Update - Board Meeting of March 12, 2009

-------------------------------------------------------------
Other recent posts (Click On to Go To):
Comparison of Natural Gas Plans, posted March 10
The Three Domains of Knowledge posted March 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meeting Highlights:
Reserved "Guest" Parking is Eliminated, Driveways, Rules and Regulation Infractions, Contracts, Specifications, Bid versus No-Bid Issues, Roofing Project and Continued Discussion of Assessment for Unit B Owners for Roof Window Replacement

To Jump to the Comments of readers of this post, click here:
Comments to this Post


All of our board members, with the exception of the Landscape Director were present for the meeting. There were about 10 units represented by unit owners. The open portion of the meeting ran from about 7:00pm to 9:30pm and then the unit owners were excused and the board went into executive (closed) session.

Here are my observations from my attendance at this board meeting. The Guest Parking was, I understand, voted upon after the unit owners were excused for executive session, and has been eliminated [i.e., it is no longer a violation for residents to park in the spaces labelled "reserved for guest", which effectively eliminates this as guest parking.]. I am not aware of an announcement to the unit owners prior to their dismissal by the President and I left the room at executive session as requested by management and the board President. The doors were not opened nor were unit owners invited back into the room at the end of executive session.

Please note that if you require clarification, the source is the board. I can render comments and so on, but the board is making the decisions in open session, executive (closed) session and with management. They need your input. Attend the meetings! It is my goal that these notes will provide you with a summary of the discussion between the various members of the board, the management and the unit owners in attendance. If you have questions or comments, please email me. However, if possible, do attend the meetings!

If you have an issue with the board, my suggestion is this: write a letter to the Management Office and include your name and address. Request that the letter be copied and given to the board members, and then sign, date and mail it. Keep a copy of the letter and file it somewhere were you can find it for board meetings and so on. Writing a letter serves several purposes, including: 1) it gets the information or issue into the hands of everyone who is in a position of authority and responsibility; 2) it documents your communication; 3) sending it to the Management Office and the board makes it a part of the record; 4) written letters allow the writer to fully express themselves in a way that can be brief and is reproducible, so everyone gets the identical communications.

If someone arrives at your door with a petition, think long and hard before you sign it. My recommendation is DON’T! If you think a petition has merit, think about the issue, take the time and a 42 cent stamp and then write a letter, in your own words, about the issues or concerns that you have and send it to the Management Office. Don’t become a copying machine with a signature, mouthing someone else’s words, concerns, issues and agenda. That includes what I write here. We have politicians at BLMH and don’t be used by them. Authenticity is what is required. We all language things differently and your concerns, expressed in your own words are what the board needs to hear.

1. At several times during the meeting, the Director – Secretary and Welcoming addressed the unit owners who were present and provided an explanation of previous events that had a bearing on the discussion currently in place. [Comment: This type of information injection is most helpful to unit owners, such as myself. It places the conversation into a context, which is frequently broader than the one that is currently in progress. ]

2. As part of the “Treasurer’s Report” our Architectural Director/Treasurer presented information regarding the movement of some funds from money market accounts to short term (6 month) CDs as well as information on the earnings (interest) on these investments.

3. The “Management Report” included a brief discussion about work order histories, a reference to a work order for a roof leak repair (cost $1,250 and approved by the board) and acknowledged the updated sales report and insurance reports, both of which were not revealed or discussed.

4. Work orders discussed included reported concrete patio failure(s), driveway issues with photos presented by our Communications Director. At one unit, portions of the asphalt driveway have lifted to the extent that the owner has stated that they cannot enter their garage without “bottoming” of their automobile. The Architectural Director/Treasurer recommended prioritizing the work on the driveway of a unit with the lifted asphalt, and placing it first on the replacement list. Later in the evening the board discussed the need to quickly prepare an evaluation of all driveways, to which management agreed. Management will group driveways by their condition, for the purpose of determining the order of replacement and repairs. During the session open to the unit owners, several present including myself described the failure of repairs, the buckling or lifting of asphalt and in my case, the separation of the garage concrete slab and widening of a crack therein as water flows back against the garage and into the earth at the seam where asphalt meets the concrete garage floor, and also into the garage. Freeze – thaw is now damaging the concrete floor of the garage, as the destruction of the asphalt driveway has now expanded to include the concrete garage slab. In my case, the seal of the garage door has reduced effectiveness because of the shifting of the concrete slab.

