I sent the following statement to the ECA Board of Directors this morning. We all need to unite in expressing our concern about this potentially dangerous situation that is being created by the ringing of our fire alarms.
After this morning's miscall on when the Fire Marshall would show up to test our fire alarm, we all have to ask how many times in the last year have we had a meaningful sounding of these tortuously loud fire alarms?
The next time that alarm sounds, how many people will immediately respond as if there is an actual fire threat?
I don't know about the board but I have gotten myself industrial strength ear protection that blocks out most of the noise and I happen to live on the third floor and have a fire ladder that can be used on my balcony. What about those who live on higher floors?
Part of the solution is to substantially fine contractors who set off the alarm and then ban them from the building if they do it a second time. They have insurance for these kind of mishaps. The other thing is that we need to plan larger windows for irresponsible/overtaxed public servants. After all this was a scheduled appointment. These are practical solutions to very upsetting and potentially dangerous mishaps we have been experiencing here at the Elizabeth.
I expect to hear that action will be taken on this matter without delay.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Jim Jones response to Alexandra Kielty's letter to owners of Nov. 29, 2010
In a letter dated November 29, 2010, President of the Board of Directors of the Elizabeth condominium, Ms. Alexandra Kielty, used her power of access to official channels to circulate a rebuttal to an owner petition now in circulation. I and other owners have no such power of access, and must respond using other than official channels. As one representing those who have already signed the petition, or who may yet wish to sign it, I here respond to Ms. Kielty's letter.
Ms. Kielty (on behalf of the Board) calls the petition "an attack on the integrity of the Board of Directors." Rather, I would call it a challenge to the Board's judgement and its crass cronyism.
Despite Ms. Kielty's defensive efforts to portray the Board as transparent and acting on the best interest of the community, the reality hints otherwise. In brief, I would note the following:
Ms. Kielty (on behalf of the Board) calls the petition "an attack on the integrity of the Board of Directors." Rather, I would call it a challenge to the Board's judgement and its crass cronyism.
Despite Ms. Kielty's defensive efforts to portray the Board as transparent and acting on the best interest of the community, the reality hints otherwise. In brief, I would note the following:
- The Board should post in a public place the contract it has with The Hartman Group. In addition, the Board should post a breakdown of all incurred costs of the refurbishment done to date. This breakdown should be detailed, and should include the following in user-friendly format:
- The contract between The Elizabeth and Hartman Group, with addendums.
- The cost of each item purchased or installed under the contract, including artwork and furniture. The cost of artwork and furniture should be detailed by piece.
- The fee paid to Hartman Group for their design and refurbishment work.
- Any fees paid to the management firm Legum and Norman for transacting something like $1.3 million in the context of the refurbishment.
As owners, we have a right to know what we're buying and its cost. Moreover, the Maryland Condominium Act requires that owners have access to this information [Section 11-116, c. (ii)].
- Ms. Kielty further refers to a three-person Refurbishment Committee and a four-person Advisory Committee, all appointed under the tenure of past Board president Woody Cunningham. A major thrust of the present petition argues for new blood. Ms. Kielty and the current Board continued with the same small coterie as always rather than try to bring in new blood and new ideas, notwithstanding the concerns of many owners. The petition thus asks that the Refurbishment Commnittee be increased to seven persons, at least three of which should include persons signing the circulating petition. Ms. Kielty's letter fails to address this key issue.
President Kielty's highly defensive rebuttal is short on relevant specifics and in no way vitiates the essence of the circulating petition, which remains available to all who wish to sign. You can call me, Jim Jones, at (301) 657-1604, or e-mail me at jonesjcz@prodigy.net, for a copy of the petition. Or you can drop a note in my box (unit #307) at the reception desk.
ECA Board Response to Jim Jones Petition
November 29, 2010
Dear Owners/Residents:
A petition is currently being circulated within the Elizabeth that contains a number of erroneous statements to which, as President of the Board, I feel compelled to respond. The petition opens by stating that the Elizabeth Condominium Association (ECA) “faces a dire financial situation". This statement is not only a complete mischaracterization of the Association’s financial position, but also an attack on the integrity of the Board of Directors in fulfilling its fiduciary responsibility.
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 petition erroneously states that “…. an additional large sum will …be required for furniture and artwork” in addition to estimated refurbishment costs of $1.3 million. Let me clarify again that the estimated total of $1.3 million is inclusive of furniture, fixtures and artwork, and no additional costs are anticipated. Further, total costs include a number of change orders for structural enhancements (e.g., new windows and doors throughout the lobby area, and a new air handling unit for the party room) that are part of the necessary rehabilitation of our aging structure and considered advisable to replace while construction was underway.
