Let’s give a pat on the back to the ECA Board of Directors and Jim Santos & Scott Murdoch for the outstanding management leading to these accomplishments.
Completion of the physical Lobby Renovation Project
Even if certain aspects of the project aren’t to your taste, you have to appreciate that:
--Traffic flow on the lobby level was seamless.
--Work areas were kept clean.
--Residents were mostly unaware of the day-to-day issues.
--Our property values are on the way up.
Mendoza Rivas Engineer Study & Recommendations
--Finally no one has to convince anyone that windows, balcony doors, McQuay units have to be replaced as soon as possible.
Installation Emergency Generator
--a hard job that inconvenienced few people.
Completion of Landscape Master Plan
--We have one contractor who will do a professional job for all aspects of our landscaping. Look for results in the spring.
Regular Inspections of the Building
--House manager Jim Santos is quietly working behind the scenes to save us money by correcting old problems and addressing issues before we get citations.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Summary of December 20, 2010 Elizabeth Condo Board Meeting
Present at the meeting: Judi Barth, Charles Bressler, Molly Frantz, Monique Fridell, Al Muller, Scott Murdoch, Jim Santos, recorder of meeting minutes and two representatives from Deleon & Stang. Alexandra Kielty and Seth Levine were absent.
Audit Report:
Audit report ending on June 30, 2010, was approved as an “unqualified” audit which the lead Deleon & Stang representative explained was good.
Delinquencies:
Monique Fridell reviewed delinquency procedures that she recommended. She raised various questions:
--How long has the delinquency been overdue?
--Is this a hardship case or a bounced check?
--Who is responsible for collecting the overdue money?
--When should the case be turned over to legal counsel?
Recommendations included:
--Avoid delay in notice of intent to create a lien by cutting out courtesy letter from legal counsel.
--Advise owners that it is their responsibility to communicate with the ECA in the case of hardship so something can be worked out to avoid legal action.
--Give bonuses to employees for successful collection of fees due from delinquent owners.
Renovation:
Physical renovation of the lobby is complete. (Furniture on order.) Design fees exceeded budget by $6000.
Backflow prevention project: An unexpected set of expenditures (just under $13000) to address a citation issued by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission against the ECA. plumbing code requires a potable water supply to be protected from contamination by non-potable water, gases and solids. backflow preventer is a device installed on the pipes carrying drinkable water to prevent a "crossover" from other water which is non-drinkable. In other words, this device prevents water from our central plant (for heating and cooling) to blend with water going to residents, showers, kitchens, etc. This might happen if only there was a catastrophic failure in our plumbing system where negative pressure sucked water from the central plant into our domestic water supply; but a device is required. The backflow preventers must be inspected annually by WSSC and a licensed plumber. In the case of The Elizabeth's violation, three new backflow preventers were required for the boiler/cooling tower systems and a replacement to an existing device was needed.
Clean up projects: To avoid a Fire Marshall citation, 35 years of debris that had to cleared out of various places in the building but mostly the garage required an extra expenditure of $3660. Recommendation from our general manager to install a Planet Aide give away bin in the building but Molly Frantz suggested there were better organizations to use and asked Santos to look into that.
Concierge dress code was discussed.
Lobby level library set to reopen in December.
Social Committee:
300 people attended the holiday party.
Comments from the floor:
One owner expressed unhappiness with the renovation and asked for changes in who sits on the renovation committees as it pertains to the hall renovations. Judi Gann provided additional insight into the process of the lobby renovation. [Some of these pro and con discussions can be seen on this blog.]
Former ECA president Woody Cunningham expressed praise for the outstanding work done by Jim Santos during his short tenure here.
Audit Report:
Audit report ending on June 30, 2010, was approved as an “unqualified” audit which the lead Deleon & Stang representative explained was good.
Delinquencies:
Monique Fridell reviewed delinquency procedures that she recommended. She raised various questions:
--How long has the delinquency been overdue?
--Is this a hardship case or a bounced check?
--Who is responsible for collecting the overdue money?
--When should the case be turned over to legal counsel?
Recommendations included:
--Avoid delay in notice of intent to create a lien by cutting out courtesy letter from legal counsel.
--Advise owners that it is their responsibility to communicate with the ECA in the case of hardship so something can be worked out to avoid legal action.
--Give bonuses to employees for successful collection of fees due from delinquent owners.