5. The roofing project was discussed during this portion of the meeting and during the committee reports. A breakdown of costs for the most recent (2005?) roof replacement is underway and will be presented to the board by the next meeting. The Architectural Director/Treasurer provided a summary of the preparation of specifications, of the type and quality of materials anticipated, of the desire to open up the bid process by restating parts of the specifications to allow more installers who use differing suppliers and nail guns to bid. The Architectural Director/Treasurer prefers the use of “architectural grade” shingles. These have a life of up to 30 years, but require stripping at the end of that life; only one layer of this type of shingle is permitted on the roof. The longer life of these shingles and their ability to hide roof imperfections was stated as advantages of use. However, the Architectural Director/Treasurer also stated that it is prudent to plan on a life span less than the maximum. He stated that 20 years as a realistic minimum life span. This then moved into a discussion of methods to extend the life of the roof. The Architectural Director/Treasurer stated that installation of insulation baffles to assure free air flow, increased soffit vent area, the increase of attic airflow and the use of insulation in the attic space would all contribute to longer life of the roofing components. He used a figure of 5 years as an achievable extension of life [Comment: if an improvement from 20 to 25 years is achieved, then in the span of 75 year building life, the number of times a project of this type must occur is reduced from five to four. A figure of $1 million has been used by the board as a possible total budget number for the current roofing project. If that is true, then reducing the number of roofing projects from four to three will save $1 million over that 75 year life. That is a $13,300 savings each year, which is, of course, assessments that do not have to be collected, or monies that can be spent on other projects. Note: This is a simplified financial perspective and does not include the costs of alternative shingles, inflation or interest. ]

The Architectural Director/Treasurer stated that specifications will be complete for the April board meeting, and that his target is the completion of two roofing projects in 2009. This work must be completed prior to hurricane season, at which time, plywood becomes extremely difficult to obtain.

The Architectural Director described how installation of insulation in the attic would benefit all unit owners. Longer roof life is a savings to all unit owners. Heat rises in the units via convection and he stated the case for some savings accruing for the first floor unit owners. He also pointed out that there are other projects which directly benefit first floor owners only, such as improvements to concrete patios, and lintels.

The Architectural Director again restated the case for diverting water from the center of the driveway [for example, between A and B unit garages] to a discharge point off of the gabled entrances or off of a new “shed” roof as the case might be for buildings that do not currently have a gabled entrance. This must be agreed upon by the board to finalize the specifications for the roof. He said the principal advantage of the shed roof over a gabled entrance was cost. He acknowledged that the earlier attempts were not an immediate success.

A brief discussion of warranty for roofing was included in the overall roofing discussion. Warranties are of various types and qualities. Warranties by roofers must be backed by the manufacturers. [Comment: I expressed to the board during this meeting and the February meeting, that I had direct experience with the superiority of a manufacturer’s warranty over that of the roofer. A commercial building I am involved in had a roofing project completed about 15 years ago. The roofer has since gone out of business. The manufacturer has assumed the responsibility for the warranty and that includes workmanship and materials for the entire 20 year period of the warranty. This has saved the building owner a considerable amount of money.]

The Architectural Director/ Treasurer opened up the discussion to include the replacement of B unit windows and framing in the roof gable. [Comment: this, too is an ongoing discussion from earlier board meetings]. This is expected to be done as part of the roofing project. The reasons cited include: 1) the age of the existing windows, approximately 30 years; 2) the problems experienced with roof leaks, which in some cases are actually the result of window, sill and framing leaks, and specific examples were cited; 3) the desire to avoid doing this roofing project and then over the span of the next 20 to 25 years and before another roofing project, investing assessment dollars into roof repairs which are the result of window and sill failures (typical cost today +$1,200 each).