Regarding the refurbishment process referenced in the petition, residents should not forget that a three-person Refurbishment Committee and a four-person Advisory Committee were appointed by then President, Woody Cunningham. In addition, all current Board Directors are part of the refurbishment decision-making process. No major decisions have been or will be made without input from all of these individuals. The established practice of holding meetings and briefings throughout each stage of the refurbishment and this practice will continue.
The petition also implies that the Board is not giving adequate attention and priority to critical infrastructure work. Quite the contrary, the Board recognizes that the Elizabeth is over 35 years of age and has many infrastructure and mechanical issues. In 2008, for the first time in memory, your Board hired an independent firm, Reserve Advisors, to review replacement costs for various components of common elements and advise us on a recommended amount of reserve funds needed for both short and long-term projects. As a result of their recommendations, we raised condo fees to meet the recommended funding requirement of $712,500, which was included in the 2010 budget. The Board then went one step further by hiring Mendoza, Ribas, Farinas & Associates to analyze the current condition of equipment slated for replacement in the next five years.
The replacement of the emergency generator was undertaken by the Board and is an example of a substantial contribution to the revitalization of the infrastructure which increases the safety of our residents. The refurbishment of the lobby level of the Elizabeth is another important visible step forward as we go about updating our homes, our most significant asset, and the foundation of our day-to-day living. Nevertheless, though the financial condition of the Association is strong, there will be difficult decisions in the months and years ahead to address additional major replacement needs. Specifically, these include the replacement of windows and balcony doors, heat and air handlers (McQuay units), and refurbishment of East and West tower hallways.
All discussions of ECA business are held in open meetings and the Board will continue its practice of transparency with regard to the budgeting, planning, and prioritizing of “reserve projects”. As you know, the Five Year Plan is the primary planning tool for all reserve funded projects and incorporates all the various needs identified in the Reserve Study, the Mendoza Report, and the Energy Audit. Currently, your Board is working with Management to obtain specific cost estimates of major future projects in time for a January 2011 working session of the Board that will be open to all residents. That open meeting will enable us to review again the Five Year Plan and determine/update the order, priorities, and funding of specific projects.
It is a given that not everyone will agree with every decision of the Board. The Board itself is not always unanimous in its decisions. This is to be expected in a diverse and interesting community such as the Elizabeth. Nevertheless, because the Board is a body elected by ECA members, it behooves Board members to listen to a variety of points of view before making difficult decisions that involve significant expenditures, and to do so while showing respect for those who may disagree.
If you have any concerns or questions regarding the issues raised in the petition, please do not hesitate to contact me. You may also contact the Board by registering and sending an e-mail on the new Elizabeth website at: www.elizabethcondo.com.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Kielty
President of the Elizabeth Condominium Association
Dear Owners/Residents:
A petition is currently being circulated within the Elizabeth that contains a number of erroneous statements to which, as President of the Board, I feel compelled to respond. The petition opens by stating that the Elizabeth Condominium Association (ECA) “faces a dire financial situation". This statement is not only a complete mischaracterization of the Association’s financial position, but also an attack on the integrity of the Board of Directors in fulfilling its fiduciary responsibility.
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 petition erroneously states that “…. an additional large sum will …be required for furniture and artwork” in addition to estimated refurbishment costs of $1.3 million. Let me clarify again that the estimated total of $1.3 million is inclusive of furniture, fixtures and artwork, and no additional costs are anticipated. Further, total costs include a number of change orders for structural enhancements (e.g., new windows and doors throughout the lobby area, and a new air handling unit for the party room) that are part of the necessary rehabilitation of our aging structure and considered advisable to replace while construction was underway.
Regarding the refurbishment process referenced in the petition, residents should not forget that a three-person Refurbishment Committee and a four-person Advisory Committee were appointed by then President, Woody Cunningham. In addition, all current Board Directors are part of the refurbishment decision-making process. No major decisions have been or will be made without input from all of these individuals. The established practice of holding meetings and briefings throughout each stage of the refurbishment and this practice will continue.
The petition also implies that the Board is not giving adequate attention and priority to critical infrastructure work. Quite the contrary, the Board recognizes that the Elizabeth is over 35 years of age and has many infrastructure and mechanical issues. In 2008, for the first time in memory, your Board hired an independent firm, Reserve Advisors, to review replacement costs for various components of common elements and advise us on a recommended amount of reserve funds needed for both short and long-term projects. As a result of their recommendations, we raised condo fees to meet the recommended funding requirement of $712,500, which was included in the 2010 budget. The Board then went one step further by hiring Mendoza, Ribas, Farinas & Associates to analyze the current condition of equipment slated for replacement in the next five years.
