Official BLMH Blog is Now Available

To post a comment or read the comments of others to this post, click here

I received my April newsletter today, and it included information about the new BLMH homeowners association blog.

This is the link:

http://briarcliffe.wordpress.com/

Squirrels

To post a comment or read the comments of others to this post,click here

This was sent by "Bill" an interested reader. Enjoy!

Nature Bulletin, No. 5 March 10, 1945
Forest Preserve District of Cook County
Clayton F. Smith, President
Roberts Mann, Superintendent of Conservation

SQUIRRELS
Take a good look at the next squirrel you see. Watch him come, head-first, down a tree; and notice that his hind legs have a sort of swivel joint at the ankle so that his sharp-clawed feet can be turned completely around. Notice the tiny button "thumbs" between which he holds the bit of food he eats. Notice that his eyes, like those of rabbits and other vegetable-eaters, are placed at the sides of his head so that he can watch for his enemies: the cats and hawks. Compare them with the forward-looking eyes of the meat-eaters such as the cat, the dog, the hawk and man himself.

The squirrel's tail is his most noticeable and perhaps his most useful possession. Few animals have a tail with so many practical uses. The squirrel is the gossip of the woods and with flicks of his tail he punctuates all that he has to say. His tail serves as a parachute in his daring leaps and to break the rare, accidental falls; also as a balancer when he runs along a narrow branch. It is both his blanket and his sunshade.

The squirrel's teeth are also highly specialized and designed for the kind of food he eats. He belongs to the very numerous "chisel-tooth" tribe known as the RODENTS, which includes the rats, beaver, porcupine and others, whose front teeth consist of two incisors in the upper jaw and two in the lower. (Incisor is from a Latin word meaning "to cut"). These teeth have a fine, sharp, chisel edge suited for gnawing through nutshells, grains, seeds and other hard vegetable material. They never stop growing. Only constant use keeps them short and sharp. A lack of hard nuts or other material upon which to gnaw, prevents this wearing down and the teeth become so long that they cannot eat. The teeth of pet squirrels can be clipped; otherwise they may actually die of starvation.

Nuts, seeds, wild fruit and berries are a large part of the diet of squirrels. In winter, much of their diet is made up of hibernating insects and their larvae found under the bark of trees; also the juicy buds of trees. But squirrels bury food in the ground, in preparation for winter; one nut or acorn or seed in each hole. During the winter they seem to locate these stores by smell, and dig them up.

Squirrels prefer a winter den in a hollow tree but occasionally find an opening and make their home just beneath the roof of a house or barn. Occasionally, where no suitable den can be found, a pair of squirrels will build a "dray" or nest of twigs and leaves, lined for winter with leaves or shredded bark. In the early spring four to six young are born, naked and blind. For ten weeks they are dependent upon their mother's milk. Not until they are weaned do their tails fluff out, and only then are they ready to venture into the world. The whole family usually moves to summer home or "dray" built of green leaves, in order to escape from the soiled and flea ridden den. By summer or early fall, the young are ready to shift for themselves and the mother may raise a second family.

There are two kinds of squirrels in the forest preserves: the fox squirrel and the gray squirrel. The little red squirrel, or chickaree, is no longer found in Cook County but can be found in the Indiana Dunes State Park. The fox squirrel is the more common of the two, being found all
over the country wherever there are trees. They have yellowish faces and yellowish underparts; their backs are covered with reddish-brown fur tipped with gray. The gray squirrels are smaller, have whitish or light gray faces and underparts darker gray backs, and are found more in the north and northwestern parts of the county. The two kinds are quite different in temperament and each has its own kind of calls and chatter. Squirrels have a very small home range and may spend their entire lives within an area no larger than five acres -- often much smaller. Some squirrels attain an age of from 6 to 10 years.

The bite of a squirrel is NOT poisonous but, like any small, deep wound that is difficult to clean and sterilize, it may become infected. In some parts of the country, rabies has been found in squirrels as it has been found in coyotes and other wild animals., but it has never been found in squirrels in this part of Illinois.

