Board President Presentation

Reserve Fees 2002-2016 - Part of Video

I'm posting a link to a video because of the change to the HOA approach to online access.  Certain information will not be available but to BLMH owners.  The website WWW.BLMH.org was removed by management at the direction of the board a few days ago.  A new "portal" for the association is under construction and will be very limited in scope.

I began this blog on September 7, 2008.  There are presently 705 published posts. 

I may expand it with the removal of the BLMH.org website by the current board.  Odd timing, as the election is a few weeks away and any new board members will have no say on this.    Older newsletters were removed earlier from the website. With the ending of the website they are all gone.  I may upload them with links here. 

The diagram above is from a video I created for owners. I've included a link to the video in this post.

After significant effort by me, and equally significant effort by opposing forces in our HOA I was elected to the board of this HOA in 2010.  Eight years later I declined to run in September 2018. There were valid reasons, including the departure of the other board members who were the motive force for most of what was accomplished during that period. I saw no point in being a part of the board of 2018 and beyond because I saw no commitment to transfer the water mains to the City of Wheaton by that board. For example, even the most recent "candidates forms" for the 2021 elections doesn't mention the water mains and the newsletters which had been published every other month were changed immediately after my departure from six times per year to four.  I did create and send a MS Word template document for the newsletter to the board at the time of my departure.  I also provided a link to board members via email to management about a variety of important issues, with data.

There hasn't been a lot about the Water Mains transfer to owners in the last year and the board seems to hide behind management. Yet, the board makes all decisions.  

When I was on the board I could only do so much considering the headwinds posed by a few other board members. One voting block of three did its best to stonewall my efforts. 

I had taken on the production of the newsletter in 2011 because of my commitment to communications with our owners, who are our shareholders and do pay all of the bills via their fees. I left the owners and the board with a "Guidance" insert in the August-September 2018 newsletter and I created an elaborate presentation similar to the one in the link on this post. It was presented to any owner who attended the September 2018 annual meeting, as were all of the others from the period 2010 to 2018.

For anyone interested, here is a link to a YouTube video presentation which is a version of a presentation I made to the owners of our HOA in September 2016.  This is not representative of the methods and communications of the current board. In fact, with the removal of the website older newsletters, etc. are no longer available to the general public. 

President's address to Owners, September 2016

 (c)2021 Norman Retzke

Roofs - Significant Reserve Expenditure Program 2005-2016 Part II

This is Part Two of a two-part post.

The Roofing Project - A slow death for the Association?
This post includes several charts I prepared for the board and for owners about nine years ago. I prepared these to calm owners. It was one of my first communication steps to inform owners of the plan and the situation.

After ten years of large fee increases and readily apparent infrastructure problems the owners were desperate and frustrated.

Even with a new board in place, two years later the situation at the Association had worsened and by 2010 the full implication of the "Great Recession" in the U.S. was impacting the owners. Bankruptcies and delinquency were a serious problem and becoming difficult for the board to shield owners from. In fact, by December 2011 the delinquencies were more than 6.5% of the annual budget. But that's for another post.

Despite some board assurances, the owners knew the Association was in serious trouble. All one had to do was drive through the potholes on our major thoroughfare, Lakecliffe Drive which sat waiting for someone, anyone, to deal with and correct. And that was the highly visible tip of the iceberg. There had been a steady stream of owner complaints about the condition of the common elements and infrastructure for several years.

In 2007 to 2011, as things spiraled downwards the roofing project slowly moved slowly forward. There was no publicized completion date and no one had any idea of where fees would top out, or when. There was no overall Association plan. It was chaos, as board members looked for scapegoats, including management.  While board members walked, or were fired,  the owners were trapped by the economy and in their units.

It is a fact that if an Association ever falls behind with finances, savings and infrastructure it is nearly impossible to catch up.  Board failures prior to 2008, and the failure of the new board to act decisively until 2010 aggravated the situation. The "decisive action" was sporadic and inconsistent. That was the mess I took upon myself in September 2010 and I knew it would take at least five years to dig out of the hole (pun intended) which previous boards had created.  I openly spoke of this as a "demonstration" of what was possible. I had no illusion about the magnitude of difficulty. In fact, because of a variety of board issues including underminers, the task was made even more difficult.

The following charts provide some background and my intentions for this roofing project. These were produced for board education and owner consumption. What you, the reader, can't be aware of is all of the financial planning and evaluation it took to produce these charts, which were a consequence of my thorough analysis of this entire association. In 2010 I began with the finances, and then plugged in all of the projects. That required numerous physical surveys and condition reports. I had the balance sheets from previous years; these are sent to all owners, and I had been an owner since 2002. But I lacked certain details. My groundwork for this and all other projects began in earnest in 2010, but it took me almost five years to really get a handle on all of this.   All the while I pushed forward with the Roofing Project, and addressed many other infrastructure issues which combined exceeded the cost of the roofs:

My proposed roofing schedule, prepared in fall of 2010 and after completing my "first pass" thorough review of the finances of this association, with about 80 hours spent on reserves and reserve planning.

My Proposed Roofing Cash-Flow, presented as part of a visual presentation to Owners after a HOA Meeting. This was one of a series of charts covering all aspects of the property

The stuff I'm rediscovering as I do the purge includes a copy of a letter. While purging files I came across a copy of a 2006 letter provided by management to an earlier board; it provides some insight.

When I took up the reigns of Architecture, Projects and Maintenance Director in 2011 I made a request of management for historical information about our roofs. I knew the cost per roof, and the number completed to date. What I didn't know was the age of the remaining roofs. These had a finite life expectancy and the clock was running. "To solve a problem it is necessary to identify the problem".  I had concerns about the remaining useful life of the roofs.

Management responded and provided me with a copy of a 2006 letter to the board. It was enlightening with insights into the age of the roofs, the schedule of the previous shingling project and the "new" roof scheduling history from 2006 to 2010.   I used this information to assess the urgency, and as an aid to develop an accelerated schedule for completing roofs from 2011 and thereafter. The management information confirmed my concerns about the age of the existing roofs. That 2006 schedule history including replacements 2006-2010 indicated the following:

1. The earlier reshinging project ran from 1991 to 2000.  That project put a layer of shingles atop an existing roof, creating two layers of shingles.  The information provided by management gave me the actual dates of the addresses shingled each year. 
2. The shingling project was followed by a project to completely re-roof. According to the documents that re-roofing project began in 2005,  with a single roof.  A total of 44 roofs would be completely stripped and replaced with high end, improved architectural shingles, extensive ice and water shield, new gutters, etc.  The replacement roof was designed for a life of 20-30 years, with kynar aluminum flashing, etc. The entire roofing protection system was replaced, including the faux furnace chimney. The specifications expanded the ice and water shielding. Roof peak vents were added for improved airflow, and attic insulation was installed. It was an expensive project. According to the specifications I was given and which were in use, everything was to be replaced except the owner's fireplace chimneys and flashing. The owner's fireplace chimneys were left "as is" including the flashing. This because these were not in the specifications and I was told were owner property. Replacing the fireplace chimney flashing would require dismantling and re-constructing the owner's fireplace chimney.  The A&M directors who preceded me had left these untouched and "as is" when they did seven roofs. Yet one of these former board members showed up at the September 2018 Association Meeting to ask me why I hadn't replaced the fireplace chimney flashings as part of the roofing project. Let's be real here. He oversaw the replacement of several roofs, but wanted to know why I had not changed the specifications he actually used. LOL!  
3. Over a period of six years, from 2005 to 2010 seven roofs had been done. It would be left to me to figure out how to do the remaining 37 and quickly.
4. Over the entire project three or four different roofers were the successful bidders. During the period I was on the board, September 2010 to the completion of the project, all bids were via sealed packages. Up to five qualified bidders were solicited by management and asked to compete each year. Specifications previously prepared were used. (I assumed a board position in September, 2010).  One year I stripped the bidders name from the bid comparison documents, for board discussion purposes. After all, each of the bidders had been selected according to a rigorous criteria. I wanted the discussion to be about the merits of the bids, not the NAME of the bidder. I had a concern that one or more former and current board members had an agenda and might influence the selection process. There was a clique of long term current and former board members. So the bidders were referred to as "A", "B", "C", etc. in my spreadsheets. A former board member objected to this approach. 
5. According to the history documents the first roof selected for replacement had been reshingled in 2000, yet it was replaced in 2005. That was at 1775-1777 Gloucester, which was the address of the president of the Association.
6. Four years later, in 2009  two roofs were replaced. These were 1605-1607 Thames and 1730-1732 Harrow.  The board had been discussing replacing one roof. But in June I took a photo of a failing roof at 1730-1732 and sent it to management and the board. (I was a mere owner with no formal duties or board responsibilities).   I expressed my concern about the condition of that roof with the board. The A&M director agreed and the board decided to replace that roof, thereby increasing the scope for 2009 to two roofs. I also expressed concerns about the pace of the project which could result in roofs with shingles 25-30 years of age (I was guessing, based upon the limited information available to me as a "mere" owner). If that were to happen it would be a problem, with leaks, etc. The board publicly stated that they would deal with this by repairing roofs if necessary, rather than replace. Of course, winter repairs are not easy to accomplish and roof leaks can inconvenience residents and create expensive interior repairs.   I gave the opinion that repair of any roof soon to be replaced is a waste of fees (paid by owners).  
7. In 2010 a new board and a new A&M director decided to do four roofs. These were 1739-1741 Harrow Ct., 1700-1702 Lakecliffe Dr., 1758-1760 Plymouth Ct. and 1780-1782 Gloucester Ct.
8. In 2011 I took over the project with the departure of that A&M director. Seven out of 44 roofs, or about 15% had been completed. 85% of the roofs remained, some 20 years old and beyond end of expected lifespan. That was a serious problem because we had 13 at the end of useful life. We had many more aging roofs.  I reviewed the specifications and made some minor adjustments. For example, roof vents were added for all interior bathroom fans. I was aware that one roofer had voluntarily done this earlier, of his own accord, even though not in the specifications. The fans were currently venting into the attic space; not a good procedure as it pumped a lot of moisture into the attic cavity. 