Renovation:
Physical renovation of the lobby is complete. (Furniture on order.) Design fees exceeded budget by $6000.
Backflow prevention project: An unexpected set of expenditures (just under $13000) to address a citation issued by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission against the ECA. plumbing code requires a potable water supply to be protected from contamination by non-potable water, gases and solids. backflow preventer is a device installed on the pipes carrying drinkable water to prevent a "crossover" from other water which is non-drinkable. In other words, this device prevents water from our central plant (for heating and cooling) to blend with water going to residents, showers, kitchens, etc. This might happen if only there was a catastrophic failure in our plumbing system where negative pressure sucked water from the central plant into our domestic water supply; but a device is required. The backflow preventers must be inspected annually by WSSC and a licensed plumber. In the case of The Elizabeth's violation, three new backflow preventers were required for the boiler/cooling tower systems and a replacement to an existing device was needed.
Clean up projects: To avoid a Fire Marshall citation, 35 years of debris that had to cleared out of various places in the building but mostly the garage required an extra expenditure of $3660. Recommendation from our general manager to install a Planet Aide give away bin in the building but Molly Frantz suggested there were better organizations to use and asked Santos to look into that.
Concierge dress code was discussed.
Lobby level library set to reopen in December.
Social Committee:
300 people attended the holiday party.
Comments from the floor:
One owner expressed unhappiness with the renovation and asked for changes in who sits on the renovation committees as it pertains to the hall renovations. Judi Gann provided additional insight into the process of the lobby renovation. [Some of these pro and con discussions can be seen on this blog.]
Former ECA president Woody Cunningham expressed praise for the outstanding work done by Jim Santos during his short tenure here.
November 2010 Minutes of ECA Board Meeting
THE ELIZABETH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
4601 North Park Avenue
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting November 15, 2010
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 7:30 p.m.
Approval of Minutes:
MOTION Dr. Muller moved, Ms. Fridell seconded, to approve the October 18, 2010, regular meeting minutes as amended. The motion passed unanimously.
President’s Report: Ms. Kielty stated that a community meeting was held last night to discuss protocols for use of the refurbished lobby common areas. Many residents attended the meeting and provided what Ms. Kielty considered valuable feedback.
Ms. Kielty thanked those who donated funds for a contract employee who lost her son. About $5,000 was collected. A special thank you to Elin Winthrop and Peg Downey who managed the donations, performed the necessary administrative effort to secure the funds and presented the gift.
Treasurer’s Report: Ms. Fridell reported that DeLeon and Stang delivered the draft audited financial statements on November 12, 2010. The draft audit and attachments will be reviewed and comments will be given to the accountants within the next few weeks. The audit manager from DeLeon and Stang will attend the December board meeting.
This year’s Management Letter to the Board cites several issues that Ms. Fridell has been raising over the last few months, which include:
• The auditor was concerned about the increase in delinquencies and advises the Association to improve its collections efforts.
• DeLeon and Stang cited the miscoding of invoices leading to the account posting errors that Ms. Fridell and Mr. Murdoch have been working to correct.
• There is a promptness issue relating to the reimbursement transfers from the operating to the reserve funds.
Ms. Fridell stated that there are some general financial trends of which the Board should be aware. First, at the end of the 6/30 Fiscal Year, on a draft basis, there was a combined net loss (expenditures exceeded contributions to reserve fund) of $241,000 mostly due to the spending from reserves on the lobby refurbishment project. There was also a 19% increase in total expenses from the previous year. This month for the first time, the Association’s reserve balances dropped below the one million dollar mark, which was projected, but which requires careful monitoring.
Second, Ms. Fridell expressed concern about the increase in delinquencies, which have tripled since June 2009. Almost half of all uncollected fees are from one owner. Ms. Fridell repeated her previous statements that the Board needs to make an effort to be cost-conscious and be aware that the reserves are earning very little interest.
Old Business:
Lobby Renovation: Mr. Santos reported that he will review a punch list with Hartman Design Group and HBW Group to identify items that need to be touched up. The public restrooms behind the post office boxes are in working order, and the front desk staff is expected to return behind the new front desk in the coming week.
Emergency Generator: Mr. Murdoch stated that testing is scheduled for the coming week. The project is nearing completion, possibly by the week after Thanksgiving assuming the tests pass this week.