Bob Becker, outdoor sports-writer, has reported this winter that numerous gray squirrels in the north shore suburbs show signs of a bad mange epidemic. The Illinois Natural History Survey has observed the same condition on fox squirrels in other parts of the state. The Survey naturalists say this is not mange and not a disease, but an infection called "scabies". It is due to a skin parasite known as mites and is most common among old, weakened animals. It is more common in cities where dens and proper food are more scarce than in the country, and
where there are so few natural enemies that the squirrel population tends to grow too large. It also is apt to be more common after severe winters such as this one, probably because the squirrels are weakened by prolonged scarcity of food and by having to stay inactive in their
dens.

A Method for Arriving at Assessment Adjustments

To post a comment or read other coments click here

This is based upon a letter sent March 4, 2009 to our Management with a request that this be distributed to the board members. It should have been received prior to the March board meeting, and our board members have had ample time to read and to absorb this.

I have observed some of the planning process used by our association in determining assessments. There are a range of emotions displayed by the board and by unit owners when the subject of assessments is discussed. I have previously written to the board about analysis I have made and of my assertions on how we got to where we are. In October, 2008, I began a study to assess using different techniques to determine our monthly assessments. I determined that there was an alternative method that would have yielded lower assessments had the boards consistently adhered to a simple schedule of adjustments using data published by the U.S. government.

My study of past assessments provided some insight into how we arrived at our current assessments and the consequences of the path chosen by the board in 1982 and the following years, until 2000. I have included those insights here. What also follows is a comparison to the alternative method of raising assessments, which seems to be a simple, reliable tool for use in determining assessment adjustments.

Of course, board members and unit owners may choose to ignore the data presented here.

I have several purposes in writing this. I am interested in the “how” of our arrival at this particular financial point in time. I want to provide our board with useful information so as to avoid repeating how we got to this point. I am also very interested in tools that can aid in the decision making process. For example, without knowing the details of the future (inflation, etc.) how can we prepare, that is, how much should our association save each and every year, for the repairs that will undoubtedly be required?

Upon reading what follows, one can conclude that there was a time when our assessments were simply too low. The association appears to have been operating with a "technical" deficit for at least a decade, beginning in the 1980s and nearly to the year 2000. We had sufficient funds to operate, but insufficient for reserves. The current management and recent boards addressed the problem and our assessments have risen. However, we continue to make up for the shortcomings of the past. Finally, on reading this, you will get some idea of just how large a financial hole we had dug for ourselves.

I have listened to unit owners (and that includes members of the board) who seem to have difficulty comprehending how things became the way they are. The following should prove useful in determining how this occurred. The why, I cannot say, because I was not a unit owner in the 1980s and 1990s and so I did not attend meetings. If you did, perhaps you can shed some light on the "why". I am very interested in that!

This chart shows the actual assessments voted by the board each year, commencing with 1983 and continuing to the most recent vote in 2008. The assessment increase is shown as a percentage. There are several things about these increases. 1) They were very erratic prior to 1996. 2) They were zero or a negative value (a decrease from the assessment of the prior year) for several years prior to 1996. 3) They increased dramatically in 1999 but the pace of increases has since tapered off.

The following charts are derived from spread sheets I have made, which included the actual assessment amounts, the percentage of adjustment voted by the board each year, and the COLA or cost of living adjustment determined by the U.S. government. The U.S. government has different legal and economic bodies that generate this information. Most COLA data is backward looking, i.e. published after the fact. My spreadsheets and the resulting charts use data which is forward looking. I use the Social Security Administration annual benefit adjustment. This is a percentage, issued in the fall of each year by the SSA, which determines the increase in SS benefits for the following year. It is an attempt to anticipate cost adjustments on a year to year basis. For example, in 2008 this was published as a 5.8% increase, applied in 2009.

Each chart has two trends. One is derived from the actual decisions made by the board. The other is an alternate, derived from the COLA adjustment, and indicates the result if the boards had based the annual assessment adjustment solely using the government COLA adjustment. The difference between these two trends indicates a gap which in our association’s case, was a shortfall in saving. That gap continued each and every year and as a consequence, our savings rate fell further and further behind.