The replacement of the emergency generator was undertaken by the Board and is an example of a substantial contribution to the revitalization of the infrastructure which increases the safety of our residents. The refurbishment of the lobby level of the Elizabeth is another important visible step forward as we go about updating our homes, our most significant asset, and the foundation of our day-to-day living. Nevertheless, though the financial condition of the Association is strong, there will be difficult decisions in the months and years ahead to address additional major replacement needs. Specifically, these include the replacement of windows and balcony doors, heat and air handlers (McQuay units), and refurbishment of East and West tower hallways.
All discussions of ECA business are held in open meetings and the Board will continue its practice of transparency with regard to the budgeting, planning, and prioritizing of “reserve projects”. As you know, the Five Year Plan is the primary planning tool for all reserve funded projects and incorporates all the various needs identified in the Reserve Study, the Mendoza Report, and the Energy Audit. Currently, your Board is working with Management to obtain specific cost estimates of major future projects in time for a January 2011 working session of the Board that will be open to all residents. That open meeting will enable us to review again the Five Year Plan and determine/update the order, priorities, and funding of specific projects.
It is a given that not everyone will agree with every decision of the Board. The Board itself is not always unanimous in its decisions. This is to be expected in a diverse and interesting community such as the Elizabeth. Nevertheless, because the Board is a body elected by ECA members, it behooves Board members to listen to a variety of points of view before making difficult decisions that involve significant expenditures, and to do so while showing respect for those who may disagree.
If you have any concerns or questions regarding the issues raised in the petition, please do not hesitate to contact me. You may also contact the Board by registering and sending an e-mail on the new Elizabeth website at: www.elizabethcondo.com.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Kielty
President of the Elizabeth Condominium Association
Monday, November 29, 2010
Response to Jim Jones' Petition
I was out of town and not at the November meeting. Upon my return, I received many calls regarding the "petition". I have since received a copy of the petition (but not from the source).
To begin with, the committee was never the Redecorating Committee; in fact, it has always been the Refurbishing Committee, which was put into place by our last President, Woody Cunningham. Refurbishing is not redecorating but much more expansive. One familiar with interior design would know the difference.
From day one, there have been individuals (including a Board member) who have resented the fact that they were not selected for this Committee; in fact, those individuals have consistently put road blocks before the Committee. On the other hand, this Board Member was invited to meetings with the design firm and informed other Committee members and design firm members that he was pleased with the items selected. He also noted that he would expect expenditures to do above the budget; they had in the last renovation and "even the Government goes over budget".
As to the letters received by Mr. Jones and friends, it is my understanding that these letters were not available at the meeting. In fact, it is my understanding that when asked to produce the letters or names of those writing them, Mr. Jones could do neither.
With regard to the costs of refurbishing the Lobby level, those trying to distort the facts have said that the cost of furnishings and art would be in addition to the $1.25 Million originally budgeted for the project. This is not true. The cost of furnishings and art are, in fact, part of the original budget.
Any additional costs incurred were the result of 35 years of wear and tear and the lack of improvements by previous management and Boards. I would note that we should be very grateful to Legum & Norman, and Scott and Jim specifically, for their assistance and expertise in the areas of store front window replacement, pipe replacement and other areas that had deteriorated over the years.
I would note that on the positive side, we (the Committee) have received many letters and oral comments that are positive in their commendation of the work already completed. Many of these individuals have also encouraged the Committee to go forward with the hallways so that the Elizabeth Condominium reflects its place within the Friendship Heights Community. Our committee members, who are on the Board, can and will share those letters with those wishing to see them.
Several real estate agents have walked through the renovated lobby areas and have had only positive comments. We have heard from many of them that our building is now the most attractive in the Friendship Heights community. They have mentioned that the value of our units has increased as a result of this work and completion of the hallways can only increase our values more.
Unfortunately, many residents do not attend Board meetings and are not aware of the breadth of work done to complete the lobby level.
A number of these individuals have been frightened by those, who denigrate the work performed thus far and the future work, voted upon by the Board, and required to be completed to ensure the value of our properties.
It is truly unfortunate that we have residents who will polarize our residents and distort the true facts to get their own way and not work as a community.