Mr. Murdoch discussed the impact that the growth in costs of these two projects is having on the year end and reserve fund balance. There have been many issues that have increased the cost of the lobby project. The cost of the generator project grew by approximately $90,000, and the lobby project grew by approximately $120,000. Mr. Murdoch’s management report included updated projections of the reserve fund balances. On July 1, 2010 the beginning balance of reserves was $1,669,000. After adding the individual owners’ monthly contributions for fiscal year 2010-2011, then deducting the approved expenditures for the lobby renovation, emergency generator replacement and projected expenses from the five-year reserve expenditure plan, the projected balance by the end of the 2010-2011 fiscal year will be $463,253. Looking forward, Mr. Murdoch added that the Association should consider decreasing spending and increasing savings for a period of time.
Dr. Muller, referring to page 4 of the management report, asked whether the figure for furnishings and fixtures under lobby renovation costs should be increased from $326,000 to $350,000. Ms. Frantz answered “no” because $25,000 was removed for audio visual costs and placed in a separate line item. Ms. Kielty stated that the vote in July was to provide a budget of $350,000 for furnishings and fixtures and this did not include audio visual costs.
Ms. Fridell asked about an $8,000 change order relating to the generator project, and specifically whether this was a result of additional diligence by the project manager or poor planning. Mr. Murdoch responded that, in general, assumptions made about existing conditions for the generator were proven incorrect. This project, especially in regard to the exhaust system, code compliance, sound concerns, electrical room renovation requirements and value-engineering by the construction management team proved complicated when incorporating all parties concerns into the design.
Ms. Kielty stated that she has discussed with Mr. Murdoch the plan to hold a working meeting for the Board, possibly the second week of December, 2010 to discuss funding and planning for upcoming large projects. These capital improvement projects include the corridors in each tower, windows and sliding glass doors, and individual condominium fan coil units. Mr. Santos mentioned that he needed more time to do research and gather more information for discussion purposes and it was decided that the working session of the Board would be held some time in January.
Ms. Frantz stated that she attended a seminar at the offices of Lerch, Early and Brewer, which was designed to inform condominium associations about borrowing money and to introduce possible lenders. There are many considerations in borrowing, and Ms. Frantz thought that the Association would be a good candidate for borrowing. Most lenders prefer to have the reserves from a borrowing association housed with them, but this is not essential, as long as there is an arrangement to give the lender access to the cash as collateral. Ms. Frantz also stated that there was discussion about typical environmental concerns in buildings, such as asbestos and hazardous waste, and that it would be useful to obtain this type of building review. Also, it would be prudent to seek legal counsel for advice on the matter.
Ms. Fridell stated that when she began investigating loans two years ago, the Association requested and received an Opinion Letter from Lerch, Early and Brewer affirming that the Association has the authority to enter into borrowings. Ms. Fridell added that the Association also has back up sources of liquidity such as operating savings of over $485,000 and a line of credit established with Morgan Stanley. The potential line of credit available to the Association is linked to the cumulative investments placed at Morgan Stanley with a maximum loan balance set at one million dollars.
New Business:
Landscape Master Plan: The landscape committee presented proposals for the landscaping master plan and provided the Board with a written comparison.
MOTION: Dr. Muller moved, Ms. Fridell seconded, to approve the Ruppert Landscape proposal for developing a landscape master plan at a cost of $2,250. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Kielty noted that if Ruppert is hired to carry out the execution of the landscaping design, then the cost of the master plan will be credited to cost of that work. Ms. Fridell thanked the committee for its analysis memo, particularly since Ruppert’s bid was higher than those of its competitors, and the memo provided supporting rationale for choosing Ruppert.
Package Tracking Software Upgrade: Mr. Santos explained that the building receives 30 to 40 packages per day for residents. The front desk and management office strives to be diligent about managing these packages, but the package tracking software has failed and is an old version that the manufacturer (IntelliTrack) will no longer support. Other software packages were considered, but management determined that the best option is an upgraded version of the current software. Mr. Levine added that this is a one-time cost that also offers ongoing technical IT support. Management attempted to use the recently-established “Elizabethcondo.com” website provided by “AtHomeNet.com” to track packages, but discovered that once a package is delivered to the resident, the name is deleted from the archives, leaving no historical record available for future reference.
MOTION: Mr. Levine moved, Ms. Fridell seconded, to accept the contract from IntelliTrack for upgrading to version 8.0 of the package tracking software at a cost of $5,003.70. The motion passed unanimously.
