Roof decision postponed - Party this Saturday

Installing a new roof is serious business, and we need to make sure we get it right. That’s why I, along with the rest of the Board of Directors, decided unanimously last night to postpone a decision on what to do about the clubhouse roof until a special meeting to be held on Monday, June 10. (See 5/30/13 video at the top of the Meeting Videos page under BOARD OF DIRECTORS.) That gives us another week to consult more experts and look into several issues that will help us make a more well-informed decision by clearing up warranty concerns and giving us a better basis for price comparison. Specifically, we will be obtaining more bids from companies using a specific roofing system that will save the association tens of thousands of dollars by allowing us to cover rather than replace the existing roof. The system, which has been certified by our architectural and engineering consultants, comes with a 20-year manufacturer’s warranty that appears to provide excellent coverage but needs clarification on certain points. Postponing our decision will not necessarily delay the project because the clubhouse will first be tented for termites. The Board approved a $10,350 contract with Accurate Pest Control to perform the tenting. It includes a lifetime warranty for re-tenting as long as annual warranty payments of $1,560 are kept up.

Our meeting was notably free of rancor and bickering. It was heartening to see Board members get along and work together so well. Tomorrow will be a good opportunity to celebrate this new spirit of comity. The Village is holding an owner-sponsored International Food Festival this Saturday, June 1 from 5 to 9:30 p.m. in the clubhouse. It’s being billed as an opportunity to meet neighbors and enjoy international foods, live music, dancing and a 50/50 raffle. Neighbors are being invited to bring a dish to share with friends. I look forward to seeing you there!

Replace the clubhouse roof?

The Board of Directors will hold a special meeting this Thursday (May 30 at 7 p.m. in the clubhouse) to consider two clubhouse-related expenditures: replacing the clubhouse roof for up to about $170,000 and tenting the clubhouse for termites at a cost of about $17,000.

It’s an unusual juxtaposition. Obviously, assuming both projects are necessary, we should be doing one at a time, so why are both things being placed on the same agenda? According to termite experts, if a building has a termite problem, it should be fumigated before any roof replacement. So why not take care of that first and then revisit the roof issue after the tenting is done? There was no mention of termite tenting at last week’s meeting of the Projects Committee, which voted to forward a positive recommendation for roof replacement to the Board of Directors. In fact, most committee members were probably not even aware of the issue, and the committee chair did not allow any comments or questions from the audience. (See meeting video here.) Had they known that the clubhouse was due for tenting, perhaps they would have tabled the roof replacement item as they did the issues of tree trimming and speed humps. Committee members’ main argument was that the roof is currently not insured and that hurricane season is coming. But by the time the termite tenting is done, we will already be well into hurricane season, as well as in the heart of the rainy season – not a good time to replace a roof. Besides, even a new roof is often no match for a major hurricane, as we have seen in the past, and then (if, God forbid, we have a hurricane) we would find ourselves having to replace our brand new roof. So wouldn't we be better off waiting until after hurricane season?

Some committee members also mentioned that they were not given the opportunity to examine the three roofing bids before the meeting so they could make a more informed recommendation. They apparently also did not examine the section in Criterium Engineers' report covering the clubhouse roof, which actually appears to describe it as not one roof, but separate roofs. Only the “Office/Indoor Pool roof” is described as poor, with “1 to 3 years remaining useful life.” But the main roof is described as being in “fair condition with approximately 3 to 5 years remaining useful life.” If that’s the case, why are we discussing replacing the roof for the entire clubhouse? With proper repairs, certified by our insurer, I believe we could get several more years out of the roof without having to dip into our limited special assessment account funds. After all, we have only about $400,000 left in the account with several other important projects to address and absolutely no other money in reserves to deal with a tropical storm, hurricane or other unforeseen circumstances. We need to save as much money as possible. To simply rely on imposing yet another special assessment is not fiscally responsible.

Obviously, there are many issues that need to be addressed before we make such a major decision as replacing the clubhouse roof. At a minimum, I hope we can get one or more of the roofers submitting bids to come to our meeting Thursday to answer questions of the Board so we can make as informed a decision as possible.