As to the current work, it is important that residents wait until the lobby level is completed with furnishings and art work before deciding whether they like it or not. As I have said before, it is like a cake....unfrosted, it is not attractive but the frosting completes the picture....So it will be with the furnishings and art work.
As to the hallways, it would be my hope (and not necessarily that of the rest of the Committee) that the design firm will produce two recommended scenarios for the hallways. A public meeting would then be held, and residents would have an opportunity to vote on which the resident prefers. The decision would, thus, be a community decision.
Since I am not on the Board, I am not privy to all the financial ramifications being considered. However, I do know that The Elizabeth has the lowest condo fees of any of the buildings within Friendship Heights and, in fact, is the only one never to have had an assessment. (One cannot count the $16 I understand was assessed for the mailboxes several years ago).
We are now feeling the pain of not raising condo fees each year; unfortunately, we cannot "cry over spilled milk" but must face up to the fact that our building is 35 years old and needs a great deal of work done to bring it up to acceptable standards.
For those who have lived in private homes, you know that roofs must be replaced, plumbing and electricity must be updated and other work must be performed. A condominium is no different. Most of us have a great deal of money invested in our homes and want them kept up-to-date and in good shape.
I look forward to the completion of the total refurbishment of The Elizabeth so we may all benefit from living in a beautiful, updated and first class residence.
Judy Gann
To begin with, the committee was never the Redecorating Committee; in fact, it has always been the Refurbishing Committee, which was put into place by our last President, Woody Cunningham. Refurbishing is not redecorating but much more expansive. One familiar with interior design would know the difference.
From day one, there have been individuals (including a Board member) who have resented the fact that they were not selected for this Committee; in fact, those individuals have consistently put road blocks before the Committee. On the other hand, this Board Member was invited to meetings with the design firm and informed other Committee members and design firm members that he was pleased with the items selected. He also noted that he would expect expenditures to do above the budget; they had in the last renovation and "even the Government goes over budget".
As to the letters received by Mr. Jones and friends, it is my understanding that these letters were not available at the meeting. In fact, it is my understanding that when asked to produce the letters or names of those writing them, Mr. Jones could do neither.
With regard to the costs of refurbishing the Lobby level, those trying to distort the facts have said that the cost of furnishings and art would be in addition to the $1.25 Million originally budgeted for the project. This is not true. The cost of furnishings and art are, in fact, part of the original budget.
Any additional costs incurred were the result of 35 years of wear and tear and the lack of improvements by previous management and Boards. I would note that we should be very grateful to Legum & Norman, and Scott and Jim specifically, for their assistance and expertise in the areas of store front window replacement, pipe replacement and other areas that had deteriorated over the years.
I would note that on the positive side, we (the Committee) have received many letters and oral comments that are positive in their commendation of the work already completed. Many of these individuals have also encouraged the Committee to go forward with the hallways so that the Elizabeth Condominium reflects its place within the Friendship Heights Community. Our committee members, who are on the Board, can and will share those letters with those wishing to see them.
Several real estate agents have walked through the renovated lobby areas and have had only positive comments. We have heard from many of them that our building is now the most attractive in the Friendship Heights community. They have mentioned that the value of our units has increased as a result of this work and completion of the hallways can only increase our values more.
Unfortunately, many residents do not attend Board meetings and are not aware of the breadth of work done to complete the lobby level.
A number of these individuals have been frightened by those, who denigrate the work performed thus far and the future work, voted upon by the Board, and required to be completed to ensure the value of our properties.
It is truly unfortunate that we have residents who will polarize our residents and distort the true facts to get their own way and not work as a community.
As to the current work, it is important that residents wait until the lobby level is completed with furnishings and art work before deciding whether they like it or not. As I have said before, it is like a cake....unfrosted, it is not attractive but the frosting completes the picture....So it will be with the furnishings and art work.
As to the hallways, it would be my hope (and not necessarily that of the rest of the Committee) that the design firm will produce two recommended scenarios for the hallways. A public meeting would then be held, and residents would have an opportunity to vote on which the resident prefers. The decision would, thus, be a community decision.
Since I am not on the Board, I am not privy to all the financial ramifications being considered. However, I do know that The Elizabeth has the lowest condo fees of any of the buildings within Friendship Heights and, in fact, is the only one never to have had an assessment. (One cannot count the $16 I understand was assessed for the mailboxes several years ago).
We are now feeling the pain of not raising condo fees each year; unfortunately, we cannot "cry over spilled milk" but must face up to the fact that our building is 35 years old and needs a great deal of work done to bring it up to acceptable standards.
