December 15, 2010
Memo to: President & Board of Directors, Elizabeth Condo Assn.
From : Sheilah Bason, Apt.104
Copies : Variously distributed
Re : Refurbishment
Webster’s dictionary defines “refurbish” as “to brighten or freshen up” - a concept that few would deny was overdue for The Elizabeth. Despite Judy Gann’s customary scolding tone (see her note of 11/26/10), most of us were not aware that in designer language “refurbishment” means a “much more expansive” (and therefore a much more expensive) undertaking.
Facts
1. Judith Barth has repeatedly said that she had kept Owners fully informed about the refurbishment project. I have attended almost all Board Meetings for years, and customarily take essentially verbatim notes. Judith’s “reports” consisted of ecstatic praise for the designer, assurances that The Elizabeth would look very elegant, and the promise of different areas for different activities. At no time were we Owners given concrete facts about the extent of the reconfiguration.
At the October 2009 Board Meeting Judith said she hoped to have a drawing ready for the next meeting. But not until March 2010 were Owners given a minimal presentation by the designer. Judith recently stated, with obvious annoyance, that this presen-tation had cost us dearly - this in the face of what by then I believe was $157,000 paid to the designer for her design. Personally, I would expect any designer worthy of the term to prepare for me a clear visual depiction of her proposal, especially if I were spending over a million dollars. I certainly would not have agreed to an extra fee, and the designer should not have imposed one. Did the Board have such a visual depiction and not share it with the Owners? Or did the Board go blindly into this whole escapade without a firm idea of what the result would look like?
We, the Owners, should have had a detailed illustration of what our lobby and other areas were about to become - the sort of sketch a qualified artist/designer can toss off in a moment - not just a display board, a rendering of the front desk, and a plan. This is unbelievably cavalier.
For example, a drawing would have illustrated that the customary view of the west terrace, with its sunshine, trees and flowers, was about to be lost. Perhaps the Board feared there would be objection to this loss? Or did they not themselves know? Flat plans do not make such outrage obvious to untrained eyes.
p.2
2. I believe Alexandra Kielty to be a decent person of high integrity. But I take issue with her argument against Jim Jones’ claim that the ECA “faces a dire financial situation”. We are fast running out of funds in our Reserves. The recent Engineering Report submitted by Mr.Mendoza lists a frightening number of major repairs and replacements stretching into the future. That some of these projects are long-term, and that condo fees will replenish Reserves, does not negate our need for a great deal of money that we will not have. I agree with Jim: that’s pretty dire.
In fact the Board at its November Board Meeting discussed obtaining a loan. But Al Muller stated that we had some $480,000 extra in Operating funds. He also referred to our $1 million line of credit. These two references were doubtless meant to reassure the assembled masses.
Certainly we are allowed to transfer excess money from Operating Funds to Reserves, but Al knows full well (or certainly should know, as a long-standing Board member) that this particular “excess” in Operating Funds is insurance to cover approximately three months’ operating expenses in the event of an emergency. I believe this is established practice for condo associations, and it has been ECA’s practice for years. Clearly that money cannot be used twice, in two places for two purposes. Also, the million dollar line of credit, if used, becomes a loan, and this (or any other loan) costs interest. Not a painless solution.
The oft-stated reason for our lavish re-styling is to enhance the value of our homes. Needless to say, any amount of applied gloss will not disguise the fact, available to any would-be buyer, that we have spent down our Reserves and are paying off a (presumably inevitable) loan with attendant higher condo fees.
3. Alexandra states in her letter of 11/29/10 that “In every Board meeting, an update is provided on the overall financial status of ECA, as well as on all major project costs, including refurbishment.” The Owners at the November meeting received no financial statement at all. I second Jim Jones’ request (memo to Brd., 11/29/10) for full and detailed public disclosure of all costs associated with the refurbishment (as required by law).
4. Jim Santos was in the thick of the major reconstruction phase of the refurbishment, obviously fully involved and very very busy. Nonetheless he remained patient with and courteous to all Residents. On the other hand, those committee members who are at the center of the current controversy furiously accuse those who disagree with them of acting in a “divisive” manner, “causing disruption,” “fear mongering,” etc., etc. Calm down, ladies; you have had your way, you can afford to be gracious.
5. Judy Gann’s now twice-stated claim that a hole made in apartment doors by some Residents (to hang a wreath) destroyed the
p.3
fireproofing of those doors defies common sense. The hole is minuscule, and the local fire station confirmed to me that such a hole could be plugged and anyway was insignificant. Nonetheless, at the October Board Meeting Judy made this a justification for replacing ALL the apartment doors. (She went on to say that we would have to have condo fee increases or an assessment to pay for everything. True.)
Questions
A. We have had a “three-person Refurbishment Committee and a four-person Advisory Committee” together with prior and present Board members all weighing in on this project. Did any one of them, ever, raise a question about the wisdom of such extravagant spending at this time? If not, why not?