June 2009 Failing roof 1730-1732 Harrow. My photo was sent to management and the board, who were completely unaware of this problem because it could not be observed from street level.  There are supposed to be two layers of shingles on this roof. I only see one.  Had the previous roofer cheated the association? With no project management, this is what we got!

Buried Dormer Window - A real problem for leaks in through the windows

Ice Dams and Icicles

Icicles, and some snow removed manually

In 2011 when I assumed my duties there were 37 roofs waiting to be done. The history documents indicated these had been been shingled with a second layer in 1991 to 2000.  At a rate of four per year, the roofing project would be completed ten (10) years later, in 2021. This posed several issues for me, and a serious problem for the Association:

1. If the project were completed at the current pace and allowed to stretch out until 2021, some roofs could be 30 years of age, while others might be 21 years of age.  My financial planning indicated that with the current fees it was possible to complete all by 2016 or 2017 while other capital project issues including Lakecliffe were also addressed. The age of the remaining, existing roofs in 2016 would be between 21 and 25 years. 
2. The predicted lifespan of the existing roofs was 18 to 20 years. It would be a stretch to delay completion until 2016. It would also be a financial stretch to complete by 2016!  This I would consider to be an example of being caught between the proverbial "rock and a hard place." 
3. While it would be preferred to replace the oldest roofs first, we also had to keep an eye on the current condition of all of the roofs. 
4. How to select the roofs each year? I discussed the issues with the board. I wasn't willing to wait until leaks appeared. I walked the property and made visual inspections of each of the roofs every year. Also after any severe weather. I visually inspected fronts and rears using a telephoto lens or binoculars. I directed management and our maintenance contractor to advise the board of any and all leak issues. I asked that these be logged with work orders; all work orders go to the board each month and creating them would provide an improved history of issues. I tracked these problems from 2011 to 2016 and reported frequently to the board. 
5. With the above information the replacement would be based primarily on condition.
6. How to avoid expensive failure of those old roofs? How to avoid wasting association money on temporary repairs of old roofs? We were racing the clock. 
7. How to do this project fairly with no bias?  One thing I did was to put the roof at the address of my unit to the end of the list. Probably a new approach at BLMH, where owners were trained by boards to come to meeting and press for improvements and got them. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is the way it was done. 
8. How to get it done with the reserves on hand and with the current fees?  Earlier boards had crippled the Association via inadequate reserves and a very large maintenance (capital improvement) backlog.  Over a period of 11 years, from 1998 to 2009 the boards ramped up fees at an average annual rate of 6.85%. Owner fees nearly doubled over that period, reaching about $295 per month in 2009.  Simultaneously, the boards prior to 2009 had stopped a lot of other capital work on the property, in an attempt to accumulate the necessary funds. They were certainly aware of the financial issues, ergo the slow pace of the roofing project and those relentless fee increases. 
9. Over the next 9 years, 2010 to 2018, the fee increases stabilized, totalling 14%, an average of 1.56% per year. The eight years I was on the board the average fee increases were 1.75% each year (Oct. 2011 to Oct. 2018).    See the Notes at the end of this post and the link at the end of this post for the BLMH.org website data.
10. How to do it based upon "cash flow" which in this case is the amount of reserves in 2011, the other items in the maintenance capital project backlog, and the amount of cash contributed to reserves each year from 2010 and beyond?
11. How to do it given the logistical issues. What are the practical limits to the number of roofs each year?  How to coordinate with other projects, including the annual painting/exterior repair cycle, the street projects, driveway replacements, stream repairs, garage repairs, water mains and so on. A lot, and I do mean a lot of coordination was required.  While I was doing this, some on the board coasted, preferring to attend meetings and vote to complete roofs.  
12. How to simultaneously address other problems such as the failing streets?  These had been replaced in 2002-2003 but by 2007 Lakecliffe Blvd, our major thoroughfare, was failing with annual repairs necessary.  Some irate owners called it a "Mine Field".  Of course, I pointed out that this was created by earlier boards, but that fell on deaf ears. Some owners were really nasty to me.

With the assumption of these duties, I formulated a realistic plan:

1. I tracked all association maintenance and infrastructure problems and rated them as to severity. This coupled with annual inspections would provide some guidance as to condition of the roofs and their decline year over year. 
2. Using the information, I created a more thorough, specific schedule. 
3. The schedule was updated annually as determined by current conditions. 
4. Roofs were prioritized based upon condition and problems experienced. 
5. The schedule was accelerated. Four roofs in a year, then six with a peak of eight completed in a single year.
6. We began doing interior roof inspections when an issue was reported to determine if there was any evidence of other leaks, etc. By 2014-2015 we had made interior inspections of all roofs.
7. The schedule was compared to the 2010, 2011 and 2015 reserve studies.
8. The allocation of reserve resources were targeted to the roofs and the streets, while prioritizing other projects.  Some board members argued each and every year for higher fees ("at least 3% per year"). However, the numbers simply didn't support their arguments. The ten- twenty- and 30-year plans indicated we were on track. 
9. In 2010 I published a plan to complete all of the roofs by 2016.  By 2016 some existing roofs could be 25 years of age. Those roofs were designed for 18 to 20 years. Which is precisely why so much observation and monitoring was necessary.  
10. I also told the board that in my opinion, any repairs to old roofs (shingles older than 20 years) was a waste of Association funds. Those roofs had reached or exceeded life expectancy and really should be replaced. Repairs would be a stop-gap, last resort approach.
11. To avoid problems winter snow was removed from some portions of roofs in an attempt to prevent ice dams from forming. For high areas a lift was rented so workers could get to those areas.  In practice owner fees were spent on additional roof maintenance attributable to the age of the roofs. This was one of a number of hidden costs because of the delays to the roofing project. 
12. All of these steps were generally successful, but by 2015 we were experiencing increasing problems with the old roofs. 
13. The roof on the building which houses my unit was re-shingled in 1993. It was replaced in the last year of the project, at the age of 24 years. We were cutting it very close!  I deliberately avoided doing that roof until the end and based upon condition. It was "fair" condition by 2015, but there were no leaks.  I wanted to avoid the purported favoritism that occurred in the Association from time to time, and I did. 
14. Dealing with the roofing project issues did increase my workload substantially. It took a lot of planning on my part to figure out a way to juggle all of these project problems and stabilize fees with the current finances.Which is one of the reasons my "volunteer" hours quickly ramped up to 1,100 per year.  I think some of the old board loved watching my struggle with the problems that they had created. Of course, owners were struggling with the nearly doubled fees. No one wants to really talk about the foreclosures and bankruptcies among owners.  
15. I pressed the board to pay for proper project management oversight to this expensive and critical projects. I pressed for fully qualified, known, licensed, bonded and insured professionals. I pressed for engineered drawings and specifications, prepared by professional engineering firms. Our professional management company is not our engineer, our accountant nor our project manager. Yet, previous boards and even some current, longtime board members pressed management to provide such services. One board member pushed to throw management "under the bus" clearly stating that she/he would see to it that they were fired if they didn't go along with the agenda. And owners wonder why Lakecliffe failed after five years? Duh!

Here's an image of the spreadsheet data I created in Spring of 2011, based up Work Order reports of roofs which experienced issues.  Each month I added the addresses from the current list of work orders so a decision could be made in the spring about which roofs to inspect further, and to replace in that specific year.  A variety of professionals made more detailed inspections, both inside and outside the roofs.

There were similar sheets created by me for five years. These sheets were intended to aid me in guiding the board to make the best possible decision. The colors are matched to a plan of the association, which shows the precise location of the buildings on the spreadsheet. That map was used to coordinate painters, driveway replacement and other contractors and to avoid logistical conflicts. Such conflicts may increase the costs to the association.

Spring 2011 Spreadsheet Summary of Work Orders pertaining to roof leaks

Location plan, color coordinated with the spreadsheet.

Another issue appeared as I was assuming the A&M duties. The first roof, the one replaced in 2005 at 1775-1777 Gloucester had gutters added along the sides of the building. This was in the specification used for all other roofs. However, that roof also had a special treatment to deal with the gutter discharge, which had been relocated from a point on the driveway to adjacent to the front entrance.

To deal with this, at 1775-1777 an underground storm drain line was added to carry the gutter discharge away from the building. Unfortunately, that was not done at any of the subsequent roofs. As a consequence, by the fall of 2011 we were getting complaints of ice at entries, and heaving walks. In fact, a brand new driveway heaved and lifted about 1 inch and that walk cracked because of freezing water running beneath it from a newly relocated gutter  (that was done prior to 2010 and my tenure, but I did observe the problem and I knew we had a major issue to deal with).

With 84 building entrances, any common problem due to construction approach, techniques used and decision quickly escalates to serious costs. By 2011 we had a backlog of 20 entrances to deal with. And more were being added to the list each year.  A variety of approaches were selected to deal with this. Of course, this was all a consequence of the roofing project, and the total cost of that project did increase. Some of this was handled as a maintenance issue, but a lot was dealt with via reserves, as it should be.

We did also experience "wing wall" foundation issues at several addresses. These too had to be addressed, as a column supporting the roof was resting on these foundation walls. Were these problems attributable to water deposited at entrances by relocated gutter downspouts?

By 2012 I had come up with a plan with maintenance of how to address the water at the entrances. We had a backlog of new roof related problems to deal with. It took until 2018 to catch up and address all of these issues. Sadly, the earlier boards had known about this problem but failed to address it and also failed to communicate it to the boards that followed. That's an example of what I call "undermining" of future boards. This could be accidental. Communications is not the best with some boards and board members. However, I do know that there was animosity for new boards after the "palace coup" of 2008.

