Letter to the Montebello Board of Director's, and to Montebello Times:

Residents are continuously encouraged by the Board to “get involved” and make their views known.

Prior to soliciting bids from for cosmetic renovation designs, a survey and questionnaire of residents was conducted. The results flawed as they may be, showed that there was no real interest in major cosmetic changes to the public areas.

These survey results were ignored and $45,000 was paid to the three architectural firms for phased major cosmetic design concept schemes.

Then, 206 petitioners requested the board  “. . . defer decision making on building décor changes until a valid survey . . . is completed” to determine a majority preference and associated costs.

Instead, decisions were made to select an architectural firm’s concept (vice an interior designer) indicating major changes are planned for a scheme that would eventually cost over $4 million to fully implement. An immediate $21,000 was appropriated for an architect. A color scheme was chosen that will conflict with present décor colors requiring additional unnecessary expenditures.

These expenditures and decisions appear to be part of a piece-meal process to avoid the needed owners’ concurrence to finance major changes.

The survey participants and the 206 petitioners made their views known and were ignored. What do owners have to do to have the Board act on behalf of the majority rather than the strategically positioned few?

Signed

Letter to Editor,

            I agree with Montebello’s Board of Directors (BOD), our lobbies are dated.  Although I have concerns how this will affect our rising condo fees, especially with the elevator capital improvements.  Presently our fees are less than the comparable Condo Associations in the area.  I would like to keep it that way but recently we’ve had a 36% increase in condo fees (more than inflation), this I do not like. In regards to cost why did the BOD choose an Architectural Design firm?  Are they considering a major redo (i.e. knocking down walls, replacing railings, wall coverings etc.) verses updating common areas (i.e. painting, carpeting and maybe some lighting, furniture, wall hangings).  I can only assume Architectural Design Firms’ cost to be higher then an Interior Designer?  I am confident an Interior Designer could update our common spaces with new lighting, carpet, paint and wall hangings.  These changes would be just as aesthetically pleasing as an Architectural Design Firm that knocks down walls and installs new railings etc. It is not a given either choice will increase our property value on resale. The BOD has already spent $66,000 of our Association’s money with nothing to show for it.   This could have gone a long way to “refresh” lobbies.   As an owner I would appreciate a response to my justified concerns.