ECA Rental Apartment Rent Increase: Mr. Santos made a recommendation to increase the rent on a unit owed by the Association. He stated that the current resident has lived there since January 2003 and has received two rent increases, at $50 per month each, since then. The current rent is $1300 per month and the resident pays on time. The lease renews on a month-to-month basis. Mr. Santos stated that the current rent is probably within market range, but it has not been increased for three years.
MOTION: Ms. Fridell moved, Dr. Muller seconded, to approve Management’s recommendation to increase the rent by 4.25%, or $55 per month. The motion passed unanimously.
The Board discussed whether the Montgomery County, MD required landlords to offer tenants a two-year lease agreement. Mr. Murdoch stated that he will confirm.
Window Washing: Mr. Santos reported that his due diligence on the Board approved contractor revealed improper insurance coverage and improper roof-anchoring techniques. Accordingly, he recommended postponing the work and seeking out alternatives in the spring of 2011. The Board agreed by consensus.
Energy Tax Credits: Ms. Frantz stated that the Association has completed several projects, such as the energy-efficient garage lighting, which may be eligible for energy tax credits that could be passed back to owners. Mr. Murdoch stated that he would investigate. He also recommended that the Association seek a tax basis letter from DeLeon & Stang to document for owners capital spending by the Association that would increase the tax basis value of their property.
Roof Canopies: Dr. Muller stated that there was discussion at a previous board meeting to obtain input from the HBW Construction Group and the architectural firm, NSA Architects, to replace the canopy roof. Mr. Santos stated that he already obtained a proposal from NSA Architects (which has been involved in the lobby renovation project) and also solicited another proposal from a competing architect. He plans to present this information to the Board in December.
Website: Mr. Levine reported that 70 people have registered on the website and he is willing to train residents on its use. His office is located at Great Oak Title, next to the tax and accounting office, on the Arcade level, East side of building. Dr. Muller inquired what equipment will be available in the new business office. Mr. Santos stated that there will be a desktop computer and copy machine in the business office and wireless internet capability throughout the lobby level. A phone line (for fax machine use only) and printer could also be made available for use in the business office. Mr. Levine stated that he would donate a fax machine to the space as well. Mr. Santos stated that the business center will be secured with a key fob reader.
Committee Reports:
Energy Conservation: Committee Chairwoman Joan Rosenbach stated that order forms for CFL (Compact Fluorescent Lamps) bulbs have been placed in mail boxes. The bulbs are on-site and orders can be filled quickly. There are new types of CFLs on the market, such as three-way dimmers, etc, but the committee is not offering these at this time due to their cost. The committee is considering holding an education seminar on the new types of bulbs. Residents who are considering purchasing new appliances for their kitchens are encouraged to take advantage of PEPCO rebates available for Energy Star rated items.
The committee will investigate different types of toilets to provide residents with information in the event they are interested in purchasing new water-saving toilets for their units.
Many residents have expressed concerns regarding the McQuay fan coil units including: inaccurate thermostats, presence of mold, etc. The Board has received an Opinion Letter from Lerch Early indicating that McQuay fan coil units are the responsibility of individual owners, but the committee requested more clarification. Ms. Kielty responded that the Opinion Letter would be sent to the committee. However, Ms. Frantz is seeking further legal clarification, stating that her reading of the by-laws indicates that when a mechanical component is of importance to the entire building, the Association can assume financial responsibility for that component.
A new member has joined the committee, Afrouz Assadian, and Mrs. Rosenbach encouraged others to join as well. David Drazin will be chairing the committee from December through April while Mrs. Rosenbach is away.
Floor Representatives: Committee Chairwoman Stephanie Olshan reported that she met with Mr. Santos and Co-chairwoman Ms. Tobi Esler. The committee is not receiving information on new move-ins and is trying to devise a system to identify and welcome new owners. The committee will report to the Board following any future meetings.
Common Area Protocol Meeting: Dr. Muller provided a summary of the open meeting held in the party room on November 14, 2010. Many constructive comments were given and the following points were summarized:
1. Newspapers should continue to be in a visible location such as a basket or desk tray at the front desk, not in the business office. Management should decide what location is best.
2. Meeting minutes should be accessible and easily readable for those who are unable to stand for a long time; locations such as the Management office, library or bulletin board were suggested.
3. Use of one display enclosure at a time was suggested for the elevator.
4. Concierge carts should be released only after the name and unit number of the user are obtained. Management will monitor the system.