The discussion included types of windows, manufacturers and the materials available. Samples of finishes were demonstrated. The Architectural Director/ Treasurer stated that difficulties had been encountered in finding windows matching our design (non-casement) with suitable finish and described some of the options and their advantages and disadvantages to unit owners. One window which is a very good design uses a painted finish. (Paint over vinyl?). This is of concern as the finish must last the life of the window. The Architectural Director/Treasurer went on to describe some of the issues of applying paint over vinyl or similar products, and that includes building trim, the effect of heating and expansion on materials that have been painted, and the issue with seams that open and close or material buckling, all due to expansion and contraction of the underlying materials. [Comment: Window warranties were not discussed, but it would be prudent to have a warranty that meets or exceeds the life span of the roofing material used. In this case, 25 or 30 years. Window finishes must also be warranted by the manufacturer. Of course, it is very difficult to anticipate who will or will not be in business in 30 years; especially in the current economic climate. I have been told by architects that it is preferable to use the best materials possible for the application as opposed to a warranty of inferior materials. ]

The discussion moved into the issue of who is to assume the financial burden for the window replacement, and if it is the “B” unit owner, then how to deal with the situation where a “B” unit owner has recently replaced a roof window, which will again be replaced as the surrounding framing is replaced. Management pointed out that unit owners must be immediately notified (the newsletter was mentioned as the method), as there should be no further rooftop window replacements by unit owners, if it is anticipated that these will be replaced as the roofing project proceeds to their building. The discussion then gravitated to the issue of compensation of “B” unit owners who have recently replaced their rooftop windows and would now be expected to again replace the roof window. A discussion of what the definition of “recent replacement” might be (5 years was cited) and the need for proof of replacement (a receipt) which would date the replacement. The discussion also included the issue of “B” unit owner payment methods and plans. During that portion of the meeting open to unit owners’ comments, the concern of a potential 33% assessment increase for “B” unit owners was mentioned by the Architectural Director/ Treasurer. During the period that comments were welcomed from the floor, I suggested that the benefits of attic insulation to the “B” unit owners HVAC energy related expenses would, over time, offset the cost of the installation of the roof window. An energy audit could confirm this. [Comment: the addition of ceiling insulation should lower the energy usage of second floor units. This could influence a unit owner’s decision of which energy plan to use, assuming natural gas is used. See my post “Nicor Gas on the "Budget Plan"” dated March 10. The subject of ceiling insulation, drainage and so on is an ongoing discussion and I do not believe
it is resolved nor a final decision has been reached. Progress is, however being made.

6. The discussion of winter and ice damage, driveways and so on also included the item of a “warped” garage door which was described as “water damage”. This is a metal door, and the board discussed and agreed for the association to assume the financial responsibility for repair. [Comment: How does water warp a metal door?].

7. Reserve study proposals were discussed. The board desires proposals from those who could perform the reserve study. Some have been received, but certain members of the board directed the management company to obtain “glossies” and sales materials from the bidders and distribute same to the board. There was a discussion of the possibility of the preparation of a reserve study proposal by the management company, and this was approved. Review of the proposals was deferred until next month. During the open portion of recent board meetings, there have been discussions about the need or lack of need for a reserve study, the benefits to be derived there from, and the potential pitfalls. No such discussion occurred during this meeting.