The first chart is a comparison of the monthly assessments using the two methods. It has two trends; one is the actual, average monthly unit assessment and the second is an alternative COLA based assessment. The alternative assessment replaces the percentage increase voted in 1982 by the board, with the percentage calculated by the U.S. government for SS benefits in 1982. This is repeated each year from 1982 to 2008. This is chart No. 1 “The High Price of Avoiding Assessment Increases” so named because prior to 1995 the board chose zero or negative adjustments for several years. You will note that the trends cross in collection year 2001. Prior to that time, our assessment increases consistently lagged those deemed necessary by the government COLA method. If left unchecked, this would result in operating deficits, i.e., the inability to meet basic financial needs. Later boards and our current management, apparently in recognition of this, have since 2001 raised our assessments annually by a rate above that of the COLA percentage. This has resulted in today’s higher monthly assessments as compared to using the alternative, COLA method. It has also built up our reserves. I chose 1982 to begin because this is the first year the board chose a negative or zero assessment adjustment. Assessments began in 1979 and the interval until 1982 provides too unstable a starting point, as boards attempted to find their footing and establish assessments that would fund ongoing "operational" needs.

Chart No. 2 “Annual Assessed Amounts Collected” depicts the total assessments collected annually from the period 1983 to projected for 2009. The amounts collected annually are trended using the two methods, and the trends cross in 2001. The amounts collected using the percentages chosen by the boards were lower during the years prior to 2001 than the amounts that would have been collected using the U.S. government percentages. As the assessments have increased each month, so too have the amounts collected. The amounts collected annually are now much greater than they would have been had the U.S government percentages been used. However, the space, or area between the trends to the left of the point of crossing is nearly equal to the area to the right of that point, which means that we have finally collected an amount sufficient to make up for the difference since 1983!Chart No. 3 “Accrued Amounts Using Actual Assessments and Alternative COLA Method” shows the long term effects, the sum of all assessments collected from 1983. It compares the sums collected using the board selected percentage adjustment to the sums collected using the U.S government SSA COLA method. The U.S. government COLA percentages consistently grew the savings at a higher rate. By December 31, 2009, the actual, total assessments collected at the association, for the period 1983 through 2009 is projected to be $16,028,211. During that same period, using the COLA method $15,910,181 would have been collected. These are nearly identical with a difference of 0.74%. The trends do not include interest accrued on saved funds.
Chart No. 4 “Monthly Assessments Using Actual Method and Alternative COLA Method“ compares the average monthly amounts collected per unit using the board selected adjustment method and alternative COLA adjustments from 1982 to the present. If it looks familiar, it is! Chart No. 4 is identical to Chart No. 1 and I repeat it here with this additional information: In 1999 the assessments at our association began to rise at a faster rate. Prior to 1999 the assessments consistently lagged those which would have been collected, had the U.S. government COLA SSA adjustment percentages been used. In 1999 the average assessment was about $135 and had increased to about $291 by 2009. Today, my actual assessment is $308.57, but had the U.S. government alternative percentages been consistently used, my actual assessment today would be a much lower $216.90. The reason is simply this: our current assessments are an attempt to collect in the period 1999 to the present, the sums of money that were not collected in the prior period 1983 to 1998. This difference is the space or area between the two trends on the graph below. The "gap" prior to 1999 seems deceptively small, but it wasn't, and the difference is now saved as our "reserves": The final chart trends the assessment adjustments as percent change voted by the board, compared to the percent change which the U.S government COLA method used for the same period of 1982 to 2009. You will observe that the percentages voted by the board were quite erratic prior to 1995. You will also observe that the U.S. government method was nearly always below 5%, and was as low as 1.3% in 1986 and 1998. There is one caution. In the period 1978 to 1982, prior to the trends and during a period of pronounced inflation, the U.S. government COLA percentages were above 8.0% for four years.
All of this is for exploring possibility using “what may have been”. However, several observations and conclusions can be drawn from the data shown in the charts.