Spending spree alert

Any unit owners concerned about wasteful spending should attend tonight’s meeting of the Projects Committee. The committee will meet this evening (Wednesday, May 22) at 7 p.m. in the clubhouse to consider up to approximately $255,000 in projects. The committee’s recommendations will then be taken up by the Board of Directors at a special meeting to take place sometime next week.

On the committee’s agenda:

• $175,000 to replace the clubhouse roof
• Up to about $55,000 to trim trees
• About $20,000 to install speed humps throughout the Village
• Approximately $4,000 to reinforce a brick veneer on the exterior wall of the Grenoble building facing the Orleans

At this rate of spending, we will soon run through the entire $400,000 balance in our special assessment account (from the most recent special assessment). Once that happens, watch out!, because then it will be time for another special assessment.

One question unit owners may want to ask is why we would spend $55,000 for tree trimming when it has been less than three years since our last major tree trimming, for which we paid Lawn Logic less than $40,000 in the summer of 2010. Tree trimmings of this type are supposed to last at least five years, and our maintenance crew is more than capable of the minor trimming needed to prepare for hurricane season.  A tour of the Village should satisfy owners that Lawn Logic’s very comprehensive work has held up well. Let’s not hire a contractor at inflated prices for a little trimming around the edges, which our in-house crew can do at no additional cost to the association.

Considering the large number of projects listed in our infamous Engineering Report – for which the last special assessment was supposed to serve as a “down payment” – it's also fiscally irresponsible to spend $20,000 now on speed humps – a project that isn't even listed in the report. A little history lesson may also be in order here, because a number of years ago the Village had speed bumps but they were removed at the request of the fire department because of how they slow down emergency vehicle response times. So why would we spend money to put them back in after we removed them for safety reasons when we have so many elderly residents requiring ambulance transportation during our not infrequent emergency calls?

I also am aware that some alarming emails have gone out about the Grenoble wall. Contrary to the emails’ claims, the two-by-fours that are propped up against the wall are not holding up the wall itself, and the building is not in the slightest danger of falling down. The issue is delamination of the brick veneer, which is a decorative feature, not a structural one. Behind the veneer is a solid concrete wall. Repairs should be done to reinforce the veneer, but I believe the $16,000 estimate provided by Criterium Engineers is inflated.

As for the clubhouse roof, I will listen carefully to the discussion and the reasons given for why patching the roof is not an alternative to full replacement.

Regarding this past Monday's Board meeting of May 20, the video is now posted at the top of my Meeting Videos page. (Due to a technical glitch, a few minutes of the video are missing during our discussion about the laundry rooms.) Highlights (or lowlights) of the meeting included a 46-minute lecture from our association attorney on proper protocol and yet another threat of a lawsuit from an individual who was just paid $56,500 in settlement money by our association's insurance company. The meeting also proved why our Board President Marvin Tow's recent decision to move Good & Welfare to the end of Board meetings was a bad idea, as most of those who had signed up to speak were unable to wait that long, and Mr. Tow didn't even allow Board members to respond to owners' comments or make motions on their suggestions, since the business portion of the meeting was over by that time.

Selective outrage

As those of you who read the notice for tomorrow’s Board of Directors meeting already know, a special guest is set to drop by this Monday night (May 20 at 7 p.m. in the clubhouse). As indicated in the notice, our Association Attorney Dennis Eisinger is scheduled to make a presentation at the start of the meeting. What you may not know is the purpose of his presentation. Perhaps you thought he would be addressing some vital legal matter affecting our lives, finances and properties. Such an assumption would be mistaken. The truth is that our Board President Marvin Tow has invited Mr. Eisinger to lecture Board members and unit owners on how to behave during Board meetings, citing applicable sections of state statutes and our condo docs so the Board can “effectively conduct its business.” Apparently, in Mr. Tow’s view, such a lecture is necessary to address what he considers the “shameful behavior and chaos” that took place at our May 1 special Board meeting to fill a Board vacancy. 

