THE ELIZABETH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
4601 North Park Avenue
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting January 19, 2011
Board Present:
Alexandria Kielty .........................President
Dr. Alfred Muller .........................Vice President
Monique Fridell ...........................Treasurer
Molly Frantz ...............................Assistant Treasurer
Charles Bressler ...........................Secretary
Seth Levine .................................Director
Board Absent:
Judith Barth ................................Director
Others Present:
Scott Murdoch ...............Community Manager, Legum & Norman
James M. Santos ...........ECA General Manager
Jana Bowcut .................Recording Secretary, On the Record
Call to Order: Ms. Kielty called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
Announcements:
Approval of Minutes:
MOTION Dr. Muller moved, Mr. Bressler seconded, to approve the December 10, 2010 regular meeting minutes as amended, with one correction. An asterisk/footnote should be added to Tracy Geiger’s (DeLeon & Stang auditor) report of the final draft of the audit to refer to the corrected results reported by Mr. Murdoch in the January 19, 2011 board meeting. The motion passed with two abstentions by Mr. Levine and Ms. Kielty (4-0-2).
President’s Report: Ms. Kielty thanked Dr. Muller for conducting the last board meeting in her absence and dealing with some issues while she was out of town. She also thanked Elin Winthrop and Peg Downey for organizing the staff holiday fund. Another group of residents was thanked for restocking the library. Appreciation was expressed to Mr. Santos for the complimentary letters he wrote to the HBW construction group for their work on the lobby refurbishment. Ms. Kielty added that she attended most of the meetings with the HBW project leads and was impressed with their professionalism and integrity.
Ms. Kielty stated that placement of the furniture and accessories in the lobby will occur over three to four days next week. The next refurbishment project under consideration is the resident hallways. The Board will next meet for a working session on January 31, 2011 to begin discussion of this and other capital improvement projects including window and balcony door replacement, McQuay fan coil unit replacement and entry canopies. Ms. Kielty stated that the Elizabeth is a 35-year old building and requires updates to maintain its value. She added that she has served on the Board for the last four years, along with Dr. Muller and Ms. Fridell, and during that time there has been increased opportunity for residents to share input. The Board is responsible for making some difficult decisions and uses the best judgment possible. Board members take their positions seriously and volunteer many hours of their time in the best interest of the Association.
Treasurer’s Report: Ms. Fridell explained that the revision to the audited financial statements was due to a FY 2010 Pepco bill that arrived after the audit firm had concluded its audit work in October 2011 . Correct application of this bill to FY 2010 results will reduce the year’s surplus by $55,000. Both Legum & Norman and DeLeon & Stang have been involved in making these changes. Ms. Fridell stated that in the future, the Association will need to be more patient in waiting for audited statements to ensure that all bills are accounted for. DeLeon & Stang has recommended that its team perform the on-site audit in mid-October instead of mid-September to be sure that all August and September billing has cleared L&N Accounting and has been posted. Ms. Fridell stated that ECA needs to ensure that Legum & Norman Accounting and Controller review and provide comments regarding the draft audited statements and adjusted journal entries recommended by D&S, which was not done for this audit.
An explanation for the late PEPCO invoice was described by Mr. Murdoch: in early July 2010, the June Pepco bill for $63,000 was received, which was paid. Subsequent to that, another bill for the same period for $110,000 was received and reported in the July management report. Instead of paying the difference, the balance was carried over to the next bill, which was about $160,000. When DeLeon & Stang conducted the audit, it appeared based on documentation that the Association had overpaid Pepco by $50,007, and made an adjusted journal entry to the account, which resulted in a year-end surplus of $118,000. In December 2010, when Legum & Norman accounting department was reviewing the FY 2011 accounts because of high utility usage, the adjusting journal entry was questioned and discussed with DeLeon & Stang. The operating surplus was then reduced from $118,000 to $68,000. DeLeon and Stang will adjust the audit by that amount. Ms. Fridell clarified that as a result, the utility expense will go up in FY2010 and the net income will go down. Dr. Muller asked if there was any legal requirement to have the audit done in a certain amount of time. Ms. Fridell stated that according to association by-laws, there is no requirement; however, she believes that six months is certainly a long time after FYE to wait for audited statements. Dr. Muller also noted that Pepco has sent bills late in the past, which management should be aware of.
Old Business:
Lobby Renovation/Furniture Installation: Mr. Santos stated that the lobby refurbishment is complete, with the exception of the furniture and artwork placement. Final inspections have been done and there are some small changes that need to be made. Furniture and accessories will be placed beginning on Tuesday of next week and should be completed by Friday.
Management Expenditure Authority/BOD Approval: Mr. Murdoch stated that the management contract allows Management signing authority for up to $3,000 per expense, and anything exceeding that requires board approval, which would be done by e-mail. Ms. Fridell asked if a vote of endorsement will be needed at the next board meeting for expenditures made by management. Management and the Board agreed that if there is a statement of endorsement, then no vote is necessary. Actions that take place in between meetings should be identified for the minutes.
New Business:
Collections Procedures/Delegation of Authority: Mr. Murdoch stated that he has discussed with Ms. Fridell delegating authority to the treasurer to handle minor collection issues, such as writing off small balances rather than waiting for the next board meeting. Also, management should be given the authority to interact with the attorneys about collection issues.
MOTION Ms. Fridell moved, Dr. Muller seconded, to approve delegation to the Treasurer/Assistant Treasurer to handle minor collections and settlement issues. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION Ms. Fridell moved, Dr. Muller seconded, to approve delegation to management to handle minor collections issues and interact with legal counsel. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Murdoch stated that as of December 31, 2011, delinquencies dropped by $2,000. Subsequent to that, another $12,500 has been collected, which has reduced the overall delinquency rate from three percent to two percent.