5. A suggestion was made to exclude from the house rules the requirement that “exercise attire should use the mailbox corridor for passage on the lobby level”.
6. Legal counsel should be consulted about whether it is possible to forbid minors from gathering in the lobby area. Many comments were made about the safety of the furnishings and minors, and concerns about the Association’s liability were expressed.
7. Residents discussed imposing monetary penalties in addition to those already in House Rules; however, they preferred that infractions be brought to the attention of Management for resolution.
8. The party room is locked throughout the day; residents should contact Management to use the room for private gatherings/meetings.
9. Residents discussed the possibility of not returning party room deposits. The board needs to discuss this further with Management.
10. There was consensus among residents that pets should not be allowed on carpeted areas of the lobbies and party room.
Open Comments:
A resident thanked the Board for its time and dedication to the refurbishment efforts and engineering work. However, he stated that a substantial number of residents are concerned about the financial burden these could have on condominium fees in the future. The resident stated that verbal statements and letters have been sent to the Board expressing such concerns. A petition is currently in circulation throughout the community which requests that the cost of further refurbishing of the tower corridors needs to be coordinated with infrastructure improvement costs. The petition also requests that the Board expand the refurbishment committee from three to seven members, and that three of these members be signers of the petition. Residents who are interested in reviewing the petition may contact the resident in Unit 307.
Another resident voiced that she agreed with the concerns about financial strain. She suggested that the Board look for ways to trim back such as eliminating items like TVs, or imposing non-refundable fees for use of the party room or the exercise room. Dr. Muller stated that all savings are important; however, eliminating minor items such as TVs would have little effect on the overall costs of large projects. He stressed that the refurbishment committee has been very judicious in saving money while at the same time making the building attractive.
A question was asked about when a resident is considered “delinquent.” Ms. Fridell responded that this occurs when a resident does not pay the condominium fee within 10 days of the due date. The resident is notified in writing by Management, overdue interest accrues and after 90 days, delinquencies are forwarded to legal counsel for legal action. Forty percent of the Association’s current delinquencies are related to one unit, although the overall Association delinquency rate is 1.3% of total annual assessments, a figure which is lower than that of other comparable condominium buildings. Another resident asked what is being done about the large delinquent account. Ms. Fridell responded that the Association is taking every legal action available to it under the law to pursue collection.
The social committee will organize a “care” box preparation party supporting “So Others Might Eat” charity for the homeless on Saturday December 4, 2010, from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. in the West Lobby. Notices will be posted. A holiday party for all residents will be held, but a date is not yet set.
A resident expressed her views about the cavalier ways in which the party room was treated by residents at the previous day’s open meeting. She stated that she observed a resident sitting on a serving counter with her feet on it. Trash was left on counters and residents leaned against the newly renovated walls and wallpaper. The resident requested that if this type of behavior is observed again, the leaders of the meeting should correct the behavior immediately to preserve the quality of the renovated amenities.
Adjournment
The President adjourned the meeting at 9:15 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
4601 North Park Avenue
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting November 15, 2010
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 7:30 p.m.
Approval of Minutes:
MOTION Dr. Muller moved, Ms. Fridell seconded, to approve the October 18, 2010, regular meeting minutes as amended. The motion passed unanimously.
President’s Report: Ms. Kielty stated that a community meeting was held last night to discuss protocols for use of the refurbished lobby common areas. Many residents attended the meeting and provided what Ms. Kielty considered valuable feedback.
Ms. Kielty thanked those who donated funds for a contract employee who lost her son. About $5,000 was collected. A special thank you to Elin Winthrop and Peg Downey who managed the donations, performed the necessary administrative effort to secure the funds and presented the gift.
Treasurer’s Report: Ms. Fridell reported that DeLeon and Stang delivered the draft audited financial statements on November 12, 2010. The draft audit and attachments will be reviewed and comments will be given to the accountants within the next few weeks. The audit manager from DeLeon and Stang will attend the December board meeting.
This year’s Management Letter to the Board cites several issues that Ms. Fridell has been raising over the last few months, which include:
• The auditor was concerned about the increase in delinquencies and advises the Association to improve its collections efforts.
• DeLeon and Stang cited the miscoding of invoices leading to the account posting errors that Ms. Fridell and Mr. Murdoch have been working to correct.
• There is a promptness issue relating to the reimbursement transfers from the operating to the reserve funds.