Here is an example of the consequence of changes, oversight and communications or the lack thereof.  I only learned of this problem when the "A" unit at 1730 Harrow Ct. was flooded after a new gutter was installed.  It discharges at the corner of the building which was a low point. Water deposited by the gutter built a pool in the corner. The pooling water rose above the foundation line and seeped into that unit. There had never been a gutter or a discharge in that location.

Communications is important, but not all board members think so.  There are real consequences to poor communications, but I've been unable to convince everyone on our boards of that; c'est la vie.

Drainage required by new gutter and downspout installed in 2009 with a new roof at 1730H. Drainage added after the unit was flooded. Photo taken in 2011.

Drainage required by new gutter installed in 2009 at 1730H, added after the unit was flooded. Photo taken in 2011.

NOTES: 

1. The 2017 fee increase was 1.5%.  That year the Association had a budget surplus of $51,035 as of 12/31/2017. Is that significant? Had the fees been 4.08% lower we would have had a balanced budget. In other words, the fee increase of 2017 was unnecessary. That was my position when we were making that budget in October-November of 2016. As a "compromise" the board agreed upon a 1.5% increase. As of September, 2018 a budget surplus was projected for 12/31/2018; the actual surplus or deficit remains to be seen, and only after all 2018 bills are in. We had a 0% fee increase for 2018, and that board decision was accomplished because of the surplus of 2017.  It became impossible for the "We need higher fees" promoter on the board to win that argument in the fall of 2017 because of the budget surplus of the prior year. Better budgeting yields better results, and that means better decisions are possible.
2. I was involved on the board from September 24, 2010 through September 27, 2018. During my tenure average annual fee increases were 1.75%, and a substantial amount of planning was accomplished. That was a result of many board actions during that period. My peak 1,100 hours each year were spent well. More on this in a later post. 
3. The question owners don't ask, and even some board members don't ask, is this: "Where does the "budget surplus" money go?"  Board members really should know the answer, and I can guarantee that all don't know the answer to this question.   
4. I became aware of a clique of current and former board members, run by our Association's most senior board member. After numerous attempts to sabotage or undermine other board members I reluctantly concluded there were both current and former board members who should not be trusted.  Beware being "thrown under the bus".   
5. The following links to the "official" 2018 budget, which shows the 2017 budget, approved 2018 budget and the "projected" 2018 year end as of September 2018.  In 2018 the treasurer and I asked management to provide several budget updates during the year, as part of our drive for tighter and ultimately better and more accurate budgets. "Better" budgets I define as 1) more useful and 2) less likely to result in poor decisions:

Click for BLMH 2018 Approved Budget with 2017 figures

Roofs - Significant Reserve Expenditure Program 2005-2016 Part I

I'm in the process of purging files, etc. and of course I'm going through folders to figure out what to toss. Actually seven large "Banker's Boxes" of stuff, plus the hard drives.  While doing this I'm re-discovering some interesting things.

This is Part One of a two-Part post about Reserve Expenditures and it focuses on some of the details of the roofing project.  I expect to post additional insights about finances in the near future. I chose this review of the roofing project because it represents a microcosm of the Association. It is a good example of what I encountered here at BLMH, the culture of this Association and of boards, and also what had to be done to overcome numerous obstacles in order to complete this project in a timely manner.

The project was begun by an earlier board. Three sequential boards were involved, as were at least four Architecture & Maintenance directors. The project duration was 12 years, plus an additional two years for completion of drainage issues.  I completed 85% of the roofs in six years.

My research indicates that this association had a history of very low reserves and low annual reserve contributions. This changed with the roofing project. Here are some statistics. Monthly dollar amounts are average amounts per owner:

• From 1991 to 1998 fees increased an average of 3.0% per year.
• From 1999 to 2009 the fees increased an average of 7.2% per year.
• In 2001 the amount per owner contributed to reserves was less than $27.00 each month.
• In 2014 the amount per owner contributed to reserves was more than $111.00 each month.
• In 2001 the Association budgeted reserve contribution increased to about $108,000.
• In 2012 the Association budgeted reserve contribution was about $440,000.
• As fees increased, so did the reserves. In 2005, the year that the roofing project began the budgeted contribution to reserves reached $185,000; the highest to date over the previous 27 years of the association. But that amount paled compared to what was to come. The 2005 contribution to reserves was less than 50% of the peak amounts for reserve contributions, reached in 2011-2012.
• As fee increases continued, more and more was allocated each year to reserves. 
• The reserve balances continued to increase, peaking at about $1,300,000 in 2014, but about 40% of the roofs remained to be done, and our major thoroughfare, Lakecliffe Drive, had failed prematurely and was replaced in 2014-2015.
• As of September 2018 the reserve balance was about $700,000 and is expected to increase thereafter.  This is on target, per the work done by the financial committee in 2015. See the chart later in this post.
• The roofing project began in 2005 and fee increases greater than 5% per year continued for five more years.

The history of reserve contributions is not readily apparent to owners because boards did not provide separate statistics on the reserves. After observing Association operations from 2002 to 2008 it became apparent to me that the emphasis was meeting the Operations & Maintenance budgets. Meeting those annual, out of pocket expenses were the main thrust of the earlier boards.  The reserves were called a "Replacement Fund" with rough categories. The Welcome Packets included a table of annual fee percentage increases from 1978 to the present. There was no history of reserve amounts and annual reserve contribution amounts. A prospective owner was give the Association financials which included the Budget and Balance Sheet. Owners were given a simple snapshot which included the current amount in reserves and the amount allocated for the current fiscal year. I'm sure that what was provided did meet legal requirements.

Here's a chart constructed in 2015 as we neared the end of the roofing project. The "flat" reserve balances predicted for 2015-2018 were a consequence of all of the projects expected to be completed in those years. It included a projection of completing other significant capital projects which were in the "backlog" of delayed projects:

Projected Reserve Balances 2015 and beyond - 2015 data

According to documents the roofing project began in 2005, was paused and resumed in 2009. Apparently, the pause was to allow reserve balances to grow, although no board member openly stated that, to my knowledge. However, the delay also meant that roofs would wait and continue to age.  The decision to delay and do roofs at a slow pace was probably a financial decision, but it didn't accommodate the age of the roofs, as the reader will see.

When the roofing project resumed, one roof was 18 years old (end of life). Fifteen were between 14 and 18 years old, and so on.

The roofing project would ultimately cost our owners about $2 million in fees. It became apparent there was a financial problem when looking at the reserve balances leading up to this project and the amounts allocated to the "roofs" each year in the "Replacement Fund". From 2002-2009 I wasn't made aware of the details as an owner. I never saw a board discussion during a meeting in which the total cost of the project was discussed in the presence of owners. Nor am I aware of a public discussion of how the board would achieve the reserves required for the project. I don't recall anything in the Newsletter regarding the full scope, financial magnitude and timeline of the project. The boards prior to 2009 were clever and discrete. It seems the board decided that there was no need for the owners to be made aware of the true situation. No one wanted to give bad news and boards intended to be re-elected.  That worked until 2008.

In 2008 a small group of organized owners decided to take over the board. Interesting to me, the existing board, now under attack, suddenly discovered how to communicate the current financial situation about the roof and driveway projects. A privately funded letter went to all of the owners via US Mail. It was insufficient to convince owners and most of the board was replaced by a new board.

The roofing project was an expensive one which defined this Association for 16 years, absorbing nearly half of all of the reserve money collected during that period.  Fees collected for all reserves rose from less than $100,000 per year in 1998 to a peak of $440,000 in 2012; the project was completed in 2016.  I once stated to earlier management and board that the large, annual fee increases to accommodate this project were in my opinion a "stealth" special assessment. For years the roofing project displaced other, necessary capital projects because it absorbed, or was expected to absorb, every last reserve dollar collected. From 2002 onward the board delayed other projects, only doing what was unavoidable. In doing so the board created a sizeable backlog of work, which future boards would have to complete and collect the funds to complete.  Those future boards found themselves in a financial trap. It was a terrible spiral, where fees went up, but work wasn't done. That required additional fee increases. The board of 2009 thought they had enough money and voted on a 0% fee increase for 2010. They discovered the full magnitude of the problem in 2010 with an independent reserve study. The budget for the 2011 year included yet another large fee increase. That year it was 7%.   That new board began planning significant repairs in the fall of 2008 but within two years discovered the financial realities of the Association.

By 2010 my burning question became "How to complete the roofs in a timely manner and eliminate the large backlog of other projects and maintenance?" This was one of the legacies of the earlier boards and it was left to others including myself to solve. The earlier boards had hamstrung, undermined and burdened those that followed. Owners paid the consequences, in many ways.

One consequence is the difficulty of attracting talent to the board. That is in part because of the earlier board culture, which persists today. Some board members don't want others on the board and take steps to make life difficult for new board members.  They can't deal with some aspects of reality, preferring to be surrounded by "yes men" and "yes women". New board members are frequently unequipped to deal with adversarial board members and cliques or with the realities of the work required in a large and aging Association. There remains the echo of owners wounded by the 2008 financial crisis and the arrogance of earlier boards, such as the one that began the roofing project.  On the surface, all looks well, but that surface appearance is very deceptive.  Owners simply don't want to be targets on the board, or the headaches. It is difficult simply to do the work.  Politics and personal agendas don't belong. So those who do volunteer may find themselves to be scapegoats, targets, and even mal-treated by other board members. There is also the possibility of personal agendas. Not everyone joins a board to work.  As for the entrenched board members, well, they'll do everything and anything they can to retain power.

I've stated that while there were tangible benefits and new roofs were necessary, I did wonder if the scope and approach of the roofing project was appropriate at the time, considering the overall condition of the Association and the state of reserves and fees commencing in 2000.  Certainly boards were aware of this impending project. One of the board members has been on the board for decades as President, Treasurer and so on. Adding a second layer of shingles to roofs had begun in 1991. That approach did have its limitations, as any capable roofer can attest.  However, there had never been a formal reserve study until the new board of 2008 commissioned one in 2010, and that study created such confusion it was necessary for another in 2011. The roofing project had been underway for six years.