Items for Approval:
Marble floor: Mr. Santos stated that HBW Group, as part of its scope of work for the lobby renovation, is responsible for cleaning and sealing the marble floors throughout the lobby area. However, the lobby renovation plans only included about half of the work that needs to be done to completely restore the marble floors. Mr. Santos requested through e-mail that the Board endorse the expense for polishing the marble after cleaning. HBW will ensure that the floors are cleaned, and for $3,646.00, the floors would then be polished and sealed to protect the finish. The work will be done in the next two weeks after the furniture is placed.
Six of seven Board members approved with President Kielty not required to respond since majority was achieved: $3,646.00 was approved and endorsed via e-mail on January 10, 2011 for Odyssey Restorations to polish and seal marble floors. Odyssey is the same company that performed the polishing of the brass elevator doors.
Dr. Muller inquired about $825 that was authorized for waste pipe cleaning of three tiers, and wanted to make sure that tier 11 was done as that tier had experienced major pipe problems. Mr. Santos stated that cleaning is to be done for tiers 11, 12, 18, 19 and 21 by JP Seworooter, Inc.
Environmental Waste Removal: Mr. Santos stated that there is a large amount of waste throughout the building that needs to be disposed of properly. HBW recommended Environmental Management Services, Inc. and completed a credit application on the Elizabeth’s behalf. Ms. Fridell inquired if owners’ environmental waste could be included for disposal. Mr. Santos said that was possible, but would increase the price. Board members thought that this was a larger project and could be done as a special project in the future. Mr. Bressler suggested sending a memo to residents to explain how to properly dispose of environmental waste materials themselves.
MOTION Ms. Frantz moved, Dr. Muller seconded to approve $4,917.50 to HBW Construction for further credit to Environmental Management Services, Inc. for the removal of Association environmental waste. The motion passed unanimously.
Energy Tax Credits: Mr. Frantz stated that owners need information about their portion of the energy tax credit for recent improvements made, such as the party room A/C unit and window replacement in the lobby. Each owner is eligible for energy tax credits relating to his/her share of the total costs. Mr. Murdoch will request a tax basis letter from the auditor and will confirm that these items qualify. He will also write a memo that outlines the costs and share of the tax credit for each unit. He will complete this within two weeks and Mr. Santos will circulate a notice to residents that information about the tax credits is coming.
Board Work Session regarding Major Projects: This meeting will be on January 31, 2011. Mr. Santos stated that he has provided the Board with three cost projections as a basis for discussion. The projects to be discussed will be capital improvement reserve expenditure projects, and will include apartment windows, sliding glass doors, common hallways floors, and the HVAC central plant. Dr. Muller asked if the exterior canopy is included in these projects, to which Mr. Santos responded, “no”, but canopy refurbishment could be discussed at the February 2011 board meeting. Ms. Frantz asked if the estimates coming in for the canopy are near the budget estimate. Mr. Santos replied “yes”.
Ms. Frantz inquired what role the owners will have in this meeting. Ms. Kielty stated that the Board will have a lot to discuss and most likely will not be reaching any conclusions. The budget documents can be made available to the owners. Ms. Fridell requested that Mr. Santos’ projections be made available to the audience before the meeting. Ms. Fridell also suggested that there be a discussion meeting with owners to solicit their feedback about preliminary decisions/suggestions. Dr. Muller stated that the Board does not yet know how it will proceed, but that there will likely be further meetings. Mr. Murdoch stressed that no decisions will be made at the working session, and that discussion should be limited to Board members. Ms. Frantz stated that in regard to the lobby refurbishment, owners were only allowed to comment directly before votes were taken on some major decisions. She added that some residents were frustrated that they had no voice. Ms. Kielty stated that residents can share their views at any time, and a decision on how to proceed is not needed now. Ms. Frantz stated that she will raise it again at a later time.
Dr. Muller inquired about the estimate of $144,000 for repair/replacement of the front canopies. Mr. Santos stated that this estimate is for using the current structure and improving the design. Mr. Santos is reviewing proposals and will give a projection of when the estimates will be done at the working meeting.
Ms. Kielty asked if there will be new microphones. Mr. Santos stated that there are currently two new wireless microphones, but the library is the area where they are to be used. Additional microphones have been ordered. He has also ordered one new luggage cart to test before ordering additional ones. Management is also considering other ideas for locating carts when residents don’t return them to the lobby.
Mr. Santos stated that all resident data has been loaded into the computer and each unit is assigned two electronic key fobs. He is staging notices to be sent out to four to five floors at a time to pick-up their key fobs. Separate arrangements will be made for those who cannot get to the office. Once residents have been given enough time to pick up their key fobs, the original lock cylinders on the doors will be changed and the glass doors will be locked on a regular basis. Securing additional doors can always be done in the future.
Committee Reports:
Landscape Committee: The committee is waiting to hear from Ruppert Landscaping for the first draft of the landscape master plan.
Energy Committee: The committee advises residents to turn off unneeded lights to conserve energy. The committee will meet within the next month and report if necessary.
Library Committee: No Report.
Floor Representatives: The committee does not meet on a regular basis, but will report as needed.
Mr. Santos encouraged residents to use the Association website, which has meeting announcements, and allows residents to submit work orders. He added that the business center has a computer with the website as its home page, which is “www.elizabethcondo.com”.
Comments from the Floor:
A resident inquired if the Fob system replaces the Medeco key. Mr. Santos responded that it does, but the Medeco lock cylinders will be kept in place and “re-keyed” to act as a back-up in case the Fob system fails. He added that in case of an emergency, the generator will be able to keep the Fob system running. There is no need to keep the old Medeco keys; they can be recycled through the Management office.
Concern was expressed about residents who smoke in their units because the smoke often spreads through the vents to other units and Elizabeth employees are also subjected to the smoke when they perform in-unit work. Dr. Muller responded that legal counsel has advised the Association that unless there is a documented medical situation, the law is unclear as to whether a resident could be prohibited from smoking in his/her own apartment. He added that the Board has a dispute resolution process where residents can bring unresolved disputes to the Board for legal resolution.
