resident trust. These numbers reflect more than dollars — they reflect a systematic failure to protect homeowners from decisions made behind closed doors, without votes, without disclosure, and without accountability.
Learn more about the legal and procedural violations
Refer also to behavior patterns documented in Exhibit X.
Coordinated Vendor Action or Just Coincidence?
When engineering firms, attorneys, and Board members all distance themselves from liability — while owners foot the bill — someone is coordinating the fallout.