Frequently Asked Questions
Updated September 3, 2009
Email your questions or comments to Rick@5100info.com
|
Frequently Asked Questions Updated September 3, 2009 Email your questions or comments to Rick@5100info.com |
| HOME | |
| 1) Why are the windows so hard to open and close? | Our windows were installed 18 years ago in 1990. The sliding windows have a spring and pulley mechanism called a "balance" on the sides that act as a counter-balance to keep the windows from sliding back down when you open them. These mechanisms need occasional maintenance to keep the windows functioning easily and smoothly. The window manufacturer, Traco, recommends that the windows be opened and closed several times once a
month to keep the mechanisms lubricated (not practical in the winter),
that the window jambs (the side channels in which the window slides) be
cleaned with a mild soap solution every six months, and that the window
mechanisms and jambs be cleaned and lubricated with a silicone lubricant
(not oil or WD40), once a year. In the 18 years since the windows
were installed, there has not been a building-wide program to lubricate
the window mechanisms. I lubricate my window balances myself every
few years, when they start sticking. This requires removing the sliding
windows to access the mechanisms, not an easy task because they're heavy
and there's a special procedure to remove them, so I don't recommend you
do it yourself. You can fill out a Service Request form to have our
Maintenance staff lubricate your windows for you. There should be
no charge for doing this (though you may want to wait until Spring or Summer).
If your window screens are torn, damaged, or missing, you should also request
that Maintenance repair the screens for you at no charge. _________________________________________ |
| 2) Can you explain what the new separate assessment notice is about? | I think this is deceptive. Our Bylaws require any operating surplus is
to be used to reduce our assessments in the following year (* see below).
However, our Board refuses to use even a portion of our
annual surpluses to reduce our assessment increases, so they and their
attorney came up with the "separate assessment" concept around
2003 to transfer our operating surplus into reserves rather than reduce
our monthly assessments, even though our reserves are already higher than
required by our reserve study. The operating surplus in 2008 wasmuch higher than the 2008 increase in assessments. This means even if assessments had not increased in 2008, we still would have had a surplus of about $59,569, which could have been used to offset all of the assessment and parking increase in 2009 without cutting back on any expenditures or budgeted reserve funding. The letter we recently received for the 2008 surplus has several inaccuracies. 1. It states the separate assessment won't require "any unit owner having to make any out-of-pocket payments on the separate assessment." Since our Bylaws require this surplus money to be refunded to unit owners in the form of an assessment reduction, this separate assessment does take money out of our pockets, even if we don't have to write a separate check for it. 2. The $150,849 amount of the separate assessment is overstated. The separate assessment amount should be $100,209, which is the actual net operating surplus for 2008 (operating expenses were $99,261 less than budget and operating income was $948 higher than budget). Budgeted and actual capital contributions or expenditures should not be part of the operating surplus calculation, nor part of any "separate assessment." 3. It states "our replacement reserve fund is too low and needs to be replenished." In fact, our reserves are not too low according to our reserve study. At the beginning of 2009, our reserves would be $1.39 million without the separate assessment. According to the new reserve study done in late 2008 (which I believe overstates many of the amounts needed for future replacements, and projects out for 30 years instead of 20 years as was done in the prior study), our reserves should be $1.22 million at the beginning of 2009. So our actual reserves without the separate assessment would be $171,875 higher than recommended by our reserve study at the beginning of 2009 even without this separate assessment. 4. It states that our budgeted reserve funding for 2009 is "at levels lower than prior years and lower than recommended by the last reserve study prepared by Reserve Advisors." In fact, our $298,000 total budgeted reserve funding and interest income for 2009 is higher than last year and only $14,000 (4.5% percent) less than the level recommended by our new reserve study for 2009. So we are not underfunding reserves in 2009 to any degree to justify a large "separate assessment." 4. It states "we do not currently anticipate a significant budget surplus" for 2009. The "separate assessment" notices in prior years all stated the same thing and we had big surpluses each year which were also not used to lower assessments. We will have another large operating surplus in 2009. 5. It states "If this proposal is approved by the Board,..." In fact, the Board has already approved this and the surplus from 2008 was transferred to reserves when the audit was done in March 2009. The Board's approval at the next Board meeting is just a formality which will be approved without discussion. * Bylaws, Section 2d, pages 12 & 13: "Any amount accumulated in excess of the amount required for actual expenses and Reserves shall be credited according to each Unit Owner's percentage of ownership in the Common Elements to the next monthly installments due from Unit Owners under the current year's Annual Budget, until exhausted,...). See Bylaws pdf file. _________________________________________ |
| 3) a. Have you noticed that newly installed tiles on the 2nd floor
of our building are already beginning to deteriorate? |
I think Travertine marble (a type of porous limestone) was a poor choice
for flooring because of its high maintenance requirements, especially for
the second floor which is primarily a utility floor. We're now going to pay
an additional $3,500 per year for maintenance of the new
floor - including the lobby areas. I think the old ceramic tiles
looked fine and were in good condition. The Board and management are looking at various options to fix the
floor. At the February 2008 Board meeting, the Board agreed to look into putting
mats on second floor hallway similar to the mats on the first floor. This was done in June 2008. |
| Back to Top |