Memo from Jim Jones on Board Meeting of Dec. 20, 2010

MEMORANDUM

Date: December 21, 2010

To: Owners and members of the Elizabeth Condominium Association

From: James C. Jones

Concerning: Board meeting of Dec. 20, 2010

During the open session of the Board meeting yesterday evening, meanness mingled with great ignorance, in yet another sad spectacle of democracy as we know it in The Elizabeth.

Let me begin by noting that my intent last night was to suggest that a little sound reasoning leads to the minimal conclusion that we’re dancing on the edge of a financial cliff with regard to our spending. And with such dancing comes the risk of toppling over and into the abyss (where everything is dark, and where “dwelleth clowns and fools”). I certainly agree that refurbishment is a need everywhere in our aging building. But I’m also aware of the cost of repairing and replacing basic quality-of-life infrastructure. The Board’s challenge is to balance this out, with a bias as regards infrastructure. And that balance also requires the allocation of refurbishment resources rationally between all areas of the building.

There are at least two dimensions of the Board’s fiduciary responsibility as it pursues this balance. First, it must keep condo fees within a range tolerable for those of us—myself included—with less income. Many of our owners live on a fixed low income. And with the recent economic debacle, whose effects will resonate for years to come, those residents have reason to be concerned. And second, the Board must keep one eye cocked on property value.

As an economist and an owner, I question whether either the current or the previous Board have balanced this well. This is what the circulating petition is all about. Each owner, of course, must ask this question. And in so doing, I would encourage him or her to obtain a copy of the contract signed by the Board with the Hartman Group, and the addendum that goes with it. (I obtained both electronically, with Board permission and the kindness of Scott Murdoch.) Please look carefully at the costs. And note in the contract addendum that the Board commits to the Hartman Group for work on the floors—18 floors in each tower, for a total of 36 floors. I see a reckless lavishness—I’m not here arguing aesthetics—in these costs, one that we can ill afford. Do we wish to continue in this lavish vein as we refurbish the floors? Can we? What are the risks?

In trying to learn how designers operate, I consulted five or six of them in the D.C. area. True, not all of them do condos, sometimes because of the conflicts involved. But I did learn that there is no industry standard for design fees, which can be calculated in several ways. One is to bill by time spent. Another is by taking a commission on items procured. And a third is a combination of the two, which is what Hartman does. If you read the Hartman contract, you see an hourly fee structure, and also see that Hartman takes a 30 percent “procurement cost” on each item furnished. And the client pays shipping and handling, storage, and insurance costs separately. There is no economic incentive for Hartman to keep costs down, and every incentive to keep them high.

According to cost-track data provided by management, the design fee already disbursed to Hartman is $256,714.00. Adding the 30 percent procurement fee cost (30 % of $189,392, the figure from the contract cost proposal) yields $313,500. Something less than this amount qualifies as “profit” as that term is normally understood. And if the total construction cost is $1.3 million, then the profit is something less than 24 percent. Did we get our money’s worth?

Let me say more about the petition. The nub of it (the Third Point) calls for a restructuring of the Refurbishment Committee in order to create a mechanism to control costs and help the Board achieve the balance that I speak of above. The petition asks for a Committee with at least seven persons, including three petition signers. I did learn in talking with design firms that they prefer to deal with a minimum number of individuals in order to facilitate consensus. This is why I proposed last night that a new three-person Refurbishment Committee be formed, with a new advisory group. And the new Committee should consist of those who sign the petition.

Why did I say last night that I wanted more signatures in order to have some “legal” clout? It's quite simple. We currently have 67 signatures from 57 units. And those units represent 14.8 percent of total ownership. (This figure is not insignificant if one recalls that no candidate received more than this percent of ownership in the last three Board elections. If the petition, like voting, is an expression of community preference, then it ranks above those we have elected.) According to our Bylaws, a petition representing 25 percent of total ownership value obliges the Board President to call a special meeting. This is the “legal” clout to which I refer. A special meeting, should one be called, would address expenditures, especially as regards those for refurbishment. I would still ask owners to sign the petition. And please let me emphasize that you have nothing to fear: your names would be used only for the purpose that I just described—indeed, could not be used for any other conceivable purpose.

I conclude by noting that I grew up in a Scotch-Irish community. Composure is a delicate and near-uncontrollable thing among the Scotch-Irish, and I all but lost mine last night by sallying forth in full battle regalia. But let's be clear about one thing: I make no apologies for the combative role that I’m playing as regards the petition.

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