For those who have lived in private homes, you know that roofs must be replaced, plumbing and electricity must be updated and other work must be performed. A condominium is no different. Most of us have a great deal of money invested in our homes and want them kept up-to-date and in good shape.
I look forward to the completion of the total refurbishment of The Elizabeth so we may all benefit from living in a beautiful, updated and first class residence.
Judy Gann
Friday, November 26, 2010
Refurbishment Issues - Response to Jim Jones
1. Mr. Jones states in his petition, “Beyond the more than $ 1.3 million already spent on "refurbishing" and making partial structural changes in the lobby, an additional large sum will apparently be required for furniture and artwork.” Nothing could be further from the truth!
The truth is that many years ago the ECA Board set aside a budget for the refurbishment project, and this budget includes all furniture and artwork, and the Hartman Design Group has stayed within that limit. This budgeted limit did not include unanticipated construction costs, such as correction of leaking windows and pipes, which needed to be addressed regardless of the renovation. In other words, all of the structural changes, the furniture, furnishings, artwork, etc, are coming out of the budgeted amount. For Mr. Jones to say otherwise – or to lead others to believe otherwise – is nothing more than fear-mongering of the worst kind.
2. Mr. Jones asks that the current “Decorating Committee” be increased from its current composition of three members to, “…to at least seven, and that the individuals added to the committee consist of at least three Association members who have signed this petition.” The committee of three has done an outstanding job of marshalling this project through to (almost) completion. And, just as important, is the fact that all of the other designers with whom the Board spoke, and there were many, said the job as described in the statement of work could not be done for the budgeted amount. It is to the credit of the Hartman Group and this committee that the job was done for the budgeted amount…and in fact, that they could give the Elizabeth so much more than was originally envisioned for the same budgeted amount because the Hartman Design Group
• Took advantage of economies of scale and used its greater purchasing power to get us the best products at the lowest cost;
• Due to its exceptional design and technical expertise was able to give us high quality products at a lower cost;
• Worked hard to bid out work out to many vendors to get us the lowest possible cost; and
• Took advantage of the highly competitive marketplace in the current lagging economy.
To make any changes to the composition of the committee at this stage is not only unwarranted, it is foolish!
3. I think it is important to point out that the last time we renovated, more than 20 years ago, as I recall, we spent more than $2M on the renovation. And, as I recall, there were huge cost overruns. In fact, I have been told that the cost overruns were approximately $200,000!
4. Mr. Jones also states, “…the Board's enthusiasm for the Hartman design firm is not widely enough shared by Association members.” Clearly, he and I speak to different people. Most I meet and speak with every day are extremely enthusiastic about the work done by the Hartman Design Group, and in fact, they all ask the same question: When will the Hartman Design Group begin work on the residential corridors? They cannot wait for work to begin on their floors. One of the reasons that the committee has gone forward to Hartman for a design for the corridors is, once again, to take maximum advantage of the competitive marketplace in the still lagging economy. Based on the number of people I meet who are supportive of continuing the renovation project to all residential floors, I must conclude that the Board’s enthusiasm for the Hartman design firm is widely shared by Association members.
5. Mr. Jones concludes that “….condominium fees will have to be raised substantially yet again, or a crippling assessment will have to be paid by Association members in the difficult financial conditions anticipated for the immediate future.” Mr. Jones unfortunately overlooks the fact that for many years our condo fees were not raised at all, and for many years they were raised only minimally, while our neighboring condos continued to manage effectively, raising condo fees appropriately and adequately funding their reserves. The result is that the other buildings have kept their infrastructure (and interior design) up-to-date, while ours has been neglected. If Mr. Jones is arguing against raising our condo fees, he is, in fact, urging the same irresponsible financial management that got us into this jam in the first place!
6. At the November Board meeting, I am told that Mr. Jones referred to “we” when speaking about his petition, and that he repeatedly refused to reveal who “we” were. I find this lack of transparency to be odd to say the least. Some have speculated that Mr. Jones is the “we” and hoping to get support for his own petition by leading others to believe that he represents a large group.
We are a building of 353 units. It would be strange, indeed, if everyone were to agree on everything. However, what I find particularly alarming is that that people here are not able to disagree respectfully or professionally. They do so in a divisive fashion – by whipping up the uninformed with rumor and innuendo, employing misrepresentations, misstatements and fear-mongering, and circulating petitions.