A resident asked whether parcels delivered to the building would be listed on the website. Mr. Santos stated that he attempted to use a module on the website to do this, but it is too rudimentary. The Board has previously approved the purchase of an upgrade of the existing software to keep a record of packages and it will be in use by January 31, 2011. The Association will not be using the website for notification of parcels at this time; an e-mail account must first be secured.
A resident asked if there is a way of tracking those who use the Fob system. Mr. Santos stated that usage is automatically recorded. Another resident asked if the entry into the East garage will remain the same. Mr. Santos responded that it will be and he is also pursuing the installation of a key fob reader at the entry keypad for residents who ride bicycles to enter the garage, then another key fob reader inside the garage for exiting with their bicycles. When leaving or returning to The Elizabeth they could use the garage for access rather than the lobby.
A resident inquired if the Board has considered redesigning the exterior canopy so that it extends further out into the driveway area, so residents are protected from the rain when they get out of cars. Mr. Santos stated that he discovered a design in the office archives that explored this option, but is not feasible because the height of the canopy has to be high enough to allow trucks and the shuttle bus to pass under it. The resulting canopy would be so high that it would not protect residents from the elements. This would multiply tenfold the estimated cost of the canopy replacement.
A resident stated that a West side ground floor unit has a new door with a knocker and knob, and wanted to know if all doors will eventually look this way. Mr. Santos stated that the five West ground floor units were fitted with new doors because of their proximity to the newly refurbished West lobby and to serve as potential prototypes for unit doors throughout the building.
Ms. Kielty reminded residents to treat the front desk staff courteously.
A resident voiced concern about large expenditure items that the Association was undertaking. A petition has been circulated that reflects this concern. While the working session of the Board at the end of the month is open to residents, he objects to the fact that residents are not allowed to participate in the discussion. The resident added that the Board is not responding to the residents who are concerned about potential large expenditures. Currently, there are 70 signatures on the petition representing 60 units. The resident expressed that in his opinion board members are not being sensitive to the financial concerns of many residents and that a special meeting should be convened to address issues with the refurbishment. Ms. Kielty responded that residents can express concerns to board members at any time and the working meeting is public and completely transparent. The resident asked if a change of course was being considered given some of the concerns and requested that the Board have a plan in mind as to how to conduct future business and eliminate those issues.
Ms. Fridell stated that there will be subsequent meetings after the working session and affirmed that some board members are very cost conscious. The resident replied that there is no evidence of cost consciousness and believes that everyone should see a listing of the costs associated with the lobby refurbishment. Ms. Kielty responded that the lobby refurbishment costs came in lower than originally projected and as a result the Association was able to do more extensive renovations – such as bathrooms and Party Room -- than originally expected.
The next board meeting will be held on February 23, 2011 at 7:30 p.m.
Adjournment
The President adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
The initial draft of the minutes, upon which these minutes are based, was prepared by Jana Bowcut of On the Record.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles Bressler, Board Secretary
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Budget Woes
I have attended part of the two ECA budget work sessions held this month and I believe that there will be no solution that will please many Association members. This is not to criticize the current Board, but we all need to face extremely hard facts.
• We have an ageing building that has not been properly cared for for far too long.
• We have not planned well over the years to maintain a reserve fund that can adequately address the money currently needed to start three large projects—replacement of windows/balcony doors, refurbishment of the heating/cooling system that supports our McQuay units, and refurbishment of the hallways in our two towers.
• Managing all three projects at the same time is not reasonable for a variety of factors that include the disruptions that would be imposed on the residents as well as the feasibility of any management team being able to control these three big projects if they were started at the same time.
• Historically speaking, the ECA has not been able to get 75 percent of the Association to agree on any many issues of importance. This means that getting the Association to approve a special assessment is likely to be extremely difficult. This directly relates to how our bylaws are written.
As I understand what was said in the first budget meeting, the cost of borrowing money for these afore-named projects would exceed over $1 million. The sitting Board does not think borrowing the $4 million that it would take for these three projects is a financially responsible approach.
In the second meeting, the discussion centered on how to raise the reserve funds to make it possible to begin only one of the projects in the near future, followed by a second project. As I left the meeting, the suggestion was to raise the condo fee 10 percent in our next fiscal year (which begins in July) followed by a campaign to see if it would be possible to get the Association to agree to a one-time assessment of $1100. If the Association does not approve an assessment, it seems inevitable that condo fees would have to rise again the following the year, but probably at a lower rate. There was some discussion that it might be possible in the future, if the reserve funds were adequate and the big projects were completed, that the condo fees could be decreased. However, that seems unlikely. The most economical way to retain our property values (since high condo fees affect getting mortgages and therefore the flexibility in selling units at the Elizabeth) is to have a one-time assessment. As assessments go in other condominium buildings, $1100 is a remarkably small sum.
Coupled with this approach was a discussion about how to sequence the projects. Clearly, the heating/cooling refurbishment is at the bottom of the list. The question then remains whether to go for the lower-cost refurbishment of the hallways versus the replacement of windows/balcony doors. More of the Board seemed to favor the hallway refurbishment because they feel the Association will have the money needed for this project.
Two factors affecting the Board’s thinking are that replacement of windows/doors will be done from the outside of the building and therefore there would not be doing the damage to newly refurbished halls feared in their original discussions. The Board also seems to believe that the energy savings would not be so dramatic that we would be gaining much by immediately replacing our severely leaking windows/doors. This remains to be proven to people like me.
Because the Board is under a time constraint to produce a budget by the end of the month, it’s a safe bet to assume that they will be making conservative decisions. The six Board members present (Seth Levine was absent for both of these meetings) asked Scott Murdoch to get more info to them, including a comparison of what 4620 North Park charges for condo fees. Short of a deus ex machina, we are not going to improve our individual quality of living at the Elizabeth any time soon.
• We have an ageing building that has not been properly cared for for far too long.