While some unit owners and Board members, including myself, may have raised their voices in the course of the discussion, I hardly think this justifies such an extraordinary visit by our attorney, notwithstanding the fact that he has assured us he won’t be charging us for the visit. (Mr. Eisinger has graciously offered to donate his time free-of-charge in compensation for his recent erroneous legal advice on the issue of installing an automatic door at the Marseilles building, which he had initially told us was required under the Americans with Disabilities Act.) Nevertheless, I’m sure Mr. Eisinger has more important association matters to deal with. Furthermore, we are not little children in need of a scolding, and I doubt Mr. Eisinger relishes the opportunity to be put in the position of some kind of schoolmarm. 

Although I admire Mr. Tow’s extraordinary equanimity and unflappable style, we can’t all be as genteel and imperturbable at all times. And as our President, he should be prepared to expect and deal with occasional displays of passion, particularly when actions taken by the current Board majority cause frustration among other Board members or unit owners. 

Some might even call this a case of selective outrage. Why didn't Mr. Tow invite our attorney to lecture the Board following our March 18 meeting, when one of his allies on the Board said “F--- you” (at 9:43) to another Board member, or after our April 9 Town Hall meeting, during which another one of his confederate Directors engaged in outrageously unruly and insulting  behavior? Clearly, consistency in standards is lacking.

For these reasons, and in order to ensure a more productive meeting free of unnecessary diversions, I hope Mr. Tow will consider withdrawing his invitation to Mr. Eisinger before the meeting takes place. If you agree, feel free to email him and the rest of the Board here.

On another note, a well respected longtime unit owner called me recently to complain about how Good & Welfare was moved to the end of the agenda at our April 15 meeting, despite our long-standing tradition to have it at the beginning. The agenda for this week’s coming meeting also places Good & Welfare at the very end. Since the Good & Welfare portion of the meeting is the only opportunity for unit owners to address any issue of concern, he feels that having it at the end of the meeting denies them the opportunity to influence Board members’ decision-making, because by that time the business portion of the meeting is over and all the votes have already been taken. I believe this unit owner makes an excellent point, and I will make a motion to move Good & Welfare back to the earlier part of the meeting.

Democracy bypassed

Last week, four members of the Board of Directors bypassed the democratic process by substituting their own will for the will of the majority of unit owners. Board President Marvin Tow and Board members Collette Goslin, Marc Richman and Frances Mesirow rejected an offer by a group of unit owners to fund an election to fill the Board vacancy created by the resignation of former Director Sharon Treppicione, deciding instead to appoint their own choice. (You can watch the meeting here.)

I wish our new Board member Sandy Best well, despite the circumstances of her selection, and I hope she will prove to be an independent voice on the Board, not part of a “clique.” I look forward to working with her and invite her to examine the facts as I have since my election. I also hope that she will consult with me and Jerry Mirrow, not just the other four members of the Board.

But while I am cautiously optimistic, the price of liberty from special assessments at International Village is eternal vigilance, and it pays to stay on guard, especially since our Board Treasurer recently sent the Association’s number one legal nemesis an email congratulating him for his past lawsuits against the Village and encouraging him to sue yours truly over my blog (even though the Association would have to bear the cost of defending me in such a case). Marc Richman declined my request to resign over his highly indiscreet “love letter,” but I hope that in the future he will at least take his duties as an Officer seriously enough to take the Village’s side over the side of someone who has made a living off of suing us. After all, isn't the $400,000 we spent last year in legal fees enough, Mr. Treasurer?

Democracy disrespected

Last night, four members of the Board of Directors rejected the democratic process by substituting their will for the will of the majority of unit owners. Board President Marvin Tow and Board members Collette Goslin, Marc Richman and Frances Mesirow ignored an offer by a group of concerned owners to fund an election to fill the recent Board vacancy, choosing instead to appoint their own choice despite the outspoken opposition of many owners in attendance. I will have more to say on this later, but you can watch the proceedings here.