We have a Board, elected to properly manage our funds and protect and enhance our property values. I feel they are doing a fine job of this. If there are those among us who wish to help, they can make their views known by writing to the Board or speaking out at meetings. If anyone wishes to complain, he/she should at least have their facts right! In any case, if owners feel that any Board member has failed to properly carry out their duties, he/she can vote his/her mind at the upcoming election. Causing disruption, spreading misrepresentation, fear-mongering, or otherwise engaging in divisive actions is not helpful and diminishes the worth of every owners’ property.
If Jim Jones is alarmed, - so am I. I am alarmed at the tactics and strategy used by neighbors who wish to disagree.
The truth is that many years ago the ECA Board set aside a budget for the refurbishment project, and this budget includes all furniture and artwork, and the Hartman Design Group has stayed within that limit. This budgeted limit did not include unanticipated construction costs, such as correction of leaking windows and pipes, which needed to be addressed regardless of the renovation. In other words, all of the structural changes, the furniture, furnishings, artwork, etc, are coming out of the budgeted amount. For Mr. Jones to say otherwise – or to lead others to believe otherwise – is nothing more than fear-mongering of the worst kind.
2. Mr. Jones asks that the current “Decorating Committee” be increased from its current composition of three members to, “…to at least seven, and that the individuals added to the committee consist of at least three Association members who have signed this petition.” The committee of three has done an outstanding job of marshalling this project through to (almost) completion. And, just as important, is the fact that all of the other designers with whom the Board spoke, and there were many, said the job as described in the statement of work could not be done for the budgeted amount. It is to the credit of the Hartman Group and this committee that the job was done for the budgeted amount…and in fact, that they could give the Elizabeth so much more than was originally envisioned for the same budgeted amount because the Hartman Design Group
• Took advantage of economies of scale and used its greater purchasing power to get us the best products at the lowest cost;
• Due to its exceptional design and technical expertise was able to give us high quality products at a lower cost;
• Worked hard to bid out work out to many vendors to get us the lowest possible cost; and
• Took advantage of the highly competitive marketplace in the current lagging economy.
To make any changes to the composition of the committee at this stage is not only unwarranted, it is foolish!
3. I think it is important to point out that the last time we renovated, more than 20 years ago, as I recall, we spent more than $2M on the renovation. And, as I recall, there were huge cost overruns. In fact, I have been told that the cost overruns were approximately $200,000!
4. Mr. Jones also states, “…the Board's enthusiasm for the Hartman design firm is not widely enough shared by Association members.” Clearly, he and I speak to different people. Most I meet and speak with every day are extremely enthusiastic about the work done by the Hartman Design Group, and in fact, they all ask the same question: When will the Hartman Design Group begin work on the residential corridors? They cannot wait for work to begin on their floors. One of the reasons that the committee has gone forward to Hartman for a design for the corridors is, once again, to take maximum advantage of the competitive marketplace in the still lagging economy. Based on the number of people I meet who are supportive of continuing the renovation project to all residential floors, I must conclude that the Board’s enthusiasm for the Hartman design firm is widely shared by Association members.
5. Mr. Jones concludes that “….condominium fees will have to be raised substantially yet again, or a crippling assessment will have to be paid by Association members in the difficult financial conditions anticipated for the immediate future.” Mr. Jones unfortunately overlooks the fact that for many years our condo fees were not raised at all, and for many years they were raised only minimally, while our neighboring condos continued to manage effectively, raising condo fees appropriately and adequately funding their reserves. The result is that the other buildings have kept their infrastructure (and interior design) up-to-date, while ours has been neglected. If Mr. Jones is arguing against raising our condo fees, he is, in fact, urging the same irresponsible financial management that got us into this jam in the first place!
6. At the November Board meeting, I am told that Mr. Jones referred to “we” when speaking about his petition, and that he repeatedly refused to reveal who “we” were. I find this lack of transparency to be odd to say the least. Some have speculated that Mr. Jones is the “we” and hoping to get support for his own petition by leading others to believe that he represents a large group.
We are a building of 353 units. It would be strange, indeed, if everyone were to agree on everything. However, what I find particularly alarming is that that people here are not able to disagree respectfully or professionally. They do so in a divisive fashion – by whipping up the uninformed with rumor and innuendo, employing misrepresentations, misstatements and fear-mongering, and circulating petitions.
We have a Board, elected to properly manage our funds and protect and enhance our property values. I feel they are doing a fine job of this. If there are those among us who wish to help, they can make their views known by writing to the Board or speaking out at meetings. If anyone wishes to complain, he/she should at least have their facts right! In any case, if owners feel that any Board member has failed to properly carry out their duties, he/she can vote his/her mind at the upcoming election. Causing disruption, spreading misrepresentation, fear-mongering, or otherwise engaging in divisive actions is not helpful and diminishes the worth of every owners’ property.
