Aspen Circle News and Review

The purpose of this blog was, initially, to highlight Board activities and critique actions that I thought warranted criticism.  The Blog was not created just for the sake of criticizing but to point out the actions that were questionable in the hope that the information in the Blog would contribute to making the Board more accountable to the owners.  It was done also, to inform those owners who are unable to make the meetings (particularly the snowbirds).  And to help those who have gone to the meetings and come away not understanding what took place.

I've decided that their is value in opening the Blog up to other activities as well.  Those semi-serious activities that are happening in the Circle, whether Board related or not.

Again, this Board represents only my opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of other owners in the Circle. 

Board Meeting of July 19, 2016

C Roof Contract:

Kimberly, in introducing the 2 contracts up for bid (Martin and Thunderbay), stated that she had talked with Eric, the owner of ThunderBay, about Martin's work.  Eric had told her that, in his experience, he has seen holes (bird pecks??) in the roofs that Martin has done.  Kimberly presented that information to the Board.  Presenting a contractor’s opinion of a competing contractor's work in a supposedly neutral contract review process is not correct and is unethical.  A response to this charge made by Eric was neither obtained from Martin nor presented to the Board. 

The contract proposal by ThunderBay for the C roof was presented simply as a contract proposal for Roof C, not as it is:  a repair contract.  This contract is designed to extend the useful life of the roof (a ten year option), not as a full, new roof as was Martin's proposal (a 20 year option).  This is, in fact, the same repair contract that was presented about a year ago with different warranty and payment  options.   

ThunderBay will not be removing the 3 drains but spraying foam to "elevate the surface as required to reduce the amount of ponding water on the roof surface".  In other words, it is simply dealing with the ponding problem on that roof.  Not removing the drains is significant because the warranty presented by ThunderBay will not cover leaks involving the drains.  We know that a significant number of roof issues that we have had in our buildings, have resulted from drain problems.  In fact, at least 1 of the roof issues that C has experienced since this roof was installed in 2006, was from a drain currently installed on that roof.   Also, there is nothing in the contract language that suggests a greater area will be sprayed which was stated as fact at the meeting.

The Board unanimously approved the ThunderBay contract proposal.

The Martin proposal would have removed the drains, thus eliminating potential problems in the future.  A foam roof alternative should not be rejected out of hand as it has been proven to be a viable and less expensive option for flat roofs - as we know from our own experience with a foam roof on Building B.   

If there was a legitimate problem with the Martin proposal and their work or any contractor, and it is verified (and not based upon a competing contractor’s comment), then simply table the item and get another proposal. 

This is a commentary on the way the contract was presented and the facts that were glossed over to arrive at the decision that was made.  If the Board Members were legitimately aware that they had approved a repair option for C roof, then so be it.  The problem is that there was no airing of the issues involved in this contract before the vote.  There was absolutely no discussion by the Board Members, of the contract prior to the vote.  The details of the contract were not presented to the rest of the Board and definitely not to the audience. This is not a process that should be generally followed when bidding proposals are up for approval!

Props to the Board for getting a reduced Maintenance Agreement with ThunderBay saving the Association $1,200 yearly.

Water Intrusion Issues: 

The President reported that there are issues with cracks/chips in the paint of some of the buildings leading to water intrusion issues in a couple of units.  I understand that she was referring to the units of 104, 105, 110 and 113.  The management answer to preventing the water intrusion issue is to waterproof the buildings by a new paint job with a product from a contractor that would prevent water intrusion due to chips and cracks in the exterior.  The paint job would cost $16,000 per building and, with six buildings, I understand that we are talking about a total of somewhere above $60,000.

Now I am aware of the issues with 113, a legitimate crack/chip problem that dates back to 2014. The reason for the large expense associated with repairing that unit is due to the leak not properly diagnosed in 2014, allowing mold and mildew to build up until the problem became very severe.   

However, the problems in 104, 105 and 110, as far as I know, are not due to chips and cracks in the exterior paint; but are issues related to water coming into the unit from under the slab.  So, in 10 years since the last paint job, we have had issues with 3 units  with water intrusion difficulties due to cracks and chips (I would add 116 and 216 to that list since they had unexplained water intrusions last year) and only 1 has been verified!

Now $60,000 is a lot of money to spend for the possibility (not probability) that there may be more water intrusions in the future related to cracks and chips.  

To paint all of our buildings for the possibility of the protection it would provide for a couple of units, does not seem to be cost effective.  We are scheduled for a paint job in another 10 years.  Why not see what happens and make repairs as they come up instead of panicking about the possibility that one or more units may suffer water intrusions.  Fix the water intrusions as they happen, and do it very quickly.  The leaks resulting from cracks and chips are small, not of a gushing nature and easily repaired when found quickly.  The Association is now aware of the problem and, if any unit experiences water intrusion due to the cracks and chips, then fix it!  

We should take a wait and see approach.  Handle each issue as it presents itself, and budget for the extreme paint job when it is due (in 10 more years). If this problem continues and rises to the level of epidemic proportions, then proceed with the drastic action that is currently being proposed but not before!

Foreclosure - 214

In March of this year, Ms. Hathorn admitted to the fact that her assistant had failed to file the paperwork necessary to process the foreclosure on Unit 214.  Further, she indicated that she was holding back on processing the foreclosure in lieu of a payment plan that she had received from the owner.  This information was reported at the March 2016 Board Meeting.  At that meeting, I resigned due to health issues and informed Ms. Hathorn that Kimberly would now serve as her contact person for the Association.

In May, another Board Meeting was scheduled and, per the minutes of the Meeting, no mention of the Unit 214 foreclosure was made.  Now, in late July, we find that there was again a delay of filing, again due to a possible payment plan.  Four months after our attorney was scheduled to file the foreclosure paperwork, and still that paperwork had not been filed!  A motion was made and approved by the Board that Ms. Hathorn be told to file the foreclosure within 2 weeks.

So the questions are:  What happened between March and July that resulted in the delay of filing?  We have been told that the holdup was the supposed payment plan but that can't be all that has occurred in that time span.  Who has been monitoring the foreclosure process during this period?  Why wasn't this delay reported to the owners in the May Board Meeting?

Obviously, this delay has caused some serious problems for the Association, particularly in the financial area.  Hopefully, the latest Board motion to file within 2 weeks has been accomplished by Ms. Hathorn.  And, hopefully, our management is now monitoring the situation so that we can finally move forward in the process!