• We have not planned well over the years to maintain a reserve fund that can adequately address the money currently needed to start three large projects—replacement of windows/balcony doors, refurbishment of the heating/cooling system that supports our McQuay units, and refurbishment of the hallways in our two towers.
• Managing all three projects at the same time is not reasonable for a variety of factors that include the disruptions that would be imposed on the residents as well as the feasibility of any management team being able to control these three big projects if they were started at the same time.
• Historically speaking, the ECA has not been able to get 75 percent of the Association to agree on any many issues of importance. This means that getting the Association to approve a special assessment is likely to be extremely difficult. This directly relates to how our bylaws are written.
As I understand what was said in the first budget meeting, the cost of borrowing money for these afore-named projects would exceed over $1 million. The sitting Board does not think borrowing the $4 million that it would take for these three projects is a financially responsible approach.
In the second meeting, the discussion centered on how to raise the reserve funds to make it possible to begin only one of the projects in the near future, followed by a second project. As I left the meeting, the suggestion was to raise the condo fee 10 percent in our next fiscal year (which begins in July) followed by a campaign to see if it would be possible to get the Association to agree to a one-time assessment of $1100. If the Association does not approve an assessment, it seems inevitable that condo fees would have to rise again the following the year, but probably at a lower rate. There was some discussion that it might be possible in the future, if the reserve funds were adequate and the big projects were completed, that the condo fees could be decreased. However, that seems unlikely. The most economical way to retain our property values (since high condo fees affect getting mortgages and therefore the flexibility in selling units at the Elizabeth) is to have a one-time assessment. As assessments go in other condominium buildings, $1100 is a remarkably small sum.
Coupled with this approach was a discussion about how to sequence the projects. Clearly, the heating/cooling refurbishment is at the bottom of the list. The question then remains whether to go for the lower-cost refurbishment of the hallways versus the replacement of windows/balcony doors. More of the Board seemed to favor the hallway refurbishment because they feel the Association will have the money needed for this project.
Two factors affecting the Board’s thinking are that replacement of windows/doors will be done from the outside of the building and therefore there would not be doing the damage to newly refurbished halls feared in their original discussions. The Board also seems to believe that the energy savings would not be so dramatic that we would be gaining much by immediately replacing our severely leaking windows/doors. This remains to be proven to people like me.
Because the Board is under a time constraint to produce a budget by the end of the month, it’s a safe bet to assume that they will be making conservative decisions. The six Board members present (Seth Levine was absent for both of these meetings) asked Scott Murdoch to get more info to them, including a comparison of what 4620 North Park charges for condo fees. Short of a deus ex machina, we are not going to improve our individual quality of living at the Elizabeth any time soon.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Notes from the March 3, 2011 Landscape Committee Briefing
The purpose of a public landscape meeting was to update the Elizabeth community and to get feedback from them. About 25-30 people attended the briefing.
The landscape project is based on a three-parts process.
Part 1: Develop a Landscape Master Plan.
Part 2: Have plants installed based on the master plan.
Part 3: Plant and garden maintenance.
The Landscape Committee has been working to finalize the Master Plan. The reasons for this plan are to:
• Create a unified look throughout the property.
• Provide a lower-cost systematic way to maintain the landscape.
• Ensure more curb appeal by avoiding a mismatch of plants.
• Allow landscaping to be in increments as funds become available.
• Have plants that can be guaranteed for life If the installation company does the maintenance
In the course of the Committee activity, the Committee Members developed a list of guiding principles or objectives. These objectives will be used to keep the project focused on what the Committee believes are important attributes for the Elizabeth’s garden areas. The objectives include:
• Maintain attractive plants year round.
• Be cost effective.
• Be easy to maintain.
• If possible re-use original plants.
• Maintain a unified landscape design throughout the building grounds.
• Be Low cost & low maintenance.
The purpose of discussing the objective were to get feedback from ECA members.
While there are seven area where there will be gardens, the committee
focused on
• The front areas of the Elizabeth.
• The upper driveway/arcade and trash area.
• The front driveway garden area. (Left & right of the doors, the circle).
• The front street facing garden. (Below the driveway above the West
garage).
And lastly,
• Over 70% of the original plants are planned to be used.
• Some plants will stay in place.
• Some plants will be used at the:
•• Front of the building
•• West Terrace
•• Rear Garden
•• Terrace by the pool.
The Committee also pointed out that the Members are considering a fence for two street-facing garden areas and a sign for the Elizabeth’s name and street number. No decisions have been made about these two items.
The Landscape Committee discussed sending a survey to all building residents about what the residents think about the Landscape Committee activities, including a fence and a sign.
Comments from the survey are due to the Committee Member Tobi Esler #1206 no later than Sunday, March 13, 2011.
The following pictures are concepts of plants in full bloom. These plants will not be in bloom all year. The Committee will consider suggestions that fit the criteria developed and that is in keeping with natural conditions (such as a very sunny driveway garden and a shady area between the driveway & the West garage door).
The landscape project is based on a three-parts process.
Part 1: Develop a Landscape Master Plan.
Part 2: Have plants installed based on the master plan.
Part 3: Plant and garden maintenance.
The Landscape Committee has been working to finalize the Master Plan. The reasons for this plan are to:
• Create a unified look throughout the property.
• Provide a lower-cost systematic way to maintain the landscape.
• Ensure more curb appeal by avoiding a mismatch of plants.
• Allow landscaping to be in increments as funds become available.
• Have plants that can be guaranteed for life If the installation company does the maintenance
In the course of the Committee activity, the Committee Members developed a list of guiding principles or objectives. These objectives will be used to keep the project focused on what the Committee believes are important attributes for the Elizabeth’s garden areas. The objectives include:
• Maintain attractive plants year round.
• Be cost effective.
• Be easy to maintain.
• If possible re-use original plants.
• Maintain a unified landscape design throughout the building grounds.
• Be Low cost & low maintenance.
The purpose of discussing the objective were to get feedback from ECA members.