8. The janitorial contract and the bids received were discussed. During previous meetings there have been discussions about increasing the frequency of cleaning from once every other week to weekly. The bidders provided two quotes, one for each frequency. The Communications Director asked the Manager if the value of any of the bids had been revealed to other bidders. He emphatically said "No" and elaborated. A discussion ensued among the board members pertaining to the condition of the halls, the advantages of more frequent cleaning and the costs of the proposals for once weekly cleaning. Those proposals exceeded the budget and the Architectural Director/Treasurer pointed out that approval of bids which exceed the budgeted amounts require the board to determine where this excess is to come from and further, if this is to occur, then what is the point of the budget? Is the purpose of the budget a guide to aid the board in its decision making? The board then discussed the possibility of a “hybrid” schedule, which has more frequent cleanings at certain times of the year. Management pointed out that no such bids existed, as the board had not directed management to acquire them. Conversation then moved to the floor, and unit owners described how they clean the halls, and that is certainly an option. The board voted and selected a vendor with a cleaning schedule of once every other week. [Comment: I have attended meetings, and some unit owners have expressed outrage at the need to intervene to maintain the building common areas. This is, I think, a non-issue. I and some of my fellow unit owners do, from time to time , intervene and vacuum the halls, sweep, and clean windows. We also shovel the snow, sweep snow from the rooftop before it freezes in the gutters, and spread salt. I also think this issue is one of several that has been seized upon by elements at BLMH for political advantage, and consequently has been blown out of proportion. During meetings it has been used as an example of poor or mis-management. "Change" was the election mantra and specific "change" is the goal. ]

9. Landscaping and mulching contracts were briefly discussed by the board. Harrow Court is on the schedule for this year.

10. Painting was discussed. Management advised that we are on a 5-year schedule. The Architectural Director/Treasurer asked if a 6 year schedule was workable [Comment: this would reduce annual costs by about 17%. The possibility of a six year schedule is interesting. No one on the board appeared to pick up the idea and champion it. But this idea could save us $14,450 each year, using 2009's budget as a guide]. Our Director – Secretary and Welcoming, addressed the unit owners with a discussion of the boards experience that the various buildings wear unevenly. This is attributable to the presence of pets, children, teenagers, the number of occupants in a building, and so on.

11. Pothole repairs to streets were discussed. These are currently underway but are considered to be “temporary fixes” and not permanent solutions. Management and the board discussed the fact that proper and long lasting repairs cannot be made until hot patches are installed during warm weather. One hole has been overlooked, was added to the “to do” list, and is near the northerly entrance.

12. The board discussed a unit owner’s installation of a “vent less” fireplace. The chimney is shared by two units and there are specific guidelines to be adhered to. The Architectural Director/Treasurer related his experience with this type of fireplace and his concerns. It was his recommendation the unit owner consider the use of a “fireplace insert”.

13. The board discussed some of the decision making process. Our Director – Secretary and Welcoming pointed out to the unit owners who were present that it is the board, and the board alone that will make the decisions. Unit owners’ comments and input are welcome, but unit owners cannot vote on the matters at hand. [Comment: To expand on this, the board can discuss, vote and alter any issue, including any and all Rules and Regulations at any time, and can do whatever they wish, as long as they adhere to the “Condominium Act”. This act is, however, not all inclusive. Following the Condominium Act does not assure a well run, financially viable association. Many of the provisions of the act are what are referred to as “minimum standards”. Most people are unhappy with minimums; if that were untrue, then we would be pleased to have our units barely heated, streets barely paved, paint peeling, and coffers and reserves empty. There would be no trees, no grass and only sufficient lighting to meet city codes. Roofs can be patched for 30 or more years, if necessary. It is possible for boards to operate associations this way, and some do. IT IS LEGAL to do so; there are no laws to protect us and to assure that our association is well run, efficient and has sufficient operating funds and reserves, or that misguided boards, no matter how well meaning, will operate with good judgement or prudence. The term “sufficient” as applied to finances can be misconstrued and misrepresented, and even reserve studies can and are manipulated. All that management needs to do is hire a firm that will say what a board wants to hear, and management will defer to the wishes of the board, because management was and is hired by the board. If a board wants to run an agenda that management opposes, all the board has to do is replace the management firm with one that is amenable to the wishes of the board. Is that one of the unstated goals under the banner of "change"? Is that one of the back door promises that was made? All will, in time be revealed, and true intentions will be unconcealed.]