I was the clean-up guy when I joined the board in 2010. I really didn't have much of a choice, but to continue the project. Considering the personalities of the various boards and the status of this "pet" project, there was no possibility of change. There was absolutely no question or discussion about completing this project. It would be done.

I simply had to figure out how to complete it, and a lot of other things, too, while not breaking the bank accounts of the owners. I saw a need to stabilize fees. An earlier board planned and began this project while avoiding a reserve study. For about a decade other projects and capital improvements were given short shrift while fees were collected and saved. Some things were done on the cheap, other things were ignored.

The streets were replaced in 2002-2003, but in an inferior manner and with no engineering and limited supervision; one began failing within four years. Unit concrete patio repairs were suspended. Timber retaining walls were rotting. Water main repairs were accomplished with "band aids", two streams had serious problems, all three pump pits were failing, common area decks needed major repair or replacement, driveways were aging, deck piers sunken in streams were rotting and the decks sinking,  the condition of 84 garage floors was unknown, etc.  Operations and Maintenance money was spent on painting, panel and trim, and Landscaping. The board attitude was "If it isn't broken don't fix it" and "Only do what was absolutely necessary". Arguing against hallway work, a board member who presided over the beginnings of the roofing project made the statement "We only replace [hallway] carpeting when it becomes a trip hazard". That was the prevailing attitude as money was accumulated for the roofing project.

Special landscaping continued but reserve fund expenditures were limited to mulch, entry beautification and tree removal as the EAB took its toll on the ash trees and old willows began falling. Some shore work was done on the North lake. Appearances were kept up. But there were serious problems, and some board members were aware of the issues, but denied responsibility. One prior board president privately acknowledged this with the comment "You can paint a pig, but it is still a pig".

It seemed some of the board members understood the issue, but were unwilling or unable to do anything about it, beyond continuously raising fees. I argued that no matter what the fees, the boards would spend every dollar collected. The sky was apparently the limit. There was always an emphasis on "No Special Assessments" but large, continuous fee increases were okay (almost 7% each year for a decade). I encountered boards in which some board members were entrenched and absolutely committed to continuous fee increases, no matter what the consequences for owners. One even stated during budget discussions that she/he "didn't care about the consequences of fee increases on owners."  With the "Great Recession" of 2008 there were significant delinquencies and foreclosures to deal with. These things put added pressure on Association finances and owners.

It was a constant struggle, with what appeared to be almost insurmountable problems. When I pushed for other, vital and necessary capital repairs, one board member complained "Norm is spending all of the money". I am convinced that some board members failed to comprehend the magnitude of the problems, while others chose not to.  There was palpable fear. Owners were struggling. From 2008 to the present several cliques were formed and votes were cast along "agenda" lines. Not the way an association should be run, but as we are all unpaid volunteers, I guess it could be said that owners get what they pay for. One board leader stated that "We [the board] should not cater to the lowest common denominator" during a discussion of setting the annual budget and the impact of continuous increases on owners. All of the spreadsheets, studies and projections could not dissuade this position. By 2015 voting became a personal endeavor, where negative votes were construed in the clique as a personal attack. This is the primary reason I decided to leave the board in the fall of 2018. Enough is enough.

The next part of this post will look more closely into the roofing project.


NOTES: 

1. The 2017 fee increase was 1.5%.  That year the Association had a budget surplus of $51,035 as of 12/31/2017. Is that significant? Had the fees been 4.08% lower we would have had a balanced budget. In other words, the fee increase of 2017 was unnecessary. That was my position when we were making that budget in October-November of 2016. As a "compromise" the board agreed upon a 1.5% increase. As of September, 2018 a budget surplus was projected for 12/31/2018; the actual surplus or deficit remains to be seen, and only after all 2018 bills are in. We had a 0% fee increase in 2018, and that board decision was accomplished because of the surplus of 2017.  It became impossible for the "We need higher fees" promoter on the board to win that argument in the fall of 2017 because of the budget surplus of the prior year. Better budgeting yields better results, and that means better decisions are possible.
2. I was involved on the board from September 2010 through September 27, 2018. During my tenure average annual fee increases were 2.0%. That was a result of board actions during that period. My 1,100 hours each year were spent well. More on this in a later post. 
3. The question owners don't ask, and even some board members don't ask, is this: "Where does the "budget surplus" money go?"  Board members really should know the answer, and I can guarantee that all don't know the answer to this question.   
4. I became aware of a clique of current and former board members, run by our Association's most senior board member. After numerous attempts to sabotage or undermine other board members I reluctantly concluded there were both current and former board members who should not be trusted.  Beware being "thrown under the bus".   
5. The following links to the "official" 2018 budget, which shows the 2017 budget, approved 2018 budget and the "projected" 2018 year end as of September 2018.  In 2018 the treasurer and I asked management to provide several budget updates during the year, as part of our drive for tighter and ultimately better and more accurate budgets. "Better" budgets I define as 1) more useful and 2) less likely to result in poor decisions:

Click for BLMH 2018 Approved Budget with 2017 figures

Focus on Getting Things Done - A meticulous attention to details

Posted April 6, updated April 10, 2018

Section of stream prior to repair - 2017

Location of the old bridge at the waterfall. Bridge was moved.

Thames Stream deck, under construction 2017

Stream repair - Forming and grading 2017
The wooden deck supports  went through the previous stream. They now are outside of the stream.

More form work for stream repair - 2017

Sidewalk Repair -Thames, 2017

Curb Repair - Thames, 2017 as part of preparation for street resurfacing

Erosion behind Waterfall and pond - 2017

Retaining walls added and grading to control erosion behind waterfall and pond - Fall 2017
prior to landscaping

Maintenance completed April 2018 (Maintenance laid the sod, and the stone along the buildings).  After this, it is up to Landscaping to complete

Typical timber retaining wall. Photo taken July 21, 2011, prior to repairs.

Gazebo area reconstruction Spring 2018 - Prior to installation of benches

This post provides a summary of projects and activities since 2010.  I have included details of many of the projects undertaken or completed from the period fall October 2010 to the present. It was a broad initiative including finances, budgets, reserves, infrastructure and communications. I built upon what previous boards had done and expanded it.  One could say I took this association to the next level.

As a volunteer we all face choices, difficulties and opportunities. I've been a volunteer on a homeowner's association board since September 2010. I took an interest in the finances, infrastructure and maintenance of this association long before then. I have been an owner since early 2002 (tendered an offer to purchase in 2001).  After purchase I quickly realized that this association had some problems. Finances appeared to be inadequate and there also appeared to be a substantial maintenance backlog. The board did not communicate well with owners and the president did not seem interested in doing so.  This was reflected in the newsletters prior to 2008. With a new board in 2008-2010 the newsletters reflected a "social club" perspective; not an improvement in my opinion for a business collecting $1 million or more from owners each year and then spending it. 

While it is true that owners were given budgets annually and financial statements, including balance sheets, there was little information provided about long term reserve requirements, the condition of infrastructure, long term plans beyond the roofing project and so on. One of the earlier board members summed the position of the boards this way: "If owners want to know what's going on, they should come to board meetings." 

I decided to do something about it. This is a summary of projects, finances, issues and solutions since 2010 to the present while I was on the board. It isn't a complete list.

I've put in thousands of hours on planning, finances, surveys and so on; I began this blog as an alternative source of information for owners in 2008. I put up here what I discovered as an owner. I determined the condition of the infrastructure by frequently walking the property, taking notes, taking photographs and videos. It was not a pretty picture. 

I began piecing together a financial picture of this association in 2002. To provide some idea of the financial challenge for owners, here is a chart of the fees since 2001. The blue line is the actual fees. The red is the projected from 2009 and beyond if there had not been an intervention with improved planning and controls:

I began providing charts to the board and to owners shortly after achieving a board position in 2010. This was something very new for this association. For example, the next chart is was one of a series on the condition of our infrastructure and the future plans of how to catch up without ramping up fees or special assessments. Earlier boards were hesitant to provide this information because I was told that such information could be construed to be a promise by the board to the owners. I saw it differently. I saw the need for the board to make a commitment, to set concrete goals and to put in place all of the things necessary to accomplish them. 

This chart and others were presented to the owners during an association meeting.  It provides a roadmap to the completion of the roofing project. At the time our roofs were being replaced at such a rate that it could be another 15 years before the project was completed. Some roofs with a projected lifespan of 18-20 years could have been 28 years old before the project was completed. That was unacceptable to me and some owners were very concerned. Others were oblivious.  To accelerate this project it would be necessary to get a handle on finances, and quickly. No easy task as the U.S. had just experienced the worst financial disaster in decades, was in a deep recession and the association lacked a plan. Once on the board I discovered that foreclosures and fee delinquencies were rising. That too had to be addressed.

Chart published in this blog and also provided to owners in 2010; one of many

In fact, the last of the roofs were completed in 2017 as indicated in the above chart. But to accomplish this we had to increase from 2, 3 or 4 per year to as many as 8 per year. And, our association had to deal with a lot of other issues, too. That included a large maintenance backlog, rising delinquencies, foreclosures, condemned fireplaces, etc.

It took a lot of financial planning and some serious changes in the direction of the association. Not everyone was pleased including some board members. A few owners expected immediate resolution of all problems. "Living in La-La Land", I guess.

2007 - Dark Clouds on the Horizon

In February 2007 as an owner I sent a letter to management which expressed my concerns about the 2007 budget. I was very concerned about the costs for the roofing project. I stated :"The [association budget] spread sheet includes a column for annual assessment which is based on the data released in the December 2006 “Manor Briefs”. To arrive at the distribution for the General Reserves I applied the unexpended funds on a percentage bases (pro rata) to the various reserve categories. This applies about $2,200 per building per year to the roofing reserves. At that rate, it would normally take 10 years to acquire the necessary funds [for roofs]. Of course, I don’t know the amount accumulated to date in General Reserves for this program."  A short time later I received a written response from management thanking me for my thoughtful letter which had been forwarded to the board. 