If Jim Jones is alarmed, - so am I. I am alarmed at the tactics and strategy used by neighbors who wish to disagree.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Refurbishment Issues Raised by Jim Jones
Several members of the Elizabeth Condominium Association realize with growing dismay that the Association faces a dire financial situation that will affect every Association menmber. In the belief that the lack of appropriate attention to a large proportion of members' concerns will continue unabated if we do not speak out, we are united in our appeal to the Board for consideration of the critical financial issues this petition addresses. We are circulating a petition (in synthesis below) to the Board that details our concerns. You may obtain a copy gor signing by sending an e-mail to Jim Jones (jonesjcz@prodigy.net), or otherwise notifying him by leaving a note in his box (Unit #307).
Beyond the more than $1.3 million already spent on "refurbishing" and making partial structural changes in the lobby, an additional large sum will apparently be required for furniture and artwork. In addition, the recent engineering evaluation report (Mendoza Report) introduced in the open meeting of the Board on October 18 and available for study on the Elizabeth website, estimates that more than $900,000-exclusive of labor-is required to replace all equipment required to ensure the health and safety of residents. The report advises that about half of this amount should be invested in the immediate term to replace equipment. The total amount required for essential maintenance and completion of the lobby appurtenances does not include other measures proposed at the meeting: insulation of windows, other vital maintenance suggested by the engineering consultant, any work on unit doors, or, indeed, any other enhancements of interior appearance wished for by the Decorating Committee. Clearly, when the costs of necessary infrastructure work are added to the cost of additional decoration, condominium fees will have to be raised substantially yet again, or a crippling assessment will have to be paid by Association members in the difficult financial conditions anticipated for the near future. Therefore,
1. We urge strongly that all future work of decorating, including any work to be done on floors one through eighteen, be carefully and knowledgeably coordinated for economic viability with the costly and far more necessary work required to maintain the building's infrastructure. Fully detailed information about the projected cost and plan for payment of any undertaking that affects the appearance or the structural integrity of the building should be provided to all Association members well in advance of the signing of any future contracts, not only by means of oral presentation by Board members in open meetings, but also in hard copy as well as electronic text.
2. Although the Board's enthusiasm for the Hartman design firm is not widely enough shared by Association members, the Board has already signed an agreement with that company to provide the design for floors one through eighteen. In consideration of the high cost of the work already done on the lobby and the very great need for structural maintenance, we urge that no work on the upper floors be undertaken until a plan that coordinates the expense of all work on necessary infrastructure repair and decoration is completed and shared with Association members for their input.
3. We ask that the number of those on the Decorating Co0mmittee be increased from the current three members reported by the committee chair in the public meeting of the Board on October 18, to at least seven, and that the individuals added to the committee consist of at least three Association members who have signed this petition. The responsibilities of the expanded Decorating Committee should include monitoring cost/work to stay within a tight budget and ensuring that Association members are kept informed in a timely way that allows them to make a precise analysis of details and costs that will enable them to present their reactions appropriately to the Board.
Beyond the more than $1.3 million already spent on "refurbishing" and making partial structural changes in the lobby, an additional large sum will apparently be required for furniture and artwork. In addition, the recent engineering evaluation report (Mendoza Report) introduced in the open meeting of the Board on October 18 and available for study on the Elizabeth website, estimates that more than $900,000-exclusive of labor-is required to replace all equipment required to ensure the health and safety of residents. The report advises that about half of this amount should be invested in the immediate term to replace equipment. The total amount required for essential maintenance and completion of the lobby appurtenances does not include other measures proposed at the meeting: insulation of windows, other vital maintenance suggested by the engineering consultant, any work on unit doors, or, indeed, any other enhancements of interior appearance wished for by the Decorating Committee. Clearly, when the costs of necessary infrastructure work are added to the cost of additional decoration, condominium fees will have to be raised substantially yet again, or a crippling assessment will have to be paid by Association members in the difficult financial conditions anticipated for the near future. Therefore,
1. We urge strongly that all future work of decorating, including any work to be done on floors one through eighteen, be carefully and knowledgeably coordinated for economic viability with the costly and far more necessary work required to maintain the building's infrastructure. Fully detailed information about the projected cost and plan for payment of any undertaking that affects the appearance or the structural integrity of the building should be provided to all Association members well in advance of the signing of any future contracts, not only by means of oral presentation by Board members in open meetings, but also in hard copy as well as electronic text.