While there are seven area where there will be gardens, the committee
focused on
• The front areas of the Elizabeth.
• The upper driveway/arcade and trash area.
• The front driveway garden area. (Left & right of the doors, the circle).
• The front street facing garden. (Below the driveway above the West
garage).
And lastly,
• Over 70% of the original plants are planned to be used.
• Some plants will stay in place.
• Some plants will be used at the:
•• Front of the building
•• West Terrace
•• Rear Garden
•• Terrace by the pool.
The Committee also pointed out that the Members are considering a fence for two street-facing garden areas and a sign for the Elizabeth’s name and street number. No decisions have been made about these two items.
The Landscape Committee discussed sending a survey to all building residents about what the residents think about the Landscape Committee activities, including a fence and a sign.
Comments from the survey are due to the Committee Member Tobi Esler #1206 no later than Sunday, March 13, 2011.
The following pictures are concepts of plants in full bloom. These plants will not be in bloom all year. The Committee will consider suggestions that fit the criteria developed and that is in keeping with natural conditions (such as a very sunny driveway garden and a shady area between the driveway & the West garage door).
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Comments on Piano Controversy and Upcoming Election
COMMENTARY ON THE PIANO CONTROVERSY: The following is my opinion. I was not in favor of buying a piano, given the money we need to spend on fixing our infrastructure. However, because the piano is now here in our beautifully refurbished West lobby and people, including me, are enjoying it both as a handsome item of furniture and as a high-quality musical instrument, I feel it is absolutely mandatory that if the Board is seriously considering selling the piano that it must send a questionnaire to every unit owner asking them to vote on whether to keep or sell this valuable item. However, I would like to point out that after spending $300,000 on furnishings, we have sofas that cost $$8,000 and $12,000, chairs that cost over $3,000 a piece, barstools that cost just under $1,000 a piece, and etc. We also have a first floor adorned with artwork that cost a total of $35,000. Does that mean we should also consider selling these items, and that the Association should vote item by item on what to keep and what to sell? I say it is time to move on.
The piano was no secret. It had always been part of the design plan and that design plan was presented in public forum to owners and residents by The Hartman Design Group. It is inconceivable that any Board member could have been unaware of the intention to purchase a piano. Furthermore, there had never been any Board decision to discuss, much less debate, whether to purchase a piano. What is unfortunate is that the Board failed to solicit comments from Association members starting at the very beginning of the refurbishment project. This is basic psychology in how leaders need to deal with a large group of people who share common space. Getting agreement and buy in on the basic goals guiding the refurbishment process would have probably headed off many of the problems we are hearing people complain about.
COMMUNICATING WITH THE BOARD: Recently I learned that the most effective way of delivering praise or complaints to the Board is to submit these letters to the management office. Why? Because these letters will then be made part of the monthly management report and then become part of the official Association record.
COMMENTARY ON THE ECA BOARD & UPCOMING ELECTION: One other comment that I feel must be made is that very idea of punishing a Board member for following the direction of the President of the Board is petty and completely unacceptable. All too often, those of us who attend monthly Board meetings see Board members act unprofessionally. Furthermore, Board members act like they are adversaries instead of teammates looking out for the good of the entire Association.
We are approaching our annual meeting where three Board members, if they choose to run, will be up for re-election. It’s time to think hard about who you want to represent you. I want Board members who communicate well; have no axes to grind; can work together respectfully while making hard choices; are honest, impartial, dependable, competent; have a track record of sound financial responsibility; promote community; and enforce the rules equitably.
The piano was no secret. It had always been part of the design plan and that design plan was presented in public forum to owners and residents by The Hartman Design Group. It is inconceivable that any Board member could have been unaware of the intention to purchase a piano. Furthermore, there had never been any Board decision to discuss, much less debate, whether to purchase a piano. What is unfortunate is that the Board failed to solicit comments from Association members starting at the very beginning of the refurbishment project. This is basic psychology in how leaders need to deal with a large group of people who share common space. Getting agreement and buy in on the basic goals guiding the refurbishment process would have probably headed off many of the problems we are hearing people complain about.
COMMUNICATING WITH THE BOARD: Recently I learned that the most effective way of delivering praise or complaints to the Board is to submit these letters to the management office. Why? Because these letters will then be made part of the monthly management report and then become part of the official Association record.
COMMENTARY ON THE ECA BOARD & UPCOMING ELECTION: One other comment that I feel must be made is that very idea of punishing a Board member for following the direction of the President of the Board is petty and completely unacceptable. All too often, those of us who attend monthly Board meetings see Board members act unprofessionally. Furthermore, Board members act like they are adversaries instead of teammates looking out for the good of the entire Association.
We are approaching our annual meeting where three Board members, if they choose to run, will be up for re-election. It’s time to think hard about who you want to represent you. I want Board members who communicate well; have no axes to grind; can work together respectfully while making hard choices; are honest, impartial, dependable, competent; have a track record of sound financial responsibility; promote community; and enforce the rules equitably.
Summary of Feb 23, 2011 Elizabeth Condo Board Meeting
Present at the meeting: Alexandra Kielty, Judi Barth, Charles Bressler, Molly Frantz, Monique Fridell, Seth Levine, Al Muller, Jason Fisher, Scott Murdoch, Jim Santos, and recorder of meeting minutes.
JANUARY MINUTES: Approval of the January minutes was tabled until next month because the ECA Secretary was unable to perform this job in a timely manner. This is not the first time this has happened under his assignment as the ECA Secretary. The approved meeting minutes are important for setting the record straight and if they are not delivered in a timely fashion, we Association members are at a terrible disadvantage, especially when problems occur and we need to refer to what decisions have been made by our Board of Directors.
LEGAL DETERMINATION: The ECA condo lawyer Jason Fisher was present for this particular meeting. He was invited to comment on two large projects: the replacement of (1) windows/balcony doors and (2) the McQuay heating/cooling units. What he said was the responsibility for replacing windows/balcony doors falls to the Elizabeth Condominium Association. However, the responsibility for replacing the McQuay heating/cooling units that reside in individual units must be paid for by the owners. None of these projects are simple.