14. For that portion of the meeting devoted to “Committee Reports” the Communications Director made requests of the other board members to have their written materials for inclusion in the newsletter in her hands no later than March 26, to facilitate issuance of the newsletter during the first week in April. A discussion ensued among the board members and counter-offers and promises were made.

15. The renewal of the contract with the company which provides the maintenance and engineered solutions for the association was discussed by the board. There are no other bidders and the state of specifications has been unacceptable to several board members. This was again an issue for the President and the Communications Director. The Landscaping Director who has also taken issue with this was not present at the meeting. The dollar amounts of the bid and the increase over previous contracts (1.52% per year) were discussed. The general nature of the work to be performed and which had been performed, with specific examples of the work, which included project management and custom engineered and designed solutions to problems which lowered operating and maintenance costs, and reduced the need for future expenditure or manhours, were all cited by the Architectural Director/Treasurer. He cited specific cases where direct involvement of this firm saved thousands of dollars; in one case he mentioned the figure of $12,000. He cited the special knowledge and resources of that firm, including the in-house training programs. He asked the Communications Director if she had ever visited that firm’s facility and the response was “No”. These pros and cons were discussed by the board. However, the lack of formal, complete and thorough specifications continued to be a problem for two board members. What ensued was a discussion of who and how to prepare a sufficiently thorough and technically complete specification so that viable alternative bids could be acquired. The discussion included the difficulty of this task and who was qualified to make such a specification. It was stated that there is no doubt a specification can be written, but this isn’t a painting or cleaning contract; it is a very complex task that the successful “contractor” is asked to do. Such a contract would require an equally complex specification. The Architectural Director/ Treasurer stated that he was not qualified to make this specification. The discussion included a description of various aspects of the work, but it was also acknowledged that these descriptions were incomplete and inadequate [Comment: somewhat similar to viewing the tip of an iceberg; there is a lot that is unseen and unknown]. Also discussed was the timing and concerns about delay of issuance of a contract, its impact on the roofing project and possible loss of the services of the firm in question. Also discussed with management’s input were expectations for cost increases; the first year for a new firm is a “learning experience” with inefficiencies; these are usually recaptured by the third year, but not always and are certainly not guaranteed. The risks inherent in choosing a new firm to do the work, which is very broad in scope and includes the need for a licensed and bonded single source firm with certified electrician, plumbers, carpenters, masons, laborers, stream and pump maintenance, etc.; literally a broad brush stroke of skills and the difficulties in finding firms capable of providing these skill on an ongoing basis. Unlike construction, this requires a small, multi faceted and very skillful team with good engineering management, readily available to be on site when called upon. The Communications Director cited the “many complaints” against the firm in question and the President asked how to deal with this. The conversation was opened to the floor, and of the unit owners who were present, not one had a negative word against the firm, and three gave excellent opinion and described their specific experiences. I was given an opportunity to address the board from the floor and I pointed out the use of imprecise terms such as “many” was inappropriate. The Communications Director cited the ROC survey. I suggested that the same rigor must be applied to unit owner complaints as is applied to unit owner rule violations. They must be very well documented, and data acquired. Various aspects of the debate among the board members continued. In response to a unit owner’s question, management pointed out that the three-year contract in question had a cancellation clause. After further discussion, a vote was taken to retain the firm and it passed, with one “Nay” vote.

[Comment: I have written, reviewed and awarded contracts for very complex systems and projects which involved many millions of dollars, multiple vendors and contractors and the coordination thereof. These projects required years to design and engineer and also required years to build. These were not “boiler plate” specs for “off the shelf” standardized systems and components, downloaded and printed. That today, is what many people in our PC infested world have come to view as “specifications”. Because of my involvement in these very complex, unique and costly projects, I can appreciate the difficulty of the specification writing task and the possible pitfalls.