2. Although the Board's enthusiasm for the Hartman design firm is not widely enough shared by Association members, the Board has already signed an agreement with that company to provide the design for floors one through eighteen. In consideration of the high cost of the work already done on the lobby and the very great need for structural maintenance, we urge that no work on the upper floors be undertaken until a plan that coordinates the expense of all work on necessary infrastructure repair and decoration is completed and shared with Association members for their input.
3. We ask that the number of those on the Decorating Co0mmittee be increased from the current three members reported by the committee chair in the public meeting of the Board on October 18, to at least seven, and that the individuals added to the committee consist of at least three Association members who have signed this petition. The responsibilities of the expanded Decorating Committee should include monitoring cost/work to stay within a tight budget and ensuring that Association members are kept informed in a timely way that allows them to make a precise analysis of details and costs that will enable them to present their reactions appropriately to the Board.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Summary of November 15, 2010 Elizabeth Condo Board Meeting
Present at the meeting: Alexandra Kielty, Charles Bressler, Molly Frantz, Monique Fridell, Seth Levine, Al Muller, Scott Murdoch, Jim Santos, recorder of meeting minutes. Judi Barth was absent.
Meeting was held in west lobby of the Elizabeth.
The major thrust of this meeting was concern over money.
Items include:
Board approved $2225 so that Ruppert Landscaping can create a master plan for the ECA landscaping. This money will be applied to installation and maintenance after $10,000 is spent with them.
Red flag waved over what money remains in the ECA reserve fund (about $400,000) and working capital fund ($485,000).
Generator project, which has suffered a cost overrun of $90,000, is expected to be completed after Thanksgiving.
Renovation project suffered a cost overrun of $120,000 because of window replacement in the West Lobby. This was not an expected expenditure but the completion of the West Lobby made no sense if the leaking windows were not replaced since it would ruin the new carpeting.
The Board approved $5003 to upgrade our package tracking software, which has been running on a version that was not ever fully operative since the Association never bought a bona fide version of the software.
The new business center of the Elizabeth will offer a copier, computer with printer, and a fax machine for use by residents. Most of this equipment has been donated.
Because of one unit owner who has failed to pay condo fees for more than one month, delinquencies are up and there is not relief in sight.
Discussion held regarding raising the rent of the Elizabeth-owned apartment. Apparently the rent has not been raised in the last couple of years. ECA condo lawyer needs to weigh in on this.
Discussion about liability of allowing un-supervised children in the lobby areas.
Discussion about whether the party room should be rented or used free of charge like the pool and exercise rooms.
Jim Jones presented a call to sign a petition that would put a temporary stop to spending for the renovation and various maintenance projects until a larger committee could be put in place that would represent a wider segment of ECA members. While he said the petition represented a group of people, he would not say who his petition-writing team was.
Window washing has been postponed until the spring.
Meeting was held in west lobby of the Elizabeth.
The major thrust of this meeting was concern over money.
Items include:
Board approved $2225 so that Ruppert Landscaping can create a master plan for the ECA landscaping. This money will be applied to installation and maintenance after $10,000 is spent with them.
Red flag waved over what money remains in the ECA reserve fund (about $400,000) and working capital fund ($485,000).
Generator project, which has suffered a cost overrun of $90,000, is expected to be completed after Thanksgiving.
Renovation project suffered a cost overrun of $120,000 because of window replacement in the West Lobby. This was not an expected expenditure but the completion of the West Lobby made no sense if the leaking windows were not replaced since it would ruin the new carpeting.
The Board approved $5003 to upgrade our package tracking software, which has been running on a version that was not ever fully operative since the Association never bought a bona fide version of the software.
The new business center of the Elizabeth will offer a copier, computer with printer, and a fax machine for use by residents. Most of this equipment has been donated.
Because of one unit owner who has failed to pay condo fees for more than one month, delinquencies are up and there is not relief in sight.
Discussion held regarding raising the rent of the Elizabeth-owned apartment. Apparently the rent has not been raised in the last couple of years. ECA condo lawyer needs to weigh in on this.
Discussion about liability of allowing un-supervised children in the lobby areas.
Discussion about whether the party room should be rented or used free of charge like the pool and exercise rooms.
Jim Jones presented a call to sign a petition that would put a temporary stop to spending for the renovation and various maintenance projects until a larger committee could be put in place that would represent a wider segment of ECA members. While he said the petition represented a group of people, he would not say who his petition-writing team was.
Window washing has been postponed until the spring.