Although over 206 signed petitions were handed in to the Board of Directors prior to the December 8, 2009 board meeting, there has not been any concrete action to indicate that action will be taken to defer decision making on building décor until Unit Owners concerns are addressed concerning having
the option of keeping the present design, controlling costs by only doing necessary maintenance and including the cost impact on condominium fees over the next 5-10 years of Kearns’ proposed changes.
 
We have received numerous inquiries from signers of the petition and other concerned parties regarding the impact of the petition and what should be done now to get the attention of the Board. Some have even suggested that we need to get a lawyer and obtain an injunction to stop the wasting of our money. We are unsure that the petition did much.
 
We suggest that letters be written to the Board of Directors and the Montebello Times (maximum 225) words and due by the 10th of the month expressing your specific concerns. These letters can be emailed to
mcuoa@vacoxmail.com or brought to the office. Include your name and unit number. Recommend you send your own letter/email to the board, and/or the Montebello Times. Speak in first person—in your own words.
 
Concerns and comments we encountered while collecting signatures for the petition and process include the following:
• Like existing design
• Want a choice -- all 3 options were modern, no traditional or keep same
• Concerned with costs
• Concerned with maintenance costs
• Get carpets that don’t show stains so easily
• Master Design Plan plans many unnecessary and costly things
• Already have a nature theme with the embossed leaf wall covering, chair fabric
• Selected Architectural design firm’s concept plan – too modern; doesn’t fit.
• Concerned conservationist: Why replace perfectly good railings, etc., with teak and buy teak furniture when it is an endangered wood only imported from Burma, an oppressive regime? How does wasting endangered natural resources fit into "nature" theme?
• Why use an architectural firm instead of an interior designer unless major renovations planned in contradiction to survey that majority wanted minimal to no changes? Why spend $45,000 with nothing to show for it and another $21,000 for an architect. This could have gone a long way to “refresh” lobbies!
• Board passed two resolutions on 8 December 2009 board meeting regarding design and architect despite petition with over 200 signatures.
• Proponents of the major redo have cited that it will increase the units’ value. It could easily do the reverse with increased condo fees and taxes. Keeping expenses down to provide affordable units would be a bigger draw. Many owners planned on staying at Montebello forever, but if expenses continue to climb may be forced to find more affordable housing, putting another glut of units on the market and lowering prices.
• Realtors advise not to over-improve. Lobbies are not a major factor to buyers.
• Approximately 36% increase in condo fees the last few years, more than inflation.
• The results of the Montebello design survey of residents and the Montebello Times report that more than half rank the lobbies above average. The design co-chairs responded to another owner's inquiry that the
questionnaire did not indicate a major redo. Many owners assumed that the expertise in the design committee would be used to select carpet, colors, and other issues involved with maintenance to include a vote of the owners as has been done in the past. A bait and switch seems to have occurred.
• The only tabulated response of the Montebello survey indicating dissatisfaction was the entrance lock with a 4.8 average.
• Concerned that a few select individuals are making all decisions regarding issues when over 200 people have expressed a desire for a say.
• Doesn’t matter to voice concerns, ignored by Board and staff. It appears that our Board has evolved into group that believes it has dictatorial powers.
• Change not necessary to attract younger buyers—there has been a noticeable increase in youth recent years over the 80s. Besides what’s wrong with present older crowd?
• The combined votes of "20 to do nothing" and "13 to do minimal," in my opinion out weights the "28 to improve the "feel" of the décor." (33 vs.28).
• There are simpler and less expensive ways to improve the appearance of Montebello.
• Why were non-décor items in selected vendor’s concept? Such as security videos and fire dampers? If fire dampers are needed why haven’t they been replaced since they are a safety issue?
• Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to avoid 3rd party contracting and deal directly with suppliers? Especially for large items like carpet?
• Why weren’t interior designers contracted to provide interior designs? Why use an architectural firm who then sub-contracts with an interior designer—if the decision had not already been made to make
architectural changes in spite of many/most owners objection?
• Hate green makes me feel ill. All options are green.
• Unnecessary expenditures of Association funds on high priced "consultants and potential contractors at this early stage is inappropriate, especially in the present state of the economy, and in the face of more urgent needs. While the Board has a certain degree of authority legally, a more democratic means of assessing the opinions of the owners would be written communication since many owners may not be able to attend the open Board meetings at which such matters are ventilated.
• Board should pay back $45,000 for design bids and $21,000 to architect for abrogating their fiduciary obligation to the owners. Interior designers, especially in this economic climate, would submit bids without being paid
•Since we never manage 25 years due to staining, we shouldn’t be installing the very best grade of carpet.
•At last someone is taking steps to control the Board and Management -- They have been overreaching for years and the condo fee increases have been way out of line -- just to satisfy certain Board members and, of course, to keep increasing Manager's salaries. Sales are slow -- why would anyone want to buy now with such high condo fees? The best action is to get rid of the Board and put an entire new Board in, and get a new Manager.
•Board members are concerned with only their own desires and the hell with people who live there.
•The $350,000 cosmetic redesign of the indoor pool was a waste of money and did nothing to raise unit prices. Previous design was far superior and could have been refreshed for a fraction of the money spent.
•Board drove off and fined previous member that did not go along with spending sprees.