I never heard another word.  In the fall of 2008 a concerned group of owners organized and replaced all but one member of that board. The new board had good intentions, but had been blindsided by the earlier boards. The new board lacked the necessary analytical, forensic and number crunching skills. They were soon overwhelmed.  

Dealing with delinquencies and "bad debt"

In 2011 with data I requested from our treasurer I constructed a spreadsheet which provides insights beyond the raw information provided by management. We were in agreement that something needed to be done. That spreadsheet went back to 2008 and has been updated by me each and every month thereafter.  That spreadsheet is provided to management and the board and uses the management monthly data. It includes the following:

• Chart of percent owners owing the association more than $100 from 2008 to the present.
• Chart of the amounts owed by owners owing the association more than $100 from 2008 to the present.
• Chart of "Bad debt" which is money due but uncollectable by the association.
• Chart of the number of owners owing the association more than $100 from 2008 to the present.
• Total number of owners delinquent.
• Total amount owed to the association by delinquent owners.

Why do we have any "bad debt"? It is because of the requirements of our state which prevents the association from collecting all monies due as the delinquent and foreclosing owner's situation works it ways slowly through the court system. We vigorously pursue owners who fail to work with the association via a standardized payment program which was instituted in 2012.

Prior to January 2012 this association ignored uncollectibles or "bad debt" which overstated the balance sheet accounts receivable. I asked "How can an association budget properly if it really doesn't have any idea of how much money it will collect?" In fact, at BLMH, I guess the bad debt simply vanished each year.  I was committed to better financial planning and to control fee increases and so I pressed the board and management to track and add a "bad debt" category to our financials and I won that argument. 

By January 2013 the financials indicated that uncollectible accounts had reached $29,000. That represented nearly 2.5% of our annual budget for that year!  Today our uncollectibles are about 1/2 percent of our annual budget. It is a matter of condominium living that some owners won't pay their bills, or will get into financial difficulties. 

I won't go into the gory details of what it took to get delinquencies under control; let's simply say that the treasurer and I spearheaded a vigorous collection program and the association used all legal means to get this done.  The bottom line? To live within a HOA requires keeping the rules and paying one's fees is one of the rules. Socialism is not a good model for homeowner's associations. 

You might ask "What was the ultimate impact of that 2013 uncollectible amount on owner's fees?" We were able to operate with that and in 2014 there was 1.0% fee increase. In other words, the board adjusted to the reality. This is one of the things that running this business demands. 

CDs, Cash and Cash Flow

To aid the board I created a spreadsheet which is updated monthly. It currently includes the following information:

• List of all bank accounts and cash amounts within.
• List of all CDs, amount of each, maturity date and APY.
• Dollar amount totals for cash and CDs
• Summary of cash amounts per savings institution.
• Chart of CDs showing dollars versus months remaining to maturity.
• Chart of CDs showing percent versus months remaining to maturity.

Maintenance, financial problems and the project backlog

The backlog existed because boards for a couple of decades experienced several failures:

• Failure to collect the necessary fees.
• Failure to save the necessary reserves.
• Failures by cutting corners because of the budget constraints.
• Failures to keep up with maintenance and degrading infrastructure.
• Failures to quickly adapt to the consequences of the U.S. 2007-2008 financial disaster.

Earlier boards had difficulties dealing with an aging association aggravated by a deep recession.  It was left to boards after 2008 to figure this out and implement the solutions. The board of 2008 gave up and left within 2-1/2 years. It did look like an impossible task.

I experienced the need for urgency and the plight of owners. I persevered. Keep in mind that the fees in this association had increased from about $184 per month in 2001 to almost $293 a month in 2010. Combined with the recession some owners were experiencing deep financial pain:

• By August 2011 the accounts of past due owners reached more than $85,000, nearly tripling since August of 2008. 
• We had rising foreclosures which dragged through the courts increasing our legal costs as we attempted to collect past due fees.
• We avoided legal approaches where possible but took extreme measures to get owners who were capable to get caught up in their fees. Many did and kept their units.  We were able to turn this around once the word went out among the body of owners that the board was serious. By 2014 we were back down to the amounts of earlier times, and this downward trend continued. 
• Some boards re-assured owners with verbal statements such as "we have enough money" which was a guess and was inaccurate. Such statements increased the difficulty of planning for future boards. 
• There was no long term financial plan. The first reserve study in 2010 raised more questions than it answered and suggested even more massive fee increases and a special assessment.

All of the above had to be addressed and have been.

The boards of 2010 and beyond did get the job done. It was not an easy task. Not all board members agreed upon the approaches and there have been angry board members and undermining board members. Raising fees forever was unacceptable. It would create additional financial pain for the owners and could reduce property values farther. It could drive some owners into foreclosure and bankruptcy.  One board member appeared to be unconcerned by this.

Unit sales prices plummet

In 2012 we had six units which sold for $86,000 or less.  In 2013 one unit was sold for about $65,000, another for $68,000, another for $77,000 and yet another for about $79,000. That was not acceptable to me, as a board member and it provided additional incentive to get the job done right and to protect owners in the process.

How to deal with this disaster?

To tackle this would require:

• Establishing long term goals.
• Prioritization of tasks.
• Additional long term planning and reserve studies.
• All sorts of number crunching.
• Re-evaluation of costs.
• Improved project management and cash flow analysis.
• Stopping the bleeding by tackling water main issues, our failing streets and so on.
• It would also require a serious effort to get ahead of the maintenance breakdowns.
• The old "Don't fix it if it isn't broken" approach was replaced with something better.   
• One essential task was to take a thorough "inventory" of the situation. 
• Promote and practice a commitment to success. 
• Reinvigorate the maintenance and infrastructure replacement programs.

Most of the above tasks were completed by the boards within 5 years. Planning continues to this very day. Of course we do use professionals such as management, our maintenance contractor and other contractors, our attorney and an accountant and accounting firm. We also hire engineers where that is justified. Amateurs should not be making engineering decisions.

I spend many, many hours conducting site surveys, calculating repair costs, building Gantt diagrams, hundreds of spread sheets and so on. 

Annual and Semi-Annual Surveys

To get a handle on the magnitude of the problems it was necessary to conduct a number of surveys with management. This included:

• The condition of streets
• The condition of streams.
• The condition of common area decks and patios
• The condition of 168 ground level patios and decks.
• The condition of 84 driveways.
• The condition of 84 large garages
• The condition of timber retaining walls.
• Annual attic inspections of roofs reported with problems such as leaks or which appeared distressed by outward appearances. 
• The condition of walks.

It was an incredible amount of work and these surveys continue on a periodic basis, generally every other year. Boards should continue this into the foreseeable future.

The information gleaned from the above is put into reports for the board. At one point my monthly reports were up to 14 pages in length. These were provided to the board each month as the reports were completed. More recently because we are catching up with backlog issues such lengthy reports are not required, although the surveys continue. 

Roofs, driveways, and streets

A backlog of driveway replacements needed to be addressed. The failing streets also and the roofing project needed to be completed.  Meanwhile, other aspects of the infrastructure continued to degrade.

The board of 2008-2010 had replaced about 12 driveways, but there were others remaining to do. Based on the survey we had quite a few in "poor" or "fair" condition. I measured the driveways and created a budget and condition spreadsheet for all of them. Using that I estimated the replacement cost per driveway and a timetable. I got the board to go along. Simultaneously I ramped up and increased the number of roofs replaced each year, to meet that 2017 target completion date, keeping the age of the existing roofs reasonable, avoiding old roof failure and expensive repairs. 

Of course, to do this it was essential to get a grasp on the finances. 

• Earlier boards increased fees from 1991 to 2008 by an average of 7.4% each year.
•  For the 10 years prior to that, the average annual increases were 4.1%. 
• Over that 20 year period, the average annual increase was 5.76% each year.   That could not continue and yet the work had to be done. Special assessments in 2010 were not an option; owners were reeling under the consequences of the financial disaster of 2007-2008. 
• From 2008 to 2018 the average annual budget increase was 2.2%. From 2012 to 2018 the average annual budget increase has decreased to 1.0%.  This is reflected in the graph at the beginning of this post. 
• We continue annual reviews of all aspects of finances and have taken steps to get improvements via long term contracts, infrastructure improvement which reduce maintenance or utility costs, etc. 

To achieve the above I did a lot of number crunching and scenarios. Since 2015 two new board members have assisted in thorough review of reserves, plans and costs. I measured all of the driveways on October 4, 2010.  My first driveway survey was conducted in August 2011. Additional surveys were conducted in 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017. Some years were skipped because 1) we had caught up with problem driveways and 2) I was dealing with other major projects including the replacement of Lakecliffe, the water mains beneath, the roofing project ("Project Catch-Up" before they fail), the COD expansion, the nearby flood of 2013 and the City of Wheaton fireplace fiasco.

Three years later, here was the situation for roofs and driveways in 2013:

Improved communications

The board of 2008 began an association website. That became a problem when the owner "webmaster" would not surrender his passwords to the association. Today the passwords and day-to-day maintenance of the website is performed by management, with board direction. There have been no more hostage taking situations involving association communications. 

One of my first self-appointed tasks in 2010 was to alter the content of our association newsletter. This was met with mixed approval by the board. In fact, one board member continues to argue to this very day that what I have done is pointless. The arguments include "No one reads the newsletter." In fact, a spot check of newsletters left unread in foyers indicated about 90% of our onsite residents take them.  Newsletters are mailed to all remote owners. 

It has been my consistent position that the burden of responsibility for communication rests with the board. What owners do with the information given to them is not the board's responsibility. 

Not all owners liked the change from the "social" newsletters of 2008-2010 to the "business" newsletter published thereafter. The association has a non-affiliated social club run by owners and that caters to a small group of owners who want to participated in these things. I understand about 10% of the residents participate. Most owners are oblivious to this "Neighbors Club" and are unawares that with 20+ members it also includes 3 board members. I'd be remiss to point out that 20 or so owners have special access to about half of the board, while the other 300+ owners go about their daily business. I'll let you decide if there are any conflicts of interest in that arrangement. 

I have published newsletter articles from time to time to get the attention of owners. For example, when the board would not agree to a course of action for removal of an old and failing bridge I told the board I was of the opinion spending any money on repairs was a waste of fees. The board still stonewalled this, so I had the old bridge barricaded while the board thought about the alternatives. I then published an article in the newsletter under "Maintenance" and stated the case, with photos.  Owners wanted the bridge re-opened and so we came to an agreement for minimal repairs to make it "safe" and I began making plans for the work in the area. Note that this bridge was a "step-up" and "step-down" and boards had decided to eliminate these on the property when time for repairs came up

Thames stream bridge after safety repairs.

Bridge removal underway

Old bridge supports indicating poor condition of stream concrete bed - removed and repaired 2017

Driveways

Using aerial views with ground measurements to determine the size of driveways for budgeting purposes:

With 84 driveways each having a useful life of 10-12 years we need to replace 8 each year. Some years we do fewer, but skipping driveways for 5 or more years simply creates backlogs. 

We patched some driveways after 2010, replaced more steadily each year and put crack filler and seal coat on others to extend their life. This was intended to be a temporary expedient because we couldn't get to all of the driveways in a year, or five. We lacked the resources to do so. Here was the situation by August 2016:

Driveway crack filling to extend life

Adding narrow walks along driveways

An earlier board added narrow walks along one side of the driveway when it was repaved. The board of 2008-2009 suspended this because they felt it was unnecessary and were pressured by a small group of owners to reduce fees. So today we have some new driveways with and a few without these narrow walks. The purpose was to allow our snow plows to push snow all the way off of the driveway while avoiding damage to turf. Of course, it also allowed people of "A" unit vehicles to exit without stepping off of the hard surface and into snow, ice, or muck.

In 2011 I convinced the board to re-institute this approach. Here are a few photos I had taken to convince them of this. No contractor or management was informed of my intention prior to my taking of these photos and presentation to the board. It is difficult to argue with the facts no matter how unpopular.

Entry and driveway with a narrow walk after snow removal

Entry and driveway without a narrow walk after snow removal

Entry and driveway without a narrow walk after snow removal

Typical entry walk replaced and new, narrow walk installed at building entrance:

entry walk added 2014

Roofs and drainage issues - Heaving walks and driveways

The roofing project began in 2005 with a single roof; it was coincidentally the address of the board president. In 2009 the board replaced two roofs, then a year later three. It was a slow project for 44 large roofs. In 2008 as  mere owner I estimated the total cost about $1.7 million. I was not yet on the board. I had concluded that the pace was dictated by funds available. But we had to pick up the pace to avoid leaks and costly failures. 

Once on the board I did pick up the pace. I had concluded  it would require an average of five roofs to be replaced each year to complete this project by 2017. In one year eight roofs were replaced. 

It was a race to beat the clock. The alternative was not pleasant. The association picks up the tab for the consequences of any roofing failures. That includes correcting owner unit issues as a consequence of such failures.  It was in the owners' best financial interests to complete these roofs as quickly as possible.  Of course, selling a unit is easier with well maintained roofs and streets. 

Earlier boards had added shed roofs to those building entrances which did not have entry protection. This practice was continued for the rest of the project.

Photo of one-half of the large roof of a single building

Shed roof under construction - earlier boards added this and boards from 2010-2017 completed the roofing project and added the shed roofs at those front entries which did not have a gabled roof. 

However, there was a serious and hidden problem. The board of 2002-2003 had decided to add gutters along the roof line where there previously had been none. It also relocated the front downspout from the driveways to adjacent to the building entry. The first building had the new gutter discharge buried and directed flow from the roof into the storm sewer. All subsequent roofs did not have this modification. I discovered that one unit had been previously flooded because of the location of a new gutter which discharged on soil above the foundation line. 

By the time I inherited this project in 2011, I discovered the problem. It was another serious blow and it involved at least 50 entries. What I initially discovered was that a new driveway and walk heaved during spring thaw weather because of water flowing beneath it.  The new walk was cracked because of the heaving.

Heaving asphalt at garage entry

A quick survey indicated similar issues at about 12 entries, and we were creating more each year as the roofing project advanced. Water was flowing from the new gutter discharge onto entry walks, beneath them and even under driveways. This froze in the winter, heaving driveways and walks. It became necessary to come up with a permanent solution. Because of the swales and rolling landscaping and the location of trees and shrubs, there was no single solution.

We began cutting through swales in some situations, burying piping in others and so on. Something had to be done at most of the 84 building entries. 

Failing Streets

In 2002-2003 our streets and curbs were replaced at an age of about 25 years.  Our major street Lakecliffe Blvd began failing 4 years later. I pointed this out to the board at the time but was rebuffed. Certainly, no one wants "bad news" but it is what it is. By 2010 it became necessary to formulate a plan. 

The boards prior to 2011 were unable to deal with this. It was simply more than they could handle. Upon achieving a board position I insisted upon several years of street repairs at no cost by the contractor while we came up with a plan and the financial means to deal with this. There were quite a few unhappy and sometimes angry owners.  They of course never took responsibility for their prior actions. After all, they voted in those boards that installed the streets "on the cheap" while owners complained, "our fees were too high." Some owners probably expected to escape before the bill came due. But the U.S. financial disaster of 2008 prevented that. So they were trapped in the association and simply got meaner. 

I also insisted that we have core samples of all of the streets so we could determine the severity of the problem. The cores were taken and discussed and the information given to an engineering company for their opinion. With their opinion of the longevity of the streets, a board decision about a course of action was made, the engineering drawings for replacement of Lakecliffe Blvd were prepared, reviewed and revised.  The plans and revisions were approved by the board.

Finally, in 2014 the work began. It took two years to complete Lakecliffe because doing it cut off access for residents. Here's the updated plan that I made in 2014 and presented to the board. Other streets have been patched including Harrow, Dover, Gloucester, and Plymouth. Thames street concrete work was done in 2017 and that street will be completely repaved in 2018. Other patching and additional cul-de-sac work will be done, about one cul-de-sac each year.

Here's the situation about 10 years ago on Lakecliffe. That's a yardstick:

Some residents called this a "minefield" and complained, but they didn't target the board that created this. Instead they came after me. What a bunch of ingrates!

Just another hole in the failed street. That's a yardstick ( 1 yard = 3 feet)

The 2014-2015 Lakecliffe street replacement was complicated. This was necessary because of the inadequate street work completed in 2002-2003. The curbs needed the addition of stormwater inlets, the street slope and curbs did not provide proper drainage and the existing street did not have a proper crown. Changing curbs meant that many driveways had to be modified to match the new level of the street. All of these things and inadequate depth of asphalt in some sections contributed to the early failure. All had to be addressed with the replacement. Of course, I could have "kicked the can down the road" as earlier boards did, but it was a matter of integrity for me.   It took two years to replace this street; three years if I include the preparation of plans and specifications.  While doing so we also replaced Salisbury, improved that street drainage and also replaced all the water mains under these streets. 

Replacing most of a driveway to accommodate the change in elevation of the street

Replacing curbing because of the change in elevation and slope of Lakecliffe

New curb

Pouring concrete

Water Mains

Water mains have been a problem and at BLMH the approach since 2001 was to patch sections as they broke. 

24" long "patch" to water main, 2015

Patching mains is a very costly method and in one small area, more than $70,000 was spent on these patches in one year! To shift this required replacing longer sections of mains, which we have done. Since 2014 we have replaced about 300 feet of mains. To shift this I also promoted replacing the mains under Lakecliffe and Salisbury at the time the street was repaved. Somewhat reluctantly the board agreed. Of course, this did complicate the replacement of Lakecliffe. 

Three mains were replaced. One in 2014 and two in 2015. Another section on Gloucester was replaced in 2013.  Resilient wedge gate valves were replaced in those sections of mains. In 2012 all of these existing valved in the association were checked for torque and exercised by a professional testing firm. To my knowledge this had never been done and I was concerned that we could have a valve failure to close or re-open when dealing with a water main break. 

Water main replacement under Lakecliffe as part of the street replacement

Water main replacement under Salisbury Ct as part of street replacement

Here's what a failed water main looks like:

After turning off the water and pumping, this is the hole left behind

This break created a mess

The inset shows water shooting out of the ground at the garage entry near where this main failure occurred

Heavy equipment and a lot of digging may be required to get to the water main

It may be necessary to remove a lot of soil and a large driveway

Completing Patios

A survey conducted in August of 2012 revealed some "limited common" patio issues. These were corrected; earlier boards had suspended such repair work. I completed all repairs or replacements in 2011-2012. That was one of a number of surveys conducted with management to determine the true condition of certain aspects of the property. 

Trees do die

In 2008 as a simple owner I attended an associated meeting and asked our board "What are the plans for our trees, which are about 35 years old?"  The board responded, "They live a long time."

While that board attempted to figure out what was going on in the property our major thoroughfare street "Lakecliffe" was failing and the roofing project begun in 2002  was slowly continuing. At the pace, our final roof would have been 28 years old at the time of replacement. Streams were disintegrating, as were a common area deck and gazebo. Driveways were disintegrating and garage floor issues were ignored. Building entries were nearly 40 years old, but they did get painted and the carpeting replaced. An earlier board president  stated the position that "Carpets are replaced when they become a trip hazard."

Things changed in 2011. It wasn't an accident or a choice; it was a necessity. But not everyone saw things that way, including some of the most senior board members. It has been an uphill struggle each and every year. Some people should not be board members!

My position is simple; I don't want neglected or problem trees to fall and damage roofs, buildings or automobiles. I appreciate that this does require being pro-active and it can be difficult to justify in an association where some owners think the board wastes money. Some board members apparently prefer to wait until there is a breakdown before acting.

I frequently walk the property, have taken thousands of photos, identify problems, identify the issues  and send the photos to management and the board for action. After that, it has been out of my hands.