The BLMH complex lies somewhere between the most simple and the most complex specifications. It would be possible to write an adequate specification, but to do so would require thorough and intimate knowledge of the tasks to be done. The resulting specification would include, but not be limited to, descriptions of all of the work including a thorough and complete list of all maintenance items and projects included in the contract. It would include current and anticipated projects for the entire life of the contract, the schedule of these projects so that bidders can evaluate manpower requirements and possibly include detailed drawings and Gannt style diagrams. It would require detailed and accurate descriptions of the quality of all aspects of that work, the materials to be used, the methods to be used and so on. The specification would establish minimum standards for the performance of the contract. It in fact, would be multiple specifications under an umbrella document. I said “pitfalls” can occur when writing this specification because poorly written specifications result in large loopholes and permit performance shortfalls, or can be so rigid as to restrict creativity and require constant intervention by management to discuss interpretation and to approve deviations. The specification is blueprint which establishes conditions of satisfaction and controls costs.

The use of imprecise terms or broad language such as “all”, “some”, “a few” or “many” will cause bid imperfections and permit the bidders to use their best judgment. When a relationship exists between the parties of a contract, there may be a condition of trust and expectations of performance that are not written. The contractor may have a knowledge of the task that exceeds that of the owner, board or management. In such a situation, the contractor literally “fills in the blanks” and performs the work and uses components and methods that assure meeting or exceeding the unwritten expectation. In a new relationship, no such pre-existing standard exists and must be generated, over time.

So, improper or imprecise language may not jeopardize a task well defined by specification or a long term working relationship. But it will result in performance shortfalls when working with a new contractor. Such impreciseness must be avoided when preparing specifications for complex systems, which is precisely what this association encompasses. It includes a “complex” of buildings and grounds which includes “sub systems” such as electrical distribution, power, lighting, water, sewer, wastewater, streams, ponds, buildings, grounds, streets, sidewalks, curbs, drainage, etc. etc. The purpose of the specification is to establish a standard for performance. Such a standard would be compromised by the use of imprecise terms or language such as “some” or “many” which would result in openings for extras and could yield an unenforceable contract. On the other hand, too rigid a specification can run up the costs and result in higher than necessary contract prices. If the board is truly serious about a specification, a firm should be hired to write one. The board should then take the resulting specification and re-write it using the expert or site specific knowledge of the current management firm and long term board members who have had responsibilities for directing the current contract. An internal analysis of all work orders would be helpful, but in itself would not yield a standard for the work performed in response to the work order. I have more than a few “horror stories” about the consequences of specification failure and some wonderful examples. My work involves analysis of contract and specification failures, performance failures and failures to achieve objectives. Perhaps in another post? Finally, I want to say that there is a world of difference when preparing specification for the maintenance of a complex such as BLMH as compared to simple, well defined tasks or systems comprised of multiples of standardized and commoditized products such as PCs, network components, switches and hubs and even automobile repair. End of Comment.]

16. A unit owner asked management if the existing television antennas were “digital ready” and he was provided with an explanation of the multiple sources that management had obtained expert opinion from and the conclusion was “Yes, they are”. Buildings contain an antenna in the roof space above the “B” unit. This is wired into all the units of the building. Unit owners must have digital TV converter boxes for older “analog” TVs. Otherwise, and for all cable TV users, no converter box is required.