B. Mr.Mendoza (understandably) questions the state of our pipes generally. In 2002 the Expansion Compensator on the 10th floor broke. (The building’s drawings, renowned for their inaccuracy, didn’t even show the expansion compensators, nobody knew they were there.) Eighteen floors of water in an 04 McQuay stack cascaded down and ended up in the lobby. Any failure in any vertical pipe would have a similar effect. When deciding to replace the horizontal pipes in the lobby area (a sensible move), did anyone give thought to the vertical pipes feeding these horizontals?
C. I understand that there is an addendum to the lobby contract that locks in Hartman as the designer for the tower floors. Is there anyone in our assembled volunteer/elected committees who is familiar with the idea of delaying the award of further work until the first phase is satisfactorily completed? (This is known as elementary business acumen.)
D. Various design features have resulted in less natural light in a number of locations. To counteract the resulting dimness, we now have electric lights by the dozen, in the ceiling, on the ceiling, on the walls and directed at the walls. I assume they are all proudly energy-efficient. Does anyone know how much electricity we are burning with our new blazing displays? (Mean- while we Owners are constantly chided to turn off lights/wash clothes in cold water/reduce heat/save electricity.)
Comments
There are those of us who do not swoon over this designer. I’m sure Judy Gann didn’t mean to be presumptuous when telling us, somewhat severely and rather frequently, that we (adults all) must not judge the cake until the icing is applied. For myself I make my own judgments based upon what I plainly see before me, to wit:
* The palette is unimaginative. The touches of matching
p.4
wallpaper, probably intended as a subtle difference, are subtle to the point of non existence: they fade into the surrounding painted walls and make no statement whatever. The mailbox corridor is particularly monochrome. Up close, that particular wallpaper has some character, but from a few feet it is indistinguishable from other walls. The walls opposite elevators do gleam, ‘tis true, but they manage to be both lively and boring, with a repeat pattern rather than a more interesting, varied design.
* The dark carpet, perhaps chosen for its drama, shows every white speck, of which there are daily fresh supplies. In addition this color sucks light into it.
* The mid-carpet column, now brutally enlarged, also takes away light, and drastically interferes with an erstwhile pleasant view of the front driveway and flowers.
* Other (innumerable) dinky dividers between areas serve merely
to lower ceilings and reduce widths. Presumably they are to
condition Owners to the fact that they are leaving one area of activity and entering another, or leaving one part of a corridor and moving into the next. All of these totally unnecessary structures involved material-and-labor costs.
* The dry-now-wet bar in the ?games room? is a monstrosity that takes up a huge amount of space. To what purpose? And when will some bold designer abandon granite granite everywhere? Don’t they get that this (expensive) stuff is about to be so yester-decade?
* The west lobby ceiling, previously cleverly heightened by graceful curved circular spaces with modest chandeliers, now has a large, stark square containing a ludicrously huge circular light that hangs below ceiling level. I foresee bumped heads.
* In our new library area - astonishingly placed next to our new music area - some genius has elected to cover the books with doors (commonly referred to as locker doors). So we readers are denied the pleasure of looking at books. (Please, no feeble excuses about dust.) In addition, someone pointed out to me that the ceiling light, presumably planned to be centered over a library table, is so placed that the table (and its chairs) will prevent access to opening said doors. We will all have to apologize to chair sitters when we dare to reach for a book - that is if we can be heard over the deafening noise of the grand piano thundering away a few yards from us (although psychologically far distant because of the colossal dividing column).
We who are unhappy are not just being peevish. We see real flaws in design and we don’t like our home being changed so drastically without our input. Obviously style is a matter of
personal taste, and there would never have been consensus. But
p.5
this refurbishment has involved drastic changes in layout, about
which there should have been debate. Still, the main issue is the reckless expenditure of funds that, with less construction, less lighting, less cabinetry, and less pretentiousness, could have been used for the infrastructure work we all know is vital.
As to this last, it is becoming a little tiresome to listen to snide remarks about past Boards having done nothing. As one who gave four years to serving (a fraction of the years given by others), I can attest that Board members did not simply sit around eating chocolates and drinking wine. Like most Boards we dealt with myriad everyday matters, many unexpected crises, endlessly ongoing work on pipes, etc. (Mr.Mendoza specifically stated that the building was well-maintained.) Under recent past Boards the roof was replaced, every single brick of the exterior was repointed, the garage floors were recoated, electronic payment of condo fees was established, automatic front doors installed, and many many other projects dealt with during, before and after my own time on the Board. A particularly horrifying near-disaster occurred when the entire sewage system was, without warning, on the point of giving out. Then President Pam Dillon and faithful plumber Mr.Heath charged in to save us all from a pretty unpleasant prospect. Do those who carp so constantly know of all this?
Finally, I know a number of people have contributed many hours on this long, long refurbishment project, and that they have numerous supporters. However, I suspect that a significant percentage of Owners do not applaud the results and would agree with my comments. But the views expressed in this memo are my own.
