This is a blog of concerned Montebello owners regarding decor and expenditures. (Of course, we have no official association with the Association or Board; we're just owners or residents--we're the ones that pay condo fees.) (Sorry that this site is not set up better; just trying to get the info out)

Note: The term "petitioners" was affectionately coined by the Board in reference to a few people, it clearly does not apply to ALL that signed any or all petitions. In fact,  this initial small select group does not agree with everything mentioned here. There are many conflicting, opposing, and divergent viewpoints represented in this blog.
KEEP SCROLLING DOWN--THIS IS VERY LONG!

September 22, 2010

Thanks Joan: I've expressed my concerns on the form. I'm concerned also about the colors. The yellow tones of the paint are not even in the same color family as the carpet fibers. It is hard to believe that $18,800 was allocated for these designs. Owners deserve better for this outrageous expenditure. A top of the line interior designer could have done better for a tiny fraction of what has been spent--not to mention the time involved.

Gail
 

Ooops: Forget to mention that the $18,800 is IN ADDITION to the $15,000 already paid to this firm for their concept design that included carpet and wall colors (that bombed). So we've paid TWICE!!! This is the same group that brought us the canopy designs fiasco--resulting in approximately doubling the budgeted cost to replace the canopy that was damaged. ($44,000 approx. versus $22,000 approx.)! Not to mention the 5.5% condo fee increase in an environment of recession when folks have had their pensions, Social Security, and salaries frozen -- with increases in health care insurance, etc.!


Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:28:23 -0800
From: burgj@verizon.net
Subject: Montebello Hallway Design
CC: burgj@verizon.net

 
I hope you have had a chance to see the proposed hallway carpet and wall designs either on the web or at the community center and had a chance to make your comments.  The comments are due NLT Friday Nov 26. FYI below is my input. Please encourage your neighbors to comment if they wish. Thanks.
Joan Burg

Comment on Hallways and Carpet- General: I was very disappointed with the options presented and liked none of them. All options predominantly have the same drab and boring muted earth tones of varying hues of gray, brown, and beige/ochre and have no pizzazz.  Please replace drab earth tone palettes in the carpet and throughout the design with palettes of brighter COLORS of nature in spring and summer or at least early fall when brighter vibrant colors of nature abound. Perk up the doors, walls and trim with nature’s brighter vibrant colors and not the dead looking off-white, beige, sand, or gray colors that are shown.  All options appear to replicate very late autumn after trees have lost their leaves, or winter with little color, or an asphalt road that is not nature.  Also the options were very similar in design and feel. They all look like impersonal hotel lobbies and hallways with no residential feel.  I strongly request the décor committee go back for a redo of the designs and come back to the residents with several new options or at least variations of the existing options that contain more COLOR prior to proceeding with any contracts, etc.  I request that the Board delay the contracts and let residents have a further say in this costly project prior to proceeding with further financial commitments.  

 

Comment on Solution “A”:  Second best of the three. I do not like the dark gray border and think the carpet design is very busy and it needs brighter vibrant colors to replace the drab browns, beiges, etc. The design is predominantly beige/drab gray & brown.  I do not like the color of the door and bland wall and trim colors and ask to replace these with vibrant brighter colors.   Bring spring/summer with its colorful flowers, leaves, blue sky or azure color of water into the building and not the drab colors shown.

 

Comment on Solution “B”:  The best of the three if I must select one, but only if muted colors are replaced with brighter colors of nature (see my general comments) in the carpet & the use of paler tones on the walls, trim and deeper hues of the brighter colors on the doors.  I dislike the light beige colors for the wall/trim & the ochre door.  Liven up this drab design with more vibrant colors & use spring/summer with its colorful flowers, leaves, blue sky or azure color of water and not the drab colors shown.

 

Comments on Solution “C”:   Worst of the three options with no deeming features.  The idea that the asphalt road going up the Montebello hill with its yellow center-line is a feature of “nature” is ludicrous and replicating it in the carpet design is even more ludicrous.  I totally dislike the design and color of the carpet and gray door because it is gray and boring. Put in brighter colors of nature, not the muted palette presented for this option for the carpet/walls/etc.  This is dark & uninteresting.

 

 

September 7, 2010

Board of Directors
This letter is in reference to the Design and Decor Town Hall meeting tonight which I will be unable to attend but I would like my concerns noted.   I too am adamant we need upgrades to enhance the community but also we must stay within the budget and complete the long overdue maintenance items.    So with this in mind I've listed my concerns in order of importance.
1.  Upgrades to Lobbies and B1-B3 levels to include paint and flooring and minimal furniture
          -  No structural changes to lobbies, locker rooms, B1-3 levels i.e. removing or putting up walls.  Stop giving Kearns money 
             for concept designs
          - Minimal lighting changes to lobbies/B levels (removing drapes/maybe track lighting) keep brass chandeliers
          - Keep leaf wall paper -(guaranteed to last 30 yrs at least that is what they told us 11 yrs ago when we had the last face lift)
2.  Elevator Cabs-energy efficient (lightweight material construction)/easy to maintain (scratch proof)
3.  Long overdue maintenance items should be completed before we consider structural/design changes in the workout/locker rooms
          - Upgrade equipment only at this time in this economy
3.  Minimize/standardize signage
    Go PAPERLESS-remove bulletin boards, communicate strictly through internet
           - Purchase 1 computer for community center (with access to Montebello web site only) for residents who do not have internet access   
              or for residents who choose not to be included on the list server
          - Electronic Bulletin Board-is outmoded source of communication/looks tacky-do not purchase
Thank you for considering  my concerns.
Peg Wesbecher 2-210
 

Excerpt of committee minutes:

New Business:

[Mrs. Kennett asked to be excused from remainder of meeting.]