Ms. Fridell stated that there are some general financial trends of which the Board should be aware. First, at the end of the 6/30 Fiscal Year, on a draft basis, there was a combined net loss (expenditures exceeded contributions to reserve fund) of $241,000 mostly due to the spending from reserves on the lobby refurbishment project. There was also a 19% increase in total expenses from the previous year. This month for the first time, the Association’s reserve balances dropped below the one million dollar mark, which was projected, but which requires careful monitoring.
Second, Ms. Fridell expressed concern about the increase in delinquencies, which have tripled since June 2009. Almost half of all uncollected fees are from one owner. Ms. Fridell repeated her previous statements that the Board needs to make an effort to be cost-conscious and be aware that the reserves are earning very little interest.
Old Business:
Lobby Renovation: Mr. Santos reported that he will review a punch list with Hartman Design Group and HBW Group to identify items that need to be touched up. The public restrooms behind the post office boxes are in working order, and the front desk staff is expected to return behind the new front desk in the coming week.
Emergency Generator: Mr. Murdoch stated that testing is scheduled for the coming week. The project is nearing completion, possibly by the week after Thanksgiving assuming the tests pass this week.
Mr. Murdoch discussed the impact that the growth in costs of these two projects is having on the year end and reserve fund balance. There have been many issues that have increased the cost of the lobby project. The cost of the generator project grew by approximately $90,000, and the lobby project grew by approximately $120,000. Mr. Murdoch’s management report included updated projections of the reserve fund balances. On July 1, 2010 the beginning balance of reserves was $1,669,000. After adding the individual owners’ monthly contributions for fiscal year 2010-2011, then deducting the approved expenditures for the lobby renovation, emergency generator replacement and projected expenses from the five-year reserve expenditure plan, the projected balance by the end of the 2010-2011 fiscal year will be $463,253. Looking forward, Mr. Murdoch added that the Association should consider decreasing spending and increasing savings for a period of time.
Dr. Muller, referring to page 4 of the management report, asked whether the figure for furnishings and fixtures under lobby renovation costs should be increased from $326,000 to $350,000. Ms. Frantz answered “no” because $25,000 was removed for audio visual costs and placed in a separate line item. Ms. Kielty stated that the vote in July was to provide a budget of $350,000 for furnishings and fixtures and this did not include audio visual costs.
Ms. Fridell asked about an $8,000 change order relating to the generator project, and specifically whether this was a result of additional diligence by the project manager or poor planning. Mr. Murdoch responded that, in general, assumptions made about existing conditions for the generator were proven incorrect. This project, especially in regard to the exhaust system, code compliance, sound concerns, electrical room renovation requirements and value-engineering by the construction management team proved complicated when incorporating all parties concerns into the design.
Ms. Kielty stated that she has discussed with Mr. Murdoch the plan to hold a working meeting for the Board, possibly the second week of December, 2010 to discuss funding and planning for upcoming large projects. These capital improvement projects include the corridors in each tower, windows and sliding glass doors, and individual condominium fan coil units. Mr. Santos mentioned that he needed more time to do research and gather more information for discussion purposes and it was decided that the working session of the Board would be held some time in January.
Ms. Frantz stated that she attended a seminar at the offices of Lerch, Early and Brewer, which was designed to inform condominium associations about borrowing money and to introduce possible lenders. There are many considerations in borrowing, and Ms. Frantz thought that the Association would be a good candidate for borrowing. Most lenders prefer to have the reserves from a borrowing association housed with them, but this is not essential, as long as there is an arrangement to give the lender access to the cash as collateral. Ms. Frantz also stated that there was discussion about typical environmental concerns in buildings, such as asbestos and hazardous waste, and that it would be useful to obtain this type of building review. Also, it would be prudent to seek legal counsel for advice on the matter.
Ms. Fridell stated that when she began investigating loans two years ago, the Association requested and received an Opinion Letter from Lerch, Early and Brewer affirming that the Association has the authority to enter into borrowings. Ms. Fridell added that the Association also has back up sources of liquidity such as operating savings of over $485,000 and a line of credit established with Morgan Stanley. The potential line of credit available to the Association is linked to the cumulative investments placed at Morgan Stanley with a maximum loan balance set at one million dollars.
New Business:
Landscape Master Plan: The landscape committee presented proposals for the landscaping master plan and provided the Board with a written comparison.