REPLACEMENT OF WINDOW & BALCONY DOORS: Replacement of windows/balcony doors will require the ECA to borrow money. According to our treasurer Monique Fridell, we are positioned to borrow, though more data and decisions are needed before the Board moves on this. According to our house manager, if the Board decided to move ahead and procured the necessary loan now, then it would be possible to start the project as early as July 1, 2011.
REPLACEMENT OF HEATING/COOLING UNITS: Replacement of the McQuay heating/cooling units is much more complicated. The Association would have to replace and fix the infrastructure that supports the individual McQuay heating/cooling units before any individual McQuay units could be replaced. Replacement would logically proceed tier by tier and not floor by floor. The average estimated cost per unit (don’t forget some units are much larger than others and have more than two units) is somewhere between $6,000 to $12,000.
BYLAW ISSUE: As it stands right now, it would be up to the unit owner to voluntarily cooperate with the project. According to our house manager, if every unit owner cooperated, the project would take two to three years to complete with the minimal amount of disruption for all involved. If a majority of unit owners failed to cooperate, the project could take 10 or more years to complete with untold hours of disruption of water, heat and cooling services for many residents. Therefore, our lawyer suggested an amendment to the ECA Bylaws that would allow the ECA Board to have more control over projects that are for the good of the entire Association. Any changes to the Bylaws will require agreement of 66 and 2/3 percent of the Association to amend the Bylaws. This means unit owners need to be made aware of the critical nature of fixing the heating and cooling system, which is so overdue for replacement that it’s a train wreck waiting to happen.
HALLWAY REFURBISHMENT: To further complicate this discussion, there are actually three large projects on the ECA table. The third project is renovation of the hallways. At this time, design work is being done by The Hartman Group on the hallway renovation. All discussion about design costs at the February Board meeting pertained to this new phase of work for the hallway renovation. The lobby renovation work was completed and, according to the Board, it was completed under the projected and approved budget cost of $1.5 million.
SEQUENCING OF BIG PROJECTS: At a working meeting of the Board that took place a number of weeks ago (they discussed budget planning, including the 5-year plan), our house manager made it clear that these three projects cannot be accomplished simultaneously. He suggested that the priority be: (1) replacement of windows/balcony doors, (2) replacement of the McQuay heating/cooling units, and (3) renovation of the hallways. The importance of this order is to realize immediate energy savings, avoid costly interim repairs on failing equipment, and avoid damaging newly refurbished areas (hallways).
FOUR-PIPE SYTEM REFUBISHMENT & WINTERIZATION OF THE COOLING TOWER: Also feeding into the discussion of fixing the heating and cooling infrastructure, the house manager requested a decision on making immediate repair to something called the four-pipe system and winterizing the cooling tower. The four-pipe system, which was installed when the building was built, allows for the spring-fall situation when some units in the building require heat while other require air-conditioning. The house manager said we have always been set up to accommodate these opposing needs but the system has been in disrepair for quite some time. The Mendoza Engineering Study recommended fixing these infrastructure systems. Therefore the Board decided to move ahead with both repairs. The four-pipe system involves pipes exposed to weather that sit on our roof and need replacement which will cost $13,000 and the other, the enclosed cooling tower refurbishment, costs $32,000. $50,000 had been budgeted for this project so this expenditure appears to be well within that limit. There are some energy implications that also need to be managed.
COMMITTEE & COMMUNITY UPDATES:
The Landscape Committee reported on the status of its activities, including a public event for owners and residents on March 3 to update Association members on project work to date and to solicit ideas, comments, and questions. To get advance information on the project, visit the official Elizabeth website.
An elections committee was named and announced.
On Saturday March 26 in the West Lobby from 3:30 pm to 6:30 pm, the family of long time resident Helen Soderberg will commemorate her life. Those wishing to attend need to RSVP. Consult the flyer hanging on the bulletin board in our mail corridor for more information, including how to notify her family that you would like to attend.
PIANO CONTROVERSY: A contentious discussion about the piano that was procured as part of the refurbishment budget took up a big chunk of time during this meeting. Refurbishment Committee members (an ECA Board-led group) asked Al Muller, who had been a concert pianist, to research a piano to meet the requirements set by the Hartman Design Group as well as find a piano that would be an asset for generations to come who live in the Elizabeth. Dr. Muller consulted with Alexandra Kielty on the piano, which met all the requirements, and asked for permission to purchase the piano which was a year-old instrument being sold by the Kennedy Center. She said yes and he purchased the piano using his credit card since the nature of the sale required immediate action.
At this February meeting, the treasurer Monique Fridell stated she was unwilling to sign a check for something over $19,000 to reimburse Dr. Muller for the piano. Ms. Fridell felt this was not an approved expense and tied it to comments from the ECA auditors. Charles Bressler tried unsuccessfully to state a motion to deny reimbursement to Dr. Muller. Jason Fisher clarified and stated that first a motion must be brought to the Board requesting retroactive approval of the purchase of the piano. What was not entirely clear was that if the purchase of the piano was not approved then Dr. Muller could not be reimbursed for the cost of the piano. Ms. Fridell proposed the motion for requesting retroactive Board approval for the purchase of the piano. Fridell, Bressler, Molly Frantz, and Seth Levine voted against this motion with the balance of the Board, Kielty, Muller and Judi Barth voting for. Seth Levine then proposed a motion to reimburse Dr. Muller at which point the ECA lawyer intervened saying this was not possible if the purchase had not been approved. Dr. Muller stating Robert’s Rules of Order suggested that someone who voted against the motion could then call for a new vote on the same topic. After some discussion, Levine, realizing this situation opened up the prospect of a lawsuit against the ECA, reversed his first vote and then orchestrated a new vote requesting retroactive approval of the purchase of the piano. In the second vote, Fridell and Bressler voted against approval and Kielty, Barth, Franz, Levine, and Muller voted for. This cleared the way to reimburse Dr. Muller.