1. Had the association boards used a simple method of calculating assessment adjustments based on U.S. government SSA COLA and collected assessments consistent with inflation increases, we would have today achieved the same balance sheet and reserves. However, in the process we would have had smoother, consistently smaller assessment increases and would today have lower monthly assessments.


2. Using assessment increases below the COLA percentages is an inferior method, as experienced by our Association.


3. The pace of assessment adjustments should moderate to the COLA rates, and has.


4. The COLA method may not assure sufficient funding for large capital projects, such as the planned roofing and paving projects. This is because specific, actual costs are unknown. Further analysis is required.


5. The COLA method, it has been pointed out, includes factors not of direct concern by our Association. For example, changes in the cost of food. However, the point of the analysis is to review a forward looking, annual method that would avoid the issues we have experienced and smooth the adjustments, from year to year. The analysis speaks for itself.


6. The association is now collecting funds at a rate greater than the COLA method would, because our monthly assessments are higher. The impact on future balance sheets cannot be determined with certainty until the true costs and timelines of capital projects is known.


7. To avoid large “spikes” using the COLA method (e.g. 14.3% as in 1980) and consequential disruption to the budgets of unit owners, it is advisable to adjust very low COLA percentages upwards to provide some short term smoothing and avoid large increases. This requires analysis of future, anticipated balance sheets.


8. This data can empower condominium boards to consider using the U.S. government COLA percentage increases as basis for the minimum for assessment adjustments, if that method is not now used.

I provided this data to our board on March 4, 2009 and I hope that this is useful and will have some influence on the predilection of the board when the time comes to vote for assessment adjustments. I will be doing additional analysis and I welcome comments.

The following is the SSA website which includes the COLA data I used. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/colaseries.html

Update to Nicor Gas on the "Budget Plan"

I have received my latest Nicor Gas bill, for the period February 17 to March 19. I now have a credit of $0.01!

So Nicor has re-calculated my "budget" and it has increased to $35.00 per month, from $32.00 per month. Using the new information I have updated my post:
nicor-gas-on-budget-plan

Possible Assessment Savings Outlined at the March 12 Meeting

To jump to comments to this post, click here

Here is a list of possible savings to the association that were mentioned by board members during the March meeting. I made this list by adding up the different projects and issues and their cost, as described by the board during the meeting. On the other hand, I have not made a list of spending INCREASES. There have been a few of those mentioned at board meetings; for example, a "reserve study". I'll post those later, once the numbers are known.

Total possible annual savings of the items listed below= $37,950. This, over a 20 year period, which is about the life of the roofs, would yield a total savings of $759,000 in today's dollars (no adjustment for inflation). That's a lot of money, enough to do the roofs on at least 15 buildings in the year 2029! Imagine, with NO assessment increases, we could save sufficient funds to do 15 buildings. Amazing! Of course, this money could "burn a hole" in the pocket of future boards, and they could spend it.

To actually accomplish these savings, the board would have to vote on specific actions, and unit owners would also have to agree and possibly alter some of their behaviour. So let your board know what you think!

1. A possible $13,300 savings each year, if architectural shingles are used during the forthcoming roofing project, and roof life is extended by 5 years.


2. A possible $84,000 savings by having Unit "B" owners pay for replacement of roof windows, at a cost of $1,000 each. This would reduce the cost to the association for this project by about 8%. "B" unit owners would see a temporary assessment increase. Savings each year, over 20 years ($84,000 / 20) = $4,200.


3. Changing the painting schedule from once each 5 years, to once each 6 years. Possible annual savings = $14,450.


4. Voluntary elimination of feeding of critters, birds and other wildlife at BLMH. Possible savings each year, by eliminating the need to trap of animals = $6,000.

Total possible savings, EACH YEAR, from the above = $37,950. The cost of the windows would be a savings to about 75% of the unit owners; the "B" unit owners would assume the cost of the windows and they would not see a savings for this item. Perhaps there are some other trade-offs possible?

If you have any other ideas, let your board know! Or, let me know and I'll publish them here and pass them along.

Update - Board Meeting of March 12, 2009

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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