17. A unit owner addressed the board and asked why we had all these rules and regulations if we don’t enforce them. He then provided a detailed list of observed violations, which included storage on patios, personal belonging on the lawns, trash in the garage, bed sheets in windows, the feeding of the animals and “dogs gone wild” i.e. unleashed and owner ignored droppings. The Rules Director advised that during inclement weather it is not always possible to walk the grounds. She also advised that the rules, indeed, are enforced. The board then described the methods and fines that are levied, how they can accrue and ultimately can result in legal action and a lien against the offending owner. The unit owner was unconvinced and pressed. He also asked how does one avoid owner reprisals for complaints. Other unit owners who were in attendance cited their experiences with violators, including open security doors, unusual numbers of residents in “families” and parking issues. An owner requested that a review be made of some of the “no parking” areas to see if they can be expanded, to alleviate parking problems. Guest parking was cited by owners as “always occupied” and never available. The discussion continued with questions about what are our community's standards for the definition of a “family”, as our rules and regulations state that a unit may only be occupied by “one family”. A unit owner suggested to the President that she contact the code enforcer in our town and provided a name to contact. The discussion of violations included noisy units and exercise equipment in units which have caused physical damage to the unit below; for instance, cracked ceilings and items falling from walls due to excessive vibration. It included speeding problems, and an owner’s experience with two speeding families, who were followed to their doorstep; one said “so what?” when confronted, the other apologized and promised not to do it again. Specific instructions were given by management to unit owners on how to deal with violations. A written description is necessary with as much information as possible. The identity of the unit owner who filed the complaint or noted the violation will not be revealed unless the case goes to court. Recently the newsletter included a form for this purpose, but a letter will work. Include date, time, address, description of the violation, and if a motor vehicle is involved then the description of the vehicle and license plate. Also include your name and address. If a motor vehicle is involved, management will determine if it is owned by a unit owner and a violation will be issued.

18. [Comment: “Guest Parking” was listed on the “Bulletin” posted in each building lobby as being on the agenda during the meeting of March 12. However, there was limited discussion, no motion and no vote during open session prior to the closed executive session. I assumed it had been deferred to the next meeting, but I was obviously incorrect. I have been informed that the board took a vote after the unit owners were dismissed for closed door session. There is no longer any "reserved" guest parking at BLMH. During the meetings I attended, the unit owners who attended and addressed the board on this subject were all in favor of continuing some form of guest parking. However, I expect I will be told that “many” people were not in favor of continuing guest parking. Promises were made and promises are, sometimes, kept is also an explanation. ]

19. The discussion on violations led to a discussion of the consequences of feeding animals. The Architectural Director/Treasurer advised the unit owners that trapping animals costs this association $6,000 a year. This does not include repairs to units and the attics, when animals have chewed their way through walls, entered units and wreaked havoc or have bedded down in attics. The question posed by the Architectural Director/Treasurer was: where do we want our money spent? There are apparently restrictions to the trapping and release of animals by unit owners. Problems with eastern gray squirrels and chipmunks were discussed. [Comment: One of the first things an expert will tell you if there is a discussion about controlling critters, is that their food source must be found and eliminated. If unit owners are feeding birds, some of that gets to squirrels, who have two litters a year. On March 10 I saw a hawk in a low branch near the stream behind Harrow Court. It too was drawn by the food supply; in this case, by the prolific critters we have on our grounds. Coyotes and owls have also been sighted. They also are a part of the food chain. I suppose one could say “Feed a squirrel and attract a coyote”! I wonder how much was collected in fines this past year, for critter and bird feeding violations? I'll bet it wasn't equal to the amount spent by our association. So our fines aren't high enough!]

20. A unit owner asked if there had been any underground water main breakages. This was in response to a discussion about a large pile of detritus in one area of the grounds. Management said it was due to work by the local power utility. The Architectural Director/Treasurer responded "No" and reminded us that this phenomenon was linked to the flushing of water lines by the city. This relationship was first discovered by our past President. Flushing will begin this year in April, and we will, at that time, know if the pattern continues.

21 . A unit owner inquired into the status of the “official” website, and said that it was rumored to be undertaken by someone outside the board. The President responded and said that the website is underway but that launch has been delayed by the inability to find a suitable, available domain name. The website was described as requiring a lot of effort and work was also proceeding on an “official” blog. No specific timetable was given for the official launch of either. The President advised that her husband who was sufficiently proficient was working on the website.