The board held its early afternoon board meeting. As expected, attendance was low. At no point during the meeting were there more than five people in the audience, plus a few online attendees.
Board Participation
None of the board members came into the meeting room. The dais remained empty throughout the meeting. All five participated via Zoom.
Elevator Maintenance Contract
Board President Olena Biletska presented a proposal to contract with Suncoast Elevators. She stated that references from other condominium buildings had been checked. When questioned, the board acknowledged that the reference list was provided by Suncoast itself.
No competitive bids or recommendations from the association’s paid consultant were provided to owners. The board did not explain how it evaluated the competing companies beyond cost.
Examples of service metrics that were not discussed include:
- Response time after a breakdown
- Availability of proprietary replacement parts
- First-time repair success rate
- On-time arrival for scheduled service appointments
Owners were provided only a proposal from Suncoast. Ms. Biletska emphasized the ease of terminating the contract if necessary.
Elevator Inspections
Ms. Biletska stated that adding an annual or semiannual elevator inspection are important for safety, no argument. Owners pointed out that the elevators already receive a third-party inspection each year for the city certification process. Ms. Biletska responded that the recent March inspection identified more issues than the prior city inspection, this might be because that inspection occurred approximately nine months earlier.
Several owners questioned why the same level of attention is not being applied to structural concerns, including:
- A deteriorating wall on the south side of the building near the pool
- Exposed rebar in the garage
- Garage leaks through ceilings and expansion joints
The 2023 structural engineer has recommended annual inspections, but these inspections have not occurred during the current board’s 2.5 year tenure.
Ms. Biletska also reported that an engineer is evaluating the tennis court structure. She was reminded that the pool shell, pool deck, and expansion joints continue to show signs of deterioration and water intrusion. All of which were recommended to be replaced before the next milestone certification.
Elevator Rope Replacement
In a separate proposal from Suncoast Elevators, the board approved replacement of elevator ropes for two elevators that have been out of service for over seven months and three months for another.
| Quoted Price: | $38,694 per e;evator |
| Reported discount: | $13,694 per elevator |
| Price after discount: | $25,000 per elevator |
Ms. Biletska said that the plan is to probably replace the other elevator’s ropes. This offer is a special discounted price, reduced from $38,694 each. Presumably that gets Suncoast in the doors, but the price will probably go up to the $38, 694 each.
The other benefit according to Ms. Biletska is a lifetime warranty for those ropes. When asked about the warranty details like does it cover both parts and labor she stated: “It is supposed to”, when ask if does, it she stated she had not read that section.
Not only does it NOT cover labor, it is only for the lifetime that we are under contract with Suncoast Elevators. If we change companies the warranty on the ropes only (the cheapest part of the process) goes away. One other odd issue: The quote for Elevator #1 was dated 1/7/26, but it did not break down until 3/20/26. How did this quote come in 72 days before the needed repair? Great predictive skills? Was elevator #1 operating while faulty back in January, only to be taken out of service in March?
Insurance
The board ratified the 2026–2027 insurance policies, totaling approximately $1.3 million. For five years the previous boards held insurance meetings with the broker before policies were finalized, allowing owners to ask questions and discuss coverage options. No such meeting has been held during the past three years.
Ms. Biletska stated that the renewal saved approximately $230,000 compared with prior expectations. The largest changes were reported as follows:
- Property dropped 20%
- General Liability dropped 17%
- Legal Defense INCREASED 53% (Can you guess why?)
Let’s be clear no one on our board had anything to do with these savings.
Wind Coverage Discussion
When questioned about opting for a $20 million wind insurance policy rather than insuring 100% of our building’s $118 million value, Ms. Biletska offered a reassuring defense: they looked into it and found that no building in Brickell has ever sustained that amount of damage.
That may be true, but it misses the entire point of risk management. Brickell’s high-rises have simply been lucky. The area has never faced a direct impact from a major storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale. When Category 5 Andrew struck in 1992, it hit Homestead. When Wilma arrived in 2005, Miami only caught the tail end as a Category 2. In 2017, Irma weakened to a Category 2 by the time it pushed through the city. Betting against a worst-case scenario because “it hasn’t happened yet” is a massive gamble when $98 million in uninsured value is on the line.
The financial justification for skipping full coverage evaporated just as quickly. Olena stated she believed that insuring the building to 100% of its value would cost an additional $200,000 to $220,000. However, a live call to the broker during the meeting revealed a completely different reality: the actual cost for the added coverage was just $107,074. With the real, vastly lower number finally exposed, the board agreed to add the full coverage.
| 2025 | $2,026 | |
| Policies Approved | $1,433,043 | $1,292,052 |
| Budget | $2,136,555 | $1,735,295 |
| Unused Dollars (EXCESS) | $703,512 | $443,243 |
| 100% Wind Coverage (additional) | $107,074 | |
| Total 2026-2027 Insurance | $1,399,126 | |
| Unused Dollars (EXCESS) | $703,512 | $336,169 |
Above: With 100% wind coverage the total policy is still less than last year and way under budget
The DBPR Consent Decree: Facts vs. Blame
When addressed about the recent DBPR consent decree, Ms. Biletska claimed that a board critic was the one responsible for the state’s intervention. But a look at the actual decree clears up any confusion: the association formally admitted to violating Florida condominium law regarding mandatory financial reporting.
Breaking the law on this specific issue two years in a row triggers a $5,000 fine. According to the text of the decree, the board is admitting to the fault. Of course, there is a major gap in accountability here—the fine is paid using our collective maintenance dues, while the individuals who allowed the violation to happen twice face no personal financial penalty. Instead, Ms. Biletska’s primary frustration seemed to be centered on the decree’s mandate that she and the board must now take a required educational course on Condo Financial Reporting Presentation. The full Consent Decree is provided below.
Owner Questions and Q&A
The meeting wrapped up in about an hour. Upon adjournment, Ms. Biletska declined to hold a legally required question-and-answer session with unit owners. This is not the first time owners have been shut out. Her justification was that the board would “probably” hold a separate meeting later in the quarter to allow for questions.
Actions speak louder than words. For a board that constantly professes a commitment to transparency, shutting down owner input right after shifting a $5,000 state fine onto our dues and debating millions in insurance coverage is unacceptable.
Our community deserves answers in real-time, not “probably.”
Full DBPR Consent Decree: