My preliminary observations were revised on March 2. On further review of my notes I have added items 11, 12, 13, 14 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, and expanded some of the other items. I delayed this posting to allow the new board to operate for a period of time to see where they are going, and to coordinate my efforts here with those produced by the new "Communications Director". Here is what I have observed during the past two board meetings. On the more substantive front of actual “deliverables”, we have a revised newsletter, and a 5% assessment increase. I am not aware of any other tangible results by the new board members. However, the board is off to a good start and I appreciate the efforts of our volunteers.
Our new board members include our association President, a Landscaping Director, and a new position “Director of Communications”. We however, have the same overall number of board members. As a result, one of the existing board members now performs the duties of Treasurer and Architecture Director. This is a somewhat lopsided allocation of duties, considering the ongoing financial and architectural issues. Our “Architectural Director” is involved in the numerous projects here at BLMH and that includes the roofing project.
The three new board members ran on their strengths, according to the ROC documents distributed to unit owners prior to the election; these board members were placed on the slate by the ROC and were “chosen [for] our back-grounds in conflict resolution and team building”. So I am led to believe that budgeting, finances, building maintenance, architecture and engineering are not the strengths of the new board members. I assume that is why we now have one existing board member responsible for architecture, which is essentially all building, street and related projects, and this same individual is also the treasurer.
Here are my observations from my attendance to the January and February board meetings:
1. At the conclusion of the January board meeting, the unit owners who were present were given an opportunity to address the board. During that meeting there had been a long conversation between the board members about the newsletter, a website and other aspects of communications. I was given my 30 second opportunity to address the board and I chose the issue of communications. I asked “It may be well and good to expand the technology and methods of communications, but I ask, what is the boards’ purpose in this communications? What are our goals, aspirations, and commitments, and what is the vision driving this communications?” The board President nodded and that was the end. The other new board members looked at me blank faced. I do not know if this look signaled incomprehension or not. My question was not answered and it was not even addressed in the new, expanded newsletter. The “Architectural Director” has told me that he, in fact, does have a 5 year plan. I’m hoping an outline of this will make it to the newsletter. Otherwise there seems to be no plan and no vision. Or perhaps the new board is unwilling to state that commitment. I do appreciate the hard work the board members, who are all volunteers, are willing to do. I realize they have some significant issues to resolve, the scope and duration of the roofing project being one. I am aware that these tasks will be solved in a manner consistent with the commitments of the board members. But what are those commitments and what is the vision driving us forward??
2. The board is divided on the scope of the roofing project. One of the new board members, the “Landscaping Director” has displayed a dislike for our “engineer” and the company the association uses for most of the serious maintenance, and is anticipated to bid on the roofing project. Our “Landscaping Director” has made disparaging remarks about “what these people do”, which leads me to conclude that he has little tolerance or appreciation for the work that is performed.
3. The scope of the roofing project may include new entrance shelter for those buildings which currently do not have such an entrance covering. See the photos below for the gabled entranceway and the ungabled entranceway.
4. It has been proposed by the Architecture Committee head that with the re-roofing, a shed roof be installed on those buildings which have ungabled entrances. If I understand it correctly, this would be an extension of the existing roof and would be a “shed”, or sloped, roof. The “Landscaping Director” was openly critical of the “engineer” whom he incorrectly assumed was responsible for the design. He was corrected by the professional manager who pointed out that design was "borrowed” from a nearby association “Briarcliffe Knolls”.
5. Some of the board, including the Architecture Committee head would like to include insulation as part of the roofing project, and others, including the “Landscaping Director” does not. There is an opinion that this is the responsibility of the owners of the second floor units. The Architectural Committee head has stated that all unit owners would benefit from insulation as such insulation would prevent the rise of air and loss of heat through the roof in the winter. During several opportunities during the meetings, he has spoken of his perspective of taking advantage of opportunities when presented during projects. His stated goal is to keep long term costs down while improving BLMH. He expressed his concern about ongoing repairs that are absorbing cash and stated that as Treasurer, he has a new respect for the amount of money spent on these items. In the case of the insulation, he stated that this is an opportune moment as the roofs will be opened as part of the project. He stated that he is concerned that some roofs have inadequate ventilation. This is difficult to assess, as access is through ceiling hatches in the closets of the second floor units. For that reason, it has been extremely difficult to inspect the interior of the roofs on a regular basis. He also stated in January that he and the "engineer" have discussed powered roof ventilators and the difficulties of getting electricity to them. Note: I am in a second floor unit, and I have insulation in the attic above me. I also have a roof vent fan. The unit owner previous to me installed the insulation. I pay the electric bill for the roof fan. I will not benefit from the insulation project as I already have insulation, unless the association increases my attic insulation. I am of the opinion that most of the benefit of attic insulation would accrue to the owners of the second floor units. However, the use of a "radiant heat barrier" stapled to the bottom of the rafters could be justified. Such an barrier can directly influence roofing life, it is inexpensive, and has a side benefit for the occupants in the summer. Cost is somewhere between $0.15 and $0.30 per square foot. I am also of the opinion that the association would be of service to unit owners if insulation were offered, at cost, to unit owners as part of the project. During the January meeting, I suggested to the board that solar power ventilators be evaluated. However, the best method of providing ventilation is through ridge and soffit vents. These provide excellent ventilation, require no electricity or maintenance and prevent moisture and heat buildup, thereby extending the life of the roofing materials. Elevated temperatures will damage roofing plywood and boards, underlayment and shingles. Such temperatures are present when there is inadequate ventilation. Mold can also be a problem, and mold can migrate through the walls of flooded units and into the attic. We do not have continuous ridge vents.
6. There was a discussion on the perceived problem of “roof dams”. Our “Landscaping Director” argued that he had determined the quality of the attic insulation by observing the melting snow on various roofs. It was his opinion that, based on his casual observation of melting or not melting snow on the roof tops, that we have no insulation or damming problems. Note: I do think it is possible to make some generalized statements about the presence or source of "ice dams" on our buildings. See the diagram at the end of this post for an "ice dam" caused by a lack of ventilation. However, what is shown in the diagram was not described by the "Landscaping Director". We don't know the temperature in the roof cavity, which is a critical piece of information. During the board meetings there have been a number of complaints about icicles from the gutters in front of the garages. These are not indicative of ice dams caused by a lack of ventilation. Here is my point: the garages are uninsulated and so the temperature in the space between the garage ceiling and the roof above is probably about the same as that of the garage interior. Ice dams occur when there is a lack of ventilation. This results in heating of the airspace beneath the roof, the snow on the roof melts and runs down the roof. In the case of the space above the garages [which are unheated], this is simply not applicable. Icicles do form because our dark shingles absorb radiant energy, convert it to heat and the snow melts. Unfortunately, our metal gutters cause the melting snow to refreeze, and this builds up a layer of ice in the gutters. The melting snow flows over the ice and drips down, resulting in some spectacular icicle formations. I have found a simple solution; reach up with broom and dust the snow away from the roof above the gutter. Voila, most of the formation of icicles is prevented.
7. There is a difference of opinion on the board concerning how to go about this roofing project and the need for a project manager. The “Landscaping Director” in particular has made statements questioning the need for a project manager. The Architectural Director is in favor of a project manager. There is a discussion underway to break the project into different bids and contracts, separating the project into roof repair and carpentry, roofing, and insulation. In my 30 seconds to address the board, I cautioned them about the issues of managing and coordinating different contractors and assuming responsibility for different aspects of the project. On the part of the new board members, it is my opinion that there seems to be little comprehension or appreciation for the technical and contractual challenges they can face.
8. As part of the roofing project, it has been proposed that the gabled window on the second floor “B” unit be replaced. These are approximately 30 years old and the Architectural Director sees replacement as a pro-active and preemptive measure. As he expressed during the meeting, failure of the roof or sills will result in costly repairs. Doing this as part of the roofing project, while the roofs are exposed will be cost effective and will avoid those repairs. A failure, if it occurs can cause costly damage to the unit below. The Architectural Director stated several times that he is in a quandary about increasing the scope of the project to include the windows. However, he also stated that as Treasurer he is also aware of how money is spent each month and is sensitive to the need to avoid "throwing good money after bad" or of building in future problems. Note: I can appreciate the opinion that expecting these windows and sills to last until the next roofing project, which would require a leak free life of 45 or 50 years as asking too much from the hardware.
9. There is a discussion underway about who is to bear the responsibility for the cost of the new window. There are those on the board who apparently are of the opinion that this should be born by the owner of the B unit, and it was suggested that they pay for this over a finite period of time, perhaps one year. This is consistent with ownership of windows by unit owners. Note: I neither agree nor disagree on the cost issue. However, I noticed that the “Communications Director” who opposed the 5% monthly increase in appraisal this year was mute during this discussion. I am a bit confused. Why would a 5% appraisal increase warrant opposition but a proposed 33% monthly increase for a year result in silence? This seems to be inconsistent, at the least. There has been no discussion at the board meetings regarding different approaches to payment, and little discussion regarding the pros and cons of replacing the windows and putting the cost on the "B" unit owners.
10. During the January meeting, there was a 20 minute conversation about light bulb maintenance and replacement in the common areas. This centered about who and when (the frequency) of this. This entire discussion was the result of that phenomenon I call "unintended consequences". Our past boards have been under pressure to retard the increase in assessments. It was apparently decided to reduce the frequency of professional cleaning of the entrances, stairs and halls. This also reduced the frequency of inspection and of course, the frequency of light bulb replacement. In the period between inspections and cleanings, to have a burned out bulb replaced, one had to call the professional management company. Some unit owners had complained of burned out bulbs. So a new discussion was now underway to look at alternatives, including increasing the frequency of cleaning of the halls. During the January meeting a unit owner also expressed outrage at the state of their entrance and complained that it had required them to clean the windows. The discussion included expressing the possibility that the daily maintenance "crew" take bulb replacement on. The "Landscaping Director" expressed the opinion that they are on the site, this would require very little time, and besides "what do they do, anyway" or words to that effect. Note: I have replaced the bulb in the garage when it as burned out. Big deal! As a result of this long discussion, my spouse decided not to attend the February meeting, She felt that this item, though important, was far to high on the list of items to be discussed, and was somewhat disappointed in the meeting. She decided that she had more pressing business in February and could not justify attending that meeting. I am hopeful that she will attend meetings in the future. However, we do discuss these in detail and so I can understand why she would not attend.
11. During the meetings, there were discussions among the board members regarding the ice on driveways. One unit owner complained about ice at their entrance. Other unit owners complained of standing water in garages. The Architectural Director addressed this by stating at both meetings that he is in favor of changing the gutter discharge point so that melting water or rain is carried to the storm sewers by another means, rather than discharging in the center of the driveways and flowing via gravity on the surface of the driveways. He said that one of the reasons for the standing water is inadequate slope of some of the driveways. He stated that changing the discharge point of the gutter and directing the water underground would address the issues of water flowing backwards into the garages and of much of the ice formation on the driveways. He further stated that this should be accomplished as part of the overall roofing project, and the driveway re-asphalting. He also stated that the board was not in agreement about this and that the initial attempt at one building had proven that simply moving the water to a discharge along the side of the driveway was not a solution; in the case of that building, standing water was the result and this indicated a need to carry the water underground to the storm sewer, and address problems of slope in some of the driveways. The Landscaping Director countered that such changes don't make sense and there must be a better way.
Note: I see a potential problem in transporting the water underground to the storm sewers. In our town, the design criteria of the city code defines the "frost line depth" as 42 inches. This means that during the winter, it is anticipated that the earth may freeze to a depth of 42 inches. This poses a problem when attempting to design conveyances for control of water runoff. If not properly designed, such underground conveyances will freeze in the winter, resulting in water backing up and freezing at the surface. Of further note, my building has water flowing back into the garage on an ongoing basis. This occurs in at least two locations. One is the discharge point of the gutter, which is at grade and also resting against the building. Water discharges from the gutter and strikes a rise in the asphalt, pools and flows via gravity into the garage. The second entry point is at the southwest corner of the garage, at which point the driveway is level. The slightly bermed trees force water to flow to that corner and when there are piles of snow or heaving, both of which we experienced this winter, the water flows into the garage rather than down the driveway. We have had over 1/2 inch of standing water on about 75% of the garage floor. This winter, on two occasions I removed most of it with a large, curved snow shovel which I used as a plow. My spouse has had to do the same, and even today we still have some standing water. Last fall, I did send a letter to the board about this problem. (see the September 16th, 2008 topic "Rain"). During the January meeting I was informed that raising and extending the downspout to discharge water further out on the driveway where it begins to slope was not possible as it would interfere with plowing. I was also told that I will have to wait until the roofing and driveway projects. So, with the current, nebulous and undefined schedule, that could be 5 years!
13. The subject of "Guest Parking" was discussed at length during the February meeting. The board is seriously considering discontinuing "guest parking" and opening up all parking at BLMH to the residents. However, there might be a "handicapped parking" space in each of the current guest parking areas. This is under further review, after taking comments from the floor. Note: I am of the opinion that this is prompted by inability of management to control residents who refuse to vacate guest parking, and habitually use it. Unfortunately, parking is a premium with only one garage space per unit, and one space in front of the unit owner's garage entrance. Eliminating guest parking means that visitors or even unit owner's contractors and installers could have no where to park. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of sidewalks. In the winter, there is no choice but to walk in the street to wherever one's automobile is parked. I expressed my opposition to cancelling guest parking to the board; I expressed that I am opposed to acquiescing to unit owners who are intent upon breaking the rules and I am concerned about support of anarchy. What are our standards, purposes and principles?
14. During the January meeting I took another 30 seconds to advise the board that I wanted to coordinate my communications with those of the "Communications Director" and the board in general. I also stated that I was sensitive to the results of negative advertising and I would be responsible in my communications. The board President nodded thanked me for my statement.
15. During the February meeting, a unit owner requested a clarification of the policy for dish antennas. This was clarified and it is possible, with approval of location and entry and routing of cable, to get such an approval. However, request with specifics of location and cable entry must be submitted to the management company in writing, for review. After review if the installation meets requirements (no cable drilling through roofs, etc.) then approval will be given. It was suggested that this be addressed at length in the newsletter.
16. During the February meeting, the subject of census forms was discussed. At the conclusion, I expressed the opinion to the board that a valuable opportunity had been missed. I was disappointed that a feedback mechanism had not been incorporated into the form, for the unit owners to use to express their most important concerns. This would be a wonderful place to solicit volunteer for specific purposes. Note: Such a feedback mechanism would be consistent with the promises of our new board members. I do think it is well and good that a few of the unit owners attend the board meetings. But we represent about 5% of the unit owners. However, that 5% has undue influence on the board and the board's decision making process; those few of us who show up and voice our complaints or concerns are having a disproportionate influence on the board. This is not a good thing. For example, in the last gubernatorial election, only 37% of the registered voters in Illinois even bothered to show up at the polls. We all know the result of that election.
17. During the February meeting, the Landscaping Director advised that he had met with our arborist who had provided a significant amount of information to him, including a map showing the location and of all trees and a list. I believe he said that we have 800+ trees. The Landscaping Director stated that our trees were in excellent condition. This prompted me to ask our Landscaping Director "What is the projected lifespan of our trees". I was told something to the effect "A long time". I expressed that my concern was the 30 year age of the trees and the lack of replacement plans. Note: Some trees have relatively short life spans. For example, many fruiting trees, such as apple trees have a lifespan of 35 years. We have many flowering, ornamental trees. It is my understanding that some of these species begin to decline in 25 years. I don't know what we have, but examples of short lived trees (25 year lifespan) include fruitless mulberry, some ash, mimosa, true willow, catalpa, sycamore, boxelder, chinaberry, poplar. Examples of medium lifespan trees, with a life of 25 to 50 years include crabapple, redbud, hackberry, green ash, silver maple, cottonwood, ornamental pears, golden raintree, some hollys, myrtles. Elements such as urban stress, poor adaptation, insects and weather can all decrease the lifespan of trees. We have no replacement program at BLMH.
18. The subject of subcommittees and subcommittee members or assistants was discussed by the board. This included their duties and responsibilities, limits of authority and functioning of such subcommittee members. At present, the Communications Director has two assistants. There was a discussion of the need of the Landscaping Director for assistance. He has 40 acres to observe and that is literally a lot of ground to cover. Note: This would have been a great item to add on the census form. It certainly belongs in the newsletter.
19. There was much more discussed at the meetings. I can't put everything here, and it is not my purpose to record the entire open portion of the meeting. All unit owners and residents are welcome to attend each meeting, unless otherwise specified by the board. Each month, the date, time, and location of the meeting is posted in the foyer of each of the buildings. As I stated in item #16, those attending the board meetings constitute about 5% of the unit owners. That 5% has undue influence on the board and the board's decision making process; those few of us who show up and voice our complaints or concerns are having a disproportionate influence on the board. This is not a good thing. The board does not have to act in accordance with the wishes and desires of the unit owners. Nor does it have to take pro-active steps to determine what the wishes and desires of the majority is.
20. I have observed the new board President during the meetings and she appears to be functioning more as a moderator, than as a leader. This may be the result of contentiousness or friction between board members, which surfaces at other times, such as during closed, executive sessions, or it may simply be her "style".
Gabled Entrances
Here are two photos as examples of gabled and protected entranceway and unprotected entranceway. It is proposed to extend the roof of the "unprotected" entrances to provide a protected entrance. This would be done as part of the roofing project. Stated goals include reducing ice formation and providing pedestrians with protection from the elements when entering or leaving the building.
Diagram of "Ice Dam"Cross sectional sketch of the formation of an "ice dam" over an unventilated space. Note that one of the requirements is sufficient heating in the space above the ceiling for snow to melt on the roof. This is not being experienced over the garages at BLMH.