A lot of the remedial work is done by maintenance. That does skew the budgets, because many hours are spent on dealing with these dead trees and the hours are charged to "maintenance" rather than to "Landscaping".  However, I'm more interested in getting the job done than messing with the account codes. BTW, I'm the one who has pressed for better cost accounting practices in our association.

One of several hundred trees that have died since 2010, photo sent to management by me

Storm damaged tree sent to management by me

Another storm damaged tree identified by me and sent to management

Ditto

The Emerald Ash Borer kills an ash tree, even after years of treatments

Area with dead tree removed and conifer roots dug up; next comes grading and sod.

Trees die and need to be removed summer and winter

A typical scar left by tree removal - owners planted the flowers

Another tree issue identified by me and sent to management

When trees die they leave landscaping issues

We've had hundreds of trees die in recent years. Each dead tree must be cut down and then the stump removed. That leaves a scar and it is up to the Landscaping Director to come up with a program to address this. In some cases Architecture & Projects took this on, which is the way it was when I was Architecture, Projects and Maintenance Director. This inflates the maintenance budget. Landscaping funds were not spent for most of the clean-up, but I think that because cleanup requires landscaping (soil and grass) it should not be a maintenance issue.

Map of tree scars awaiting landscaping solutions July 29, 2015

By July 29, 2015 the association had 95 scars waiting for attention on the property. I marked up a site plan with a red "X" for each scar and gave copies to each board member during a regularly scheduled board meeting with the simple statement "Here is an indication of the severity of the problem and we need a program to address it."  Finally these areas were all addressed in a two-step approach in 2016 and 2017. The cost was significant.  We continue to remove trees, (6) are scheduled for removal as of April 12, 2018.

Removing and replacing trees and shrubs

The above question about the association trees was asked by me to the sitting board 10 years ago and since then the association has removed about 200 trees from the property. These include large willows, ash, pines and conifers, birch and many ornamentals. This has been required because of insect damage and disease. Frequently death was just a consequence of 'old age' for those ornamentals or non-local species. Even after spending tens of thousands of dollars on treatments over a period of years for our ash trees, the Emerald Ash Borer won that battle.  The total cost of dealing with dead and dying trees? Several hundreds of thousands of dollars to remove the trees, stump, grade, sod and in some cases replace with new.

Every tree that was removed left an unsightly scar and roots behind. These areas were re-graded and sodded. A costly undertaking as several hundred trees has been removed in recent years. In 2015 I surveyed the property and I counted 95 scars to be repaired!

In some of these situations our maintenance contractor dealt with the issues. But by 2015 the backlog was nearly 100 scars. I provided a map of the issue to the board.  I also provided a summary of the reserves available to deal with this. As a result, the board did in one year what could have taken three or more to complete. Our Landscaping Contractor was given a list of the problem areas and walked it with our Landscaping board director. It was an expensive fix, but that's why we were elected.  With the work accomplished by maintenance we corrected most of the scars in one year.

Removal of several large willow trees at Gloucester pond, Oct. 2011

After removal of several dead and dying trees and roots, and graded, waiting for sod

The above area with grass coming in

Tree roots after maintenance graded the area

A typical scar left by the removal of a tree after grading

After grading and sodding

Currently, we are dealing with the Viburnum leaf beetle which is killing hundreds of shrubs.

Grading and Miscellaneous Drainage

Grading continues along the fronts of buildings where downspouts were relocated from the driveways to adjacent to entries. That downspout design was by the earlier board which began the roofing project in 2002-2003. The first roof had special drainage work done to carry water away from the building.

After that, the boards dropped out this modification and we had severe icing at some entries, standing water, and heaving concrete and driveways. Several wing walls had to be replaced. In 2011 I was faced with a backlog of drainage issues. And a lot of impatient owners. Many thanks to those earlier boards.

However, earlier boards had done grading and installed brick walls adjacent to one of the waterfall ponds. These ponds were constructed at an elevation higher than the nearby buildings so control of water seepage was a problem.  In 2017 a wall was added at a second pond to control soil erosion.

We had standing water in some large grassy areas. So much that one board member in 2009 suggested that the association consider turning the area in the map below into a "marsh."  That did no happen. I studied the problem in 2010 and with maintenance and after a survey of the area it was concluded that adding a basin and some new underground piping could carry the water away and allow the area to drain. The following was completed shortly thereafter.

Improved central drainage - All completed 2011-2012

We had standing water on new driveways, and in streets. Yet another survey to do, which I did. This required specific solutions to certain locations. We had a variety of "mud pits" on the property and we had standing water. The driveway below is almost dried up.

Gutter discharges underground to cistern, which collects water also near the building. Notice the stone which replaced the mulch previously used. The cistern is connected to an underground pipe which carries the rainwater away from the entry and the buildings and discharges into the street. See the next photo.

Front gutter discharge is directed to a buried pipe and then flows to the street from this point.

Standing water - This was corrected by grading and installing a catch basin

Swale which was eroding with new gutter and downspout. Prior to correction. 

After correction  with a wall and landscaping by Maintenance

As part of the drainage improvements, some stone walls were installed. Any old railroad tie constructed walls have all been removed and replaced with stone.

Ready for the park bench to be installed 2011

After replacing rotting timber wall and adding a bench to view Lake 4

Here's how the above area looked on July 21, 2011. Rotting retaining wall, broken bench removed. 

Wing Walls
These are foundations which extend outward and support roofs. While replacing front entry walks we discovered that several had detached from the building foundation and floating. That required a costly replacement at several addresses. Entry walks and foundations were replaced.

A new wing wall

Deck Issues with streams
We had unit decks sinking into streams. I've replaced those that we've identified and their supports.  Wooden supports have been replaced with concrete. Here are a few typical:

Deck sinking into a stream

Rotted wooden deck supports

A "stream" with rotting deck supports. - Ugh!

The photos below is the same stream after replacing rotting deck supports, replacing decks and after new stream bed and rock. Sadly, we can't upgrade this to the concrete waterways used in the two other streams, but the ducks don't mind.  This "simple" project required surveying, stream bed removal, substantial grading to get proper flow, installing a heavy duty liner, installing stone and then grading the "shore" and re-sodding. All work was accomplished by our maintenance contractor under board supervision (me).

Reworked pond at  termination of stream. Photo taken August 2016

Concrete Walks

Our walks need repairs from time to time. We replace some sections and others we "scarify" if the height difference isn't too great. Prior to 2013 the association didn't use scarifying. I suggested we try it. Currently, we need another walk survey. 

Scarifying, or "grinding" of a walkway at a dissimilar joint

Street work is accompanied by walkway repairs

Streams

Streams had fallen into disrepair. The wall shown below was at a pond and I'd removed the failing timbers and replaced them with the bricks and stone. The following year the Landscaping Director decided to install limestone blocks and board decided to upgrade it. We removed the wall and re-used the bricks.

One Stream Section replaced in 2017 -  The connecting was done prior in 2012

Small repair of a stream

This happened when boards in the 1990s stopped repairs. At the time water was cheap and so water losses were considered to be inconsequential. However, water running underground below streams creates channels, may undermine building foundations, garages and so on. It was another "penny wise and pound foolish" decision. One board member later took the position "You can paint a pig, but it is still a pig." Apply paint they did and allowed things to degrade to leave for later boards to resolve.

Sagging Columns

In one situation I discovered that a garage column was sagging. This had been previously addressed by the use of putty to fill the void. An engineer was consulted and it was determined that this needed to be corrected before replacing the roof, and the column foundation corrected before completing a garage floor replacement. 

The consequence of sinking column prior to proper repair. Completed during garage floor replacement

Garage Floors

One immediate task I set about doing was to do a survey of the condition of the garage floors. This was initiated in September 2010 when the board discussed replacing several garage floors after receiving owner complaints. I suggested we conduct a survey of all garages before doing any floors. We needed to determine the condition and determine the magnitude of the problem before spending money.  The board agreed.

Management and I rated the condition of each and every garage floor in September 2010 and that resulted in an association newsletter article. We discovered several in need of immediate replacement. Since that survey, we have replaced about a dozen garage floors (15% of the floors in the association). Not all of these replacements were simple. Because of the issues, some concrete work was done in December. I prefer to be complete by November, for obvious reasons.

We now conduct such a floor survey every 2-3 years. All 84 of them. 

Some garage floor replacement projects are more serious than others. 

Troubled garage floor Sept 30, 2010

Troubled garage floor, September 2010

Wheaton Flood 2013
Our association is in a large watershed which includes portions of the City of Wheaton and the Village of Glen Ellyn and the College of DuPage (COD).  About 20% of the watershed is in Glen Ellyn. Wheaton has five ponds which are interconnected and form part of the city's storm water control system. Our association has a portion of one of these lakes on the property ("Lake #3) and another is completely within the property (Lake #4).

Wheaton's ponds A, 1, 2, 3, and 4 are interconnected. Water flows downhill from A eventually reaching pond 4. Water is added along the route by storm sewers from Wheaton and Glen Ellyn. COD's pond 9 and Hoddinott Marsh also flow to Wheaton's pond 4. Water exits pond 4 via an underground pipe, eventually making its way to Rice Lake to the south of Butterfield Road.

Ponds 3 and 4 are on private property but the City of Wheaton has an easement to use them as part of the storm water system.

Occasionally the amount of rainwater exceeds the capacity of these ponds. An earlier problem resulted in a 1997 study and the City of Wheaton made modification to Lake 4, including restricting the diameter of the outflow pipe.

In April 2013 an unusual weather event resulted in a lot of rainfall in the area. When the watershed is filled to capacity the lakes overtop, and that is what happened. Lake 3 overtopped and flowed south above ground to Lake 4. At Lake 4 this stream was joined by overtopping of COD's pond 9. The capacity of Lake 4 and the Hoddinott Marsh were exceeded. Both overtopped, flooding the area immediately to the south. On April 18 this association was surrounded for a short time by water on four sides.