JANUARY MINUTES: Approval of the January minutes was tabled until next month because the ECA Secretary was unable to perform this job in a timely manner. This is not the first time this has happened under his assignment as the ECA Secretary. The approved meeting minutes are important for setting the record straight and if they are not delivered in a timely fashion, we Association members are at a terrible disadvantage, especially when problems occur and we need to refer to what decisions have been made by our Board of Directors.
LEGAL DETERMINATION: The ECA condo lawyer Jason Fisher was present for this particular meeting. He was invited to comment on two large projects: the replacement of (1) windows/balcony doors and (2) the McQuay heating/cooling units. What he said was the responsibility for replacing windows/balcony doors falls to the Elizabeth Condominium Association. However, the responsibility for replacing the McQuay heating/cooling units that reside in individual units must be paid for by the owners. None of these projects are simple.
REPLACEMENT OF WINDOW & BALCONY DOORS: Replacement of windows/balcony doors will require the ECA to borrow money. According to our treasurer Monique Fridell, we are positioned to borrow, though more data and decisions are needed before the Board moves on this. According to our house manager, if the Board decided to move ahead and procured the necessary loan now, then it would be possible to start the project as early as July 1, 2011.
REPLACEMENT OF HEATING/COOLING UNITS: Replacement of the McQuay heating/cooling units is much more complicated. The Association would have to replace and fix the infrastructure that supports the individual McQuay heating/cooling units before any individual McQuay units could be replaced. Replacement would logically proceed tier by tier and not floor by floor. The average estimated cost per unit (don’t forget some units are much larger than others and have more than two units) is somewhere between $6,000 to $12,000.
BYLAW ISSUE: As it stands right now, it would be up to the unit owner to voluntarily cooperate with the project. According to our house manager, if every unit owner cooperated, the project would take two to three years to complete with the minimal amount of disruption for all involved. If a majority of unit owners failed to cooperate, the project could take 10 or more years to complete with untold hours of disruption of water, heat and cooling services for many residents. Therefore, our lawyer suggested an amendment to the ECA Bylaws that would allow the ECA Board to have more control over projects that are for the good of the entire Association. Any changes to the Bylaws will require agreement of 66 and 2/3 percent of the Association to amend the Bylaws. This means unit owners need to be made aware of the critical nature of fixing the heating and cooling system, which is so overdue for replacement that it’s a train wreck waiting to happen.
HALLWAY REFURBISHMENT: To further complicate this discussion, there are actually three large projects on the ECA table. The third project is renovation of the hallways. At this time, design work is being done by The Hartman Group on the hallway renovation. All discussion about design costs at the February Board meeting pertained to this new phase of work for the hallway renovation. The lobby renovation work was completed and, according to the Board, it was completed under the projected and approved budget cost of $1.5 million.
SEQUENCING OF BIG PROJECTS: At a working meeting of the Board that took place a number of weeks ago (they discussed budget planning, including the 5-year plan), our house manager made it clear that these three projects cannot be accomplished simultaneously. He suggested that the priority be: (1) replacement of windows/balcony doors, (2) replacement of the McQuay heating/cooling units, and (3) renovation of the hallways. The importance of this order is to realize immediate energy savings, avoid costly interim repairs on failing equipment, and avoid damaging newly refurbished areas (hallways).
FOUR-PIPE SYTEM REFUBISHMENT & WINTERIZATION OF THE COOLING TOWER: Also feeding into the discussion of fixing the heating and cooling infrastructure, the house manager requested a decision on making immediate repair to something called the four-pipe system and winterizing the cooling tower. The four-pipe system, which was installed when the building was built, allows for the spring-fall situation when some units in the building require heat while other require air-conditioning. The house manager said we have always been set up to accommodate these opposing needs but the system has been in disrepair for quite some time. The Mendoza Engineering Study recommended fixing these infrastructure systems. Therefore the Board decided to move ahead with both repairs. The four-pipe system involves pipes exposed to weather that sit on our roof and need replacement which will cost $13,000 and the other, the enclosed cooling tower refurbishment, costs $32,000. $50,000 had been budgeted for this project so this expenditure appears to be well within that limit. There are some energy implications that also need to be managed.
COMMITTEE & COMMUNITY UPDATES:
The Landscape Committee reported on the status of its activities, including a public event for owners and residents on March 3 to update Association members on project work to date and to solicit ideas, comments, and questions. To get advance information on the project, visit the official Elizabeth website.
An elections committee was named and announced.
On Saturday March 26 in the West Lobby from 3:30 pm to 6:30 pm, the family of long time resident Helen Soderberg will commemorate her life. Those wishing to attend need to RSVP. Consult the flyer hanging on the bulletin board in our mail corridor for more information, including how to notify her family that you would like to attend.
PIANO CONTROVERSY: A contentious discussion about the piano that was procured as part of the refurbishment budget took up a big chunk of time during this meeting. Refurbishment Committee members (an ECA Board-led group) asked Al Muller, who had been a concert pianist, to research a piano to meet the requirements set by the Hartman Design Group as well as find a piano that would be an asset for generations to come who live in the Elizabeth. Dr. Muller consulted with Alexandra Kielty on the piano, which met all the requirements, and asked for permission to purchase the piano which was a year-old instrument being sold by the Kennedy Center. She said yes and he purchased the piano using his credit card since the nature of the sale required immediate action.
