Memo to Board.......

MEMO

TO: The Board of Directors, The Elizabeth Condominium

Legum and Norman Management

Mr. Jim Jones

Residents of the Elizabeth Condominium

FROM: Judy Gann, Co-Chair Refurbishment Committee

RE: Last Night’s Board Meeting

I wish to apologize to all for losing my temper last night at the Board Meeting. I regret my actions and assure you this public display will not occur in the future. While I take full responsibility for my actions, some of Mr. Jones’ misinformation just incensed me and hopefully, these facts can be addressed in this memo.

1. The contract with Hartman Design Group (HDG): This is a standard American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) contract. Ms. Hartman and her firm are certified by and members of ASID. The contract was presented to ECA, who turned it over to our attorney, Jason Fisher, for review, etc. Mr. Fisher reviewed and amended the contract. He then negotiated the terms with HDG’s attorney. When all negotiations were complete, the contract was returned to ECA for signature.

2. Ms. Hartman’s Hourly Fee: It should be noted that Ms. Hartman, throughout the duration of this contract, has utilized the services of her assistants for most of the work on this contract. Their hourly rate is obviously lower than hers. She has reserved her hours for final review of all phases of the project and has been diligent about billing as few hours as possible. The contract, contrary to Mr. Jones’ assessment, is within budget.

3. Eligible Designers: Mr. Jones’ statement that he found six designers, who could do this job, in a short period of time is unbelievable. In fact, our three-person committee, our advisory committee of five, and other interested residents took almost a year to find credible designers with the qualifications to refurbish an existing condominium with residents living in the facility while work is being done. Mr. Jones never indicated an interest in assisting in this search.

For those not familiar with interior designers, in fact, there are designers, who work only with private homes; designers, who do commercial projects such as hotels, etc.; and those, who work with condominiums/apartments. Of the latter, most work only on new, unoccupied buildings and many who work with smaller buildings. There are few with the expertise to work in a large condominium like The Elizabeth. There are even fewer with the expertise to work on a project with the residents in place. HDG is such a firm.

All the designers we interviewed were ASID accredited, and to a person, they said our budget of $1.25 million would not be enough to complete the lobby areas. In fact, Ms. Hartman’s first review agreed with this assessment.

4. Selected Designer: After interviewing over fifteen designers, the Committee had a short list of four designers, who were qualified to do our project. Of the four, one could not take on another project; one had never done a condominium of our size and a third, had done a project at the Carleton, which did not hold up and had to be redone for a large amount of money five years later. Ms. Hartman, at first, was reluctant to take on this project not because her firm was not capable of doing the job, but because she felt that the funding was very limiting. After much discussion, she agreed to work with ECA, and in fact, she and her associates have been cooperative and inventive in giving The Elizabeth the “biggest bang for the buck”.

5. The Petition: I would hope that individuals considering signing the circulating petition, read it very carefully. There are areas of concern within the petition, which warrant careful evaluation. In addition, at last night’s meeting, Mr. Jones said he planned to use the petitions in the future but did not disclose how he planned to use them. As a signer, one should be concerned about the use of his/her signature as Mr. Jones deems to use it.

Speech given at Board Meeting of 12/20/10 by Judy Gann #711

I am speaking tonight, hopefully not in my ”customary scolding tone” because I will miss the next two Board meetings.

· The idea of having petitions and letters sent to select members of the Elizabeth Condo runs counterintuitive to a democratically run condominium, which I have always felt that we were and are.

· I am appalled that members of our community would make statements about other residents that are, at best, debasing.

· It was my goal at the beginning of this project that we, The Elizabeth Condominium, would defy the odds other condos have faced and would complete the refurbishment of our home with all of us remaining friendly and caring of others. Unfortunately, a few mean spirited individuals have ensured that this is not happening.

· As to exaggerations of the cost of the refurbishment and other details of the work that was completed, I would note that this money had been set aside for over five years and in fact, has been in several recent five year plans.

· Those, who would blame this refurbishment for our current financial state are incorrect. This money was set by the Board (in fact it was a larger number originally and then was cut back to $1.25M) over four years ago. Perhaps these same individuals should look to the Boards who refused to raise condo fees for over 10 years. Perhaps this is the real reason for our current financial status.

· We are dealing with a 35 year old building with repairs that have become more necessary as the building ages.

· It is obvious to anyone understanding the current financial picture that we must continue with our refurbishment of the halls as well as replacement of the windows and sliding doors. If this requires increased condo fees, so be it.

· Our residents should understand that this is our home and while it is a jointly owned structure, anyone who has ever owned a single family home is well aware that roofs and eaves must be replaced, painting inside and outside must be maintained; the only difference is that we are all under one roof.

· As to the statement in a letter delivered by Sheila Bason to many individuals, but not all of us, the statement about doors to units was incorrect. What I had said was that because many residents had shaved the bottom of their doors to allow for carpeting, the integrity of the fire retardancy of the doors no longer exists per the Montgomery County Fire Marshall.

· Another erroneous statement was that the residents never had an opportunity to see how the lobby would be divided. In fact, immediately following the meeting with the Hartman Group, I met with several residents, including Mollie Frantz and Mr. Bason, who asked to see the plans. We spent time together going over the plans and discussing space issues. In addition, The Committee made itself available to meet with any resident wishing to see the plans.

· It has been stated that windows were blocking light in the new design. Not true. Only two windows were replaced with dry wall and that was to improve the heating/air conditioning of the vestibule and lobby.

In conclusion, I would hope that we can all embrace the changes that have been and will continue to be made to improve our home, The Elizabeth. Let us live in harmony and enjoy our new, updated surroundings.

Refurbishment: Memo to Board from Sheilah Bason

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.

False Alarms

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.

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:

• 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:

1. The contract between The Elizabeth and Hartman Group, with addendums.
2. 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.
3. The fee paid to Hartman Group for their design and refurbishment work.
4. 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

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