MOTION: Dr. Muller moved, Ms. Fridell seconded, to approve the Ruppert Landscape proposal for developing a landscape master plan at a cost of $2,250. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Kielty noted that if Ruppert is hired to carry out the execution of the landscaping design, then the cost of the master plan will be credited to cost of that work. Ms. Fridell thanked the committee for its analysis memo, particularly since Ruppert’s bid was higher than those of its competitors, and the memo provided supporting rationale for choosing Ruppert.
Package Tracking Software Upgrade: Mr. Santos explained that the building receives 30 to 40 packages per day for residents. The front desk and management office strives to be diligent about managing these packages, but the package tracking software has failed and is an old version that the manufacturer (IntelliTrack) will no longer support. Other software packages were considered, but management determined that the best option is an upgraded version of the current software. Mr. Levine added that this is a one-time cost that also offers ongoing technical IT support. Management attempted to use the recently-established “Elizabethcondo.com” website provided by “AtHomeNet.com” to track packages, but discovered that once a package is delivered to the resident, the name is deleted from the archives, leaving no historical record available for future reference.
MOTION: Mr. Levine moved, Ms. Fridell seconded, to accept the contract from IntelliTrack for upgrading to version 8.0 of the package tracking software at a cost of $5,003.70. The motion passed unanimously.
ECA Rental Apartment Rent Increase: Mr. Santos made a recommendation to increase the rent on a unit owed by the Association. He stated that the current resident has lived there since January 2003 and has received two rent increases, at $50 per month each, since then. The current rent is $1300 per month and the resident pays on time. The lease renews on a month-to-month basis. Mr. Santos stated that the current rent is probably within market range, but it has not been increased for three years.
MOTION: Ms. Fridell moved, Dr. Muller seconded, to approve Management’s recommendation to increase the rent by 4.25%, or $55 per month. The motion passed unanimously.
The Board discussed whether the Montgomery County, MD required landlords to offer tenants a two-year lease agreement. Mr. Murdoch stated that he will confirm.
Window Washing: Mr. Santos reported that his due diligence on the Board approved contractor revealed improper insurance coverage and improper roof-anchoring techniques. Accordingly, he recommended postponing the work and seeking out alternatives in the spring of 2011. The Board agreed by consensus.
Energy Tax Credits: Ms. Frantz stated that the Association has completed several projects, such as the energy-efficient garage lighting, which may be eligible for energy tax credits that could be passed back to owners. Mr. Murdoch stated that he would investigate. He also recommended that the Association seek a tax basis letter from DeLeon & Stang to document for owners capital spending by the Association that would increase the tax basis value of their property.
Roof Canopies: Dr. Muller stated that there was discussion at a previous board meeting to obtain input from the HBW Construction Group and the architectural firm, NSA Architects, to replace the canopy roof. Mr. Santos stated that he already obtained a proposal from NSA Architects (which has been involved in the lobby renovation project) and also solicited another proposal from a competing architect. He plans to present this information to the Board in December.
Website: Mr. Levine reported that 70 people have registered on the website and he is willing to train residents on its use. His office is located at Great Oak Title, next to the tax and accounting office, on the Arcade level, East side of building. Dr. Muller inquired what equipment will be available in the new business office. Mr. Santos stated that there will be a desktop computer and copy machine in the business office and wireless internet capability throughout the lobby level. A phone line (for fax machine use only) and printer could also be made available for use in the business office. Mr. Levine stated that he would donate a fax machine to the space as well. Mr. Santos stated that the business center will be secured with a key fob reader.
Committee Reports:
Energy Conservation: Committee Chairwoman Joan Rosenbach stated that order forms for CFL (Compact Fluorescent Lamps) bulbs have been placed in mail boxes. The bulbs are on-site and orders can be filled quickly. There are new types of CFLs on the market, such as three-way dimmers, etc, but the committee is not offering these at this time due to their cost. The committee is considering holding an education seminar on the new types of bulbs. Residents who are considering purchasing new appliances for their kitchens are encouraged to take advantage of PEPCO rebates available for Energy Star rated items.
The committee will investigate different types of toilets to provide residents with information in the event they are interested in purchasing new water-saving toilets for their units.