At this February meeting, the treasurer Monique Fridell stated she was unwilling to sign a check for something over $19,000 to reimburse Dr. Muller for the piano. Ms. Fridell felt this was not an approved expense and tied it to comments from the ECA auditors. Charles Bressler tried unsuccessfully to state a motion to deny reimbursement to Dr. Muller. Jason Fisher clarified and stated that first a motion must be brought to the Board requesting retroactive approval of the purchase of the piano. What was not entirely clear was that if the purchase of the piano was not approved then Dr. Muller could not be reimbursed for the cost of the piano. Ms. Fridell proposed the motion for requesting retroactive Board approval for the purchase of the piano. Fridell, Bressler, Molly Frantz, and Seth Levine voted against this motion with the balance of the Board, Kielty, Muller and Judi Barth voting for. Seth Levine then proposed a motion to reimburse Dr. Muller at which point the ECA lawyer intervened saying this was not possible if the purchase had not been approved. Dr. Muller stating Robert’s Rules of Order suggested that someone who voted against the motion could then call for a new vote on the same topic. After some discussion, Levine, realizing this situation opened up the prospect of a lawsuit against the ECA, reversed his first vote and then orchestrated a new vote requesting retroactive approval of the purchase of the piano. In the second vote, Fridell and Bressler voted against approval and Kielty, Barth, Franz, Levine, and Muller voted for. This cleared the way to reimburse Dr. Muller.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Board Meeting, Feb 23rd
The letter below was sent to the Board on February 24. It was my original intention to speak at the board meeting last night when the floor was opened to discussion. However, I became so incensed at the proceedings that I feared my “talk” would dissolve into a screaming diatribe directed at the Board. As much as this would have been deserved, reality is it would have accomplished nothing.
Last night I attended the monthly Board meeting. Quite frankly I was appalled. I was both appalled at the behavior and the actions of the Board. The Board President spent some time decrying the rudeness and general lack of civilized behavior on the part of the ownership. She was quite correct, civility and good manners have all but disappeared. That was clearly evident last night. However, I believe the blame for this sad state of affairs can be placed directly at the feet of the Board.
The Board members are elected to represent the interests of the owners and oversee the management of the Condominium Association. I understand completely that being on the Board is voluntary. There is no compensation; it takes time from the member’s lives and its hard work. People take on this responsibility for various reasons. To some it’s prestige, to others it’s an altruistic desire to better the common good and some look at it as simply a way of protecting the investment in their home.
Regardless of what your particular motivation for serving might be, Board membership comes with certain obligations both legal and moral. One of these obligations is to act in a fiscally responsible manner when dealing with the finances of the Association. Here in lies the problem. A significant percentage of the ownership believes the Board has not done this with regard to the renovation project, myself included.
The people are angry and the majority of the Board has simply chosen to ignore their concerns. Several Board members appear to have their own agenda and the ownership be damned. You were given a budget and you exceeded it. The purchase of the piano is a poster child for what I and many other owners consider uncontrolled spending.
Last night we heard the absurd justification for its purchase; “it’s in the budget”. I’m sorry but it wasn’t in the budget. A piano can certainly be considered furnishings, but it is not furniture. There is a very important distinction here. Sofas, chairs, tables and chests are furniture. A piano is an accessory.
The budget was spent. It might not have been spent as originally planned but the fact remains the money allotted for the renovation was spent. At least an hour was spent at last night’s meeting discussing the cost overruns for the design company. There were unforeseen expenses such as the Lobby windows. This happens and no one is at fault. Sound fiscal management would dictate that if one segment of your project had cost overruns then nonessential items should be dropped from the project. I hardly consider the expenditure of almost $20,000 on a piano a necessity.
I live in the West Tower on the 18th floor. The hallways have a drop ceiling. That ceiling is broken and sagging in several places. It’s filthy and water stained. In a number of places the wallpaper is starting to peel away from the wall. The hall more closely resembles public housing than a Chevy Chase condominium. It’s an embarrassment but we have a shiny new piano in the lobby! I would like each and every member of the Board who voted for the purchase of that piano to come up to the 18th floor and then try and justify the expenditure of $20,000 on a piano.
No one is asking Al to take a financial hit on the purchase of the piano. I believe he, like several other members on the Board, had their personal agendas but I believe he was acting in good faith and should not be punished for his actions. However, the piano needs to be either sold or returned and the funds put back in the reserves.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Lobby Renovations
The letter below was sent to the Board of Directors on February 5. A number of board members subsequently responded. I found it rather strange that several board members were unaware of the piano purchase:
I would like to comment on the Lobby renovations. It’s quite obvious that this has been an extremely contentious issue among the owners of the building. In my mind I don’t think there was any question that the renovations were necessary. Should we have allocated as much funding as we did; I really can’t say, I do not have a clear concept of what a renovation should or shouldn’t cost. At this juncture it’s a moot point.
For the most part I’m happy with the results. I think the overall design was well executed and is practical. The designers took a cavernous space and reduced it to three usable areas. I would like to commend whoever was responsible for choosing the artwork. With the exception of a couple of pieces that appear to have been pilfered from the local Holiday Inn, I find it outstanding. Someone got a little carried away with the tchotchkes and the upholstery is not a style I would have chosen; however that is a matter of personal taste and I don’t find it offensive.
This week however, I was offended. I was offended when I saw the piano rolled in. I don’t know exactly what was paid for that piano but a piano of that size and style typically costs $18,000 to $25,000. In addition it requires yearly maintenance. I have to ask, what were you people thinking? You have paid approximately $20,000 for what is essentially a space eating sculpture that will receive little or no use. I’m sorry but that is patently absurd.
Given the current climate of anger and animosity present among the residents did you not consider perhaps this was not a good idea? This was not a custom piece that could not be cancelled! The most ridiculous argument I heard justifying its purchase was “it was in the budget”. Just because something is in the budget does not mean it has to be purchased.
If you insist on spending the money why not look elsewhere? As an example we have a fitness center that is filled with dilapidated and out dated equipment, some of it in excess of 20 years old. The fitness center is used by numerous residents on a daily basis. It’s not an exaggeration to say the fitness center gets more use in a day than the piano will in a year. $20,000 would have gone a long way toward modernizing the fitness center; a facility used by a significant number of residents regularly. I would like made public exactly who is responsible for authorizing the purchase of the piano. I believe the owners have right to know.