The solution will require cooperation of the County of DuPage and nearby communities. Wheaton is spearheading this and has spent a lot of money on an engineering study to address this issue

Dealing with this problem occupied a lot of my time.  Here's a link to a series of blog posts about this, which document the problem and includes videos I took:

http://briarcliffelakes.blogspot.com/search/label/Flood%20April%202013

Lake 4 on April 18, 2013

Fireplace Fiasco
In 2010 a serious fire occurred in a nearby homeowners association. It seemed the source may have been a pre manufactured fireplace. Because that association was built by the same builder as ours I became very concerned and asked management to monitor the situation. A second fire also attributed to the fireplaces raised my concerns and I pressed the board to issue a "moratorium" on fireplace use at BLMH in 2011. Management confirmed that that second fire did occur in the area of the fireplace and seemed attributable to some sort of mechanical failure.

After some heated discussions the board agreed to a moratorium and I prepared a notice to be posted. This was not an easy decision, but as fiduciaries it was the proper one to make.  This was not a popular decision and some owners were quite angry. The association had to threaten legal action and remind owners of possible civil liability if a fire occurred after the notices were published and if it was attributed to fireplace use.

It was confirmed that there was a problem with the fireplaces at that nearby association and the City of Wheaton issued a condemnation order for about 180 fireplaces. Our management was directed to attempt to get an inspection of several fireplaces in our community. That would require owner "volunteers" and would consist of opening walls to determine the condition. Owners were very reluctant to do this. Nevertheless after several months two were inspected. It revealed no apparent flaws, but did confirm that our fireplaces were of the same manufacture as those that did fail in the other community.

Our management was directed to approach the city. What we were told was that the other fireplaces were considered to be hazardous because they were not installed in accordance with the manufacturer's directions and therefore the UL safety rating had been voided.

These were Martin Industry fireplaces and the UL rating was upon the condition that a Martin Industries flue and chimney also be installed. The contractor did not do that.

The City of Wheaton issued condemnation orders for about 330 fireplaces in our association. Owners were upset, concerned and still reeling under the financial consequences of the recession. It was a bad time.  The fireplaces were owner property as they were "optional" at the time of construction and a few units did not have one. We did get a legal opinion on this. There was no pipe-chase but the chimney/flue did go through a common element, the roof. So the association got involved in coordinating roof repairs and we did make a contractor available at a reasonable cost to owners. The association agreed to assume the responsibility for any subsequent roof repairs regarding the chimney area if the owner used that contractor. Remember that we had completed the replacement of a large number of new roofs after 2010. We now had to patch them!

Because the chimney of lower units went through the upper units (behind the fireplace) it became necessary for the board to provide coordination. It is amazing how uncooperative owners can be for even the simplest of tasks. That too fell upon me.

Owners wanted guidance and so it fell upon me to meet with the city, reach out to the code department and coordinate all of this via management and our maintenance contractor. Just another task.

After I met with the city council, the code department provided a response to a detailed letter I sent about several different approaches facing owners; these included complete removal, replacement with electric and replacement with gas non-vented, or replacement with gas vented fireplace.  This information was condensed and sent to every owner.

This issue began in 2011 with the moratorium notice and compliance is nearly completed, with only a few owners remaining. It resulted in a law suit by the city to get some reluctant owners to comply.  Our association took the position it was not a good idea to initiate a legal action against our owners in an attempt to get them to comply. After all, the condemnation order was by the city. Our ever benevolent City of Wheaton thereby named our association in the law suit as an attempt to get us to assume the legal pursuit of reluctant owners, which we finally did have to do. Of course all of the legal costs were born by our association and that means via owner fees.

All of this was necessitated because the City of Wheaton failed to properly inspect about 500 pre-manufactured fireplaces in the period 1976-1980 in two associations in Wheaton. What a mess.

The cost to our owners for removal? About $825,000 total for removal.  A number of owners opted for replacement at higher cost. I did not.

Ready for the dumpster

Failing Bridges and Common Patios

The photo above was provided to the board as part of a planning discussion. It shows two sections of a stream repaired or replaced in 2017. The "center" invisible connection is a re-routed portion of a stream; it was made to be below ground to accommodate a planned deck. This work was required because a common area deck and patio with the bridge was failing. The patio area was built on timber walls which had rotted out and the pea rock and gravel underneath was discharging into the stream. The patio was cracked and heaving. It also had entry and exit stairs. The patio was about 35 years of age. It was determined that repair would be more costly than replacement. In 2011 I began to plan a replacement program, but the board stonewalled it. So I had the rotted bridge barricaded, closing down the walkway. After three months owners began to complain and I was given "permission" to replace the bridge, so temporary repairs were made.

With board permission I began to remove the failing patio and stairs, and began a plan for the location of the replacement common deck.  Sketches were made and the route of new walkways in the area were determined. I layed this out with white flags and got board approval for the new walks. This would be phase 2.

Phase 2 also included stream repairs in the area. The old bridge had wooden supports sunken through the stream. This had contributed to the failure of the bridge and the stream concrete. A new bridge a few feet distant would span the stream and provide a better view of the waterfall. 

I made a plan of a modest deck with our maintenance contractor. Three plans later, still none were approved by the board. But removal was mandatory so I suggested a "phased" approach and I was given permission to remove the old, re-route the walk to provide a more scenic view of the waterfall, install a new bridge and finally 6 years later I was able to install a new deck and connect the new walkways. Part of the delay was the insistence by one board member for a smaller deck. I made several more sketches and put up white flags on the lawn to indicate the location of walks and rough dimensions of the deck.

That concept was finally approved by the board. However, it was then demanded by the same board member that we include a "pergola" even though we never had one before in this location. I pointed out the additional cost and the maintenance issues. With a lot of roofs to replace and the planning underway for the Lakecliffe street replacement, I decided to table this for a couple of years.  So we did the major walks, and repaired the stream only.

My Sketch "Concept B" Approved by the board

Part of the problem was the old stream bed was in poor condition. We needed to tackle that, too. To save costs we routed the stream under the new deck area via a buried pipe. That would actually reduce installation costs and future maintenance.

Common deck collapsing into stream

Removal of failed deck, stairs, walks - 2012

Failing bridge 2011, with failing patio behind it - stream drained

Old and failing patio area, heaving and falling into the stream.

Most of the old patio removed. May 19, 2012

Removal of the large patio - Phase 1 -  May 2012

Condition of old stream bed

The situation with the old bridge supports and the failed stream bed - 2014

New Bridge and connecting walks - 2014

New underground stream discharge at planned deck location - June 2012

The final phase would include additional stream repairs, repairs at the waterfall area and the completion of a replacement deck with benches and connecting walks. The stream work was done in 2017 and the deck work began in the fall of 2017 and was completed spring, 2018.

New deck with benches and connecting walk - stream piped beneath - March 2018

Mulch versus stone

Boards also spent $20,000 or more a year on "mulch."  It took some arguing with the board to shift to stone which is permanent, doesn't degrade into soil and allows water to rise above foundations. Nor does the mulch wash onto walks or into streets, or harbor insect pests.

That stone project took about 5 years to complete at 44 buildings. Removal of diseased and dying trees began about 8 years ago and continues to this very day. That is an extremely costly project. Tree removal and stumping leave large scars and are expensive to correct. Maintenance removes the detritus, and then we may remove additional roots, add soil, grade and apply sod. Of course, then we need to replace those trees. The sod requires water, which is currently $5.05 per hundred cubic feet of water used.

Pumps for Waterfalls

Since 2011 all of the pump pits for three manmade streams have been replaced. These were original equipment and nearly 40 years old. The pits were constructed of galvanized corrugated "pipe" which had degraded over 35 years and allowed soil, rock, and water to enter.

The pumps were buried under water and muck and labor costs were high, as to work on the pumps required digging them out in a vertical shaft about 48 inches in diameter. At the time of replacement, a concrete bottom was installed and a guillotine valve was installed to prevent backflow of water from the pump lines into the pit during repairs. This actually reduces maintenance hours required per year and extends the life of the pumps.

Interior of new pump pit, photo prior to installation of pump 2011

Other Drainage issues

Since 2011 several other major drainage projects have occurred. A "mosquito glade" was redone including the walks in the area and trees were thinned. These had grown into each other and were intertwined. The area was a low one and there was mud on the walks, water, and mosquitoes. Today it is a pleasant walk and drains properly. Before:

Here's the Glade "after" removing overgrown trees and after discussing with our arborist:

8 hours after the rain stopped

Surveying of the area while underway

It took a while longer to regrade, install a new walk, etc. In all, this project took several years:

A rotting gazebo is being replaced. Completion scheduled Spring 2018.

A gazebo installed about 40 years ago was in serious need of repairs. Upright support columns were rotted through at the base. Discussed in 2015-2017 with the board. The board agreed to replace in 2017, but with a simplified structure which will have benches. My attempts to use sun sails for summer shade has been stonewalled by a board member.  Work commenced in 2017 with removal of the gazebo structure, installing an underground pipe to convey the stream through the existing central core, fill with stone and cap with concrete. Benches will be installed, and a simplified structure with handrails.  I suggested summer use of "sun sails" for shade, but a board member has stonewalled this.

Rotted wooden support column - typical

Topworks with temporary repairs - rotting structure

Central cesspool, created by stream flowing through the gazebo

Fall 2017 - structure removed, stream directed through underground pipe, stone fill in place, concrete will be completed in 2017. Benches and handrails in Spring 2018.

Proposed low maintenance sun shades, put up in spring, take down in winter.
One board member has stonewalled this, preferring a pergola. So we have NOTHING.

Gazebo area, construction in progress Spring 2018

Facebrick Repairs and Tuckpointing

A variety of exterior facebrick repairs has been required. In a few cases, entire sections of walls were removed, repairs to the walls beneath were made and then facebrick re-installed. Tuckpointing is an agenda item and will take years to complete on 44 large buildings.

Repair to exterior wall and facebook repair - 2014