Many residents have expressed concerns regarding the McQuay fan coil units including: inaccurate thermostats, presence of mold, etc. The Board has received an Opinion Letter from Lerch Early indicating that McQuay fan coil units are the responsibility of individual owners, but the committee requested more clarification. Ms. Kielty responded that the Opinion Letter would be sent to the committee. However, Ms. Frantz is seeking further legal clarification, stating that her reading of the by-laws indicates that when a mechanical component is of importance to the entire building, the Association can assume financial responsibility for that component.
A new member has joined the committee, Afrouz Assadian, and Mrs. Rosenbach encouraged others to join as well. David Drazin will be chairing the committee from December through April while Mrs. Rosenbach is away.
Floor Representatives: Committee Chairwoman Stephanie Olshan reported that she met with Mr. Santos and Co-chairwoman Ms. Tobi Esler. The committee is not receiving information on new move-ins and is trying to devise a system to identify and welcome new owners. The committee will report to the Board following any future meetings.
Common Area Protocol Meeting: Dr. Muller provided a summary of the open meeting held in the party room on November 14, 2010. Many constructive comments were given and the following points were summarized:
1. Newspapers should continue to be in a visible location such as a basket or desk tray at the front desk, not in the business office. Management should decide what location is best.
2. Meeting minutes should be accessible and easily readable for those who are unable to stand for a long time; locations such as the Management office, library or bulletin board were suggested.
3. Use of one display enclosure at a time was suggested for the elevator.
4. Concierge carts should be released only after the name and unit number of the user are obtained. Management will monitor the system.
5. A suggestion was made to exclude from the house rules the requirement that “exercise attire should use the mailbox corridor for passage on the lobby level”.
6. Legal counsel should be consulted about whether it is possible to forbid minors from gathering in the lobby area. Many comments were made about the safety of the furnishings and minors, and concerns about the Association’s liability were expressed.
7. Residents discussed imposing monetary penalties in addition to those already in House Rules; however, they preferred that infractions be brought to the attention of Management for resolution.
8. The party room is locked throughout the day; residents should contact Management to use the room for private gatherings/meetings.
9. Residents discussed the possibility of not returning party room deposits. The board needs to discuss this further with Management.
10. There was consensus among residents that pets should not be allowed on carpeted areas of the lobbies and party room.
Open Comments:
A resident thanked the Board for its time and dedication to the refurbishment efforts and engineering work. However, he stated that a substantial number of residents are concerned about the financial burden these could have on condominium fees in the future. The resident stated that verbal statements and letters have been sent to the Board expressing such concerns. A petition is currently in circulation throughout the community which requests that the cost of further refurbishing of the tower corridors needs to be coordinated with infrastructure improvement costs. The petition also requests that the Board expand the refurbishment committee from three to seven members, and that three of these members be signers of the petition. Residents who are interested in reviewing the petition may contact the resident in Unit 307.
Another resident voiced that she agreed with the concerns about financial strain. She suggested that the Board look for ways to trim back such as eliminating items like TVs, or imposing non-refundable fees for use of the party room or the exercise room. Dr. Muller stated that all savings are important; however, eliminating minor items such as TVs would have little effect on the overall costs of large projects. He stressed that the refurbishment committee has been very judicious in saving money while at the same time making the building attractive.
A question was asked about when a resident is considered “delinquent.” Ms. Fridell responded that this occurs when a resident does not pay the condominium fee within 10 days of the due date. The resident is notified in writing by Management, overdue interest accrues and after 90 days, delinquencies are forwarded to legal counsel for legal action. Forty percent of the Association’s current delinquencies are related to one unit, although the overall Association delinquency rate is 1.3% of total annual assessments, a figure which is lower than that of other comparable condominium buildings. Another resident asked what is being done about the large delinquent account. Ms. Fridell responded that the Association is taking every legal action available to it under the law to pursue collection.
The social committee will organize a “care” box preparation party supporting “So Others Might Eat” charity for the homeless on Saturday December 4, 2010, from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. in the West Lobby. Notices will be posted. A holiday party for all residents will be held, but a date is not yet set.
A resident expressed her views about the cavalier ways in which the party room was treated by residents at the previous day’s open meeting. She stated that she observed a resident sitting on a serving counter with her feet on it. Trash was left on counters and residents leaned against the newly renovated walls and wallpaper. The resident requested that if this type of behavior is observed again, the leaders of the meeting should correct the behavior immediately to preserve the quality of the renovated amenities.
Adjournment
The President adjourned the meeting at 9:15 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, December 21, 2010
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?
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.
Monday, December 20, 2010
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.
Friday, December 17, 2010
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.