August 10, 2010

Myth buster: Certain members of the Board have painted a picture of there being a large group (to include some petitioners) that are against spending any money at all--that is clearly untrue. In fact, after talking to hundreds of owners we didn't find one person that did not want to spend money on needed maintenance--there was actually great concern that needed maintenance was not being done. Apparently, there is a huge list of things that need repair/replacement. Everyone was in agreement that all these issues need to be done and many objected to the money to be and being spent on "esthetics" was taking away from needed maintenance. I have heard that there may be one or two people that don't want to spend money on maintenance; but have never run in to them or has anyone ever said that to me and I have no names.

Unclear why the Board is leaning towards approving Doggie Dip (27 dogs participating) when over 60 owners/residents have objected via a petition.

August 3, 2010

BoD

Let me preface this question by saying I am neither in favor of the Kmart nor the Neiman Marcus approach to design and décor, I am in the middle of the two extremes.  I understand the use of a professional consultant (Kearns) who provides the technical specifications and oversight of the project but what I do not understand is why we are paying them 10% of the project cost.  According to the BoD documents and the F&B documents our elevator consultant cost is less than 5% of the total elevator project cost.  In regards to Kearns why are we paying them $18,000.00 in consultant fees for a project that cost $177,000.00.  By my calculations that is approximately 10% of the project cost.  Also, Kearns is not providing a new spec in carpet and paint for each floor of each building (15 floors times’ four blds).  Kearns is providing one spec and one carpet and paint selection for all 15 floors of all four buildings.  Kearns consultant fee in comparison to the elevator consultant fee appears high to me, am I missing something?

 Respectfully,

Peg Wesbecher 2-210

 

August 2, 2010

click for printable page

ATTENTION: RESIDENTS AND OUTDOOR POOL USERS    dogdip82

 

   The Activities Committee and Pet Club have proposed a dog swim (“doggie dip”) in the Outdoor Pool on the evening of Monday, Sept. 6 (Labor Day).  It may be held either from 7:30-8:30 pm (closing the pool to resident swimming one hour early) or from 8:30-9:30 pm (when barking noise may disturb residents).  Although this is against Montebello’s Rules and Regulations (#4-G-2 prohibiting animals in/near our swimming pool), frowned upon by the Fairfax County Health Department (and against Fairfax County Health Code 69.1-1-15 prohibiting animals near or in condominiums’ outdoor pools when pools are open), our Board of Directors is currently leaning 5-4 in favor of approving this event at its next Board meeting on Aug. 10.  If the Board approves this, it would make an unusual selective exception to our Rules and ignore the 60+ residents/outdoor pool users who have already signed a petition opposing this event. 

   Some other Virginia condos have previously held such events at their outdoor pools, with mixed results.  Also, there are already official County-sponsored dog swims nearby in Arlington County and at Ford’s Landing at the Potomac River, where the dogs could go for a swim.  Or this event could be held jointly at a nearby facility where it is allowed.

   The Pet Club claims this will be “fun” for pets to swim in chlorinated water.  At the event, dogs would be able to somehow enter and swim freely in the outdoor pool, but pet owners would not be allowed to enter the pool at any time, even to save their pets from potential injury/drowning.  Lifeguards need to be present and compensated accordingly.  The pool water would still be drained and the pool completely cleaned next spring.  However, potential health and safety hazards, as well as potential pool/pool deck damage and risks to those with pet allergies, are of critical concern to residents who use the pool.

   If you oppose this and want the Board to vote NO on this proposed activity at its

Aug. 10 meeting, please complete below and drop off at the Front Desk, Attn: Board of Directors.  Or you may email your comments to the Board at mcuoa@vacoxmail.com

 

________________________________                    ____________________

NAME                                                                         BLDG/UNIT NUMBER

 

COMMENTS:

 

A word on process: The recent "debate" on the doggie dip appears to have ignited the usual animosity directed at the opponents. This is all so unnecessary. Whether you like dogs or not is really irrelevant and has no bearing on the issue. Code is based on law per Wikopedia and owners should NOT have to get involved in these issues. The Board should have referred to the code that is on the web and simply told the Doggie Dip folks to get an "exception to the law" in writing. Anyone can say anything but just ask someone from Fairfax County to issue an exception to the law in writing. If Montebello had an exception already from Fairfax County in writing, then the issue could be debated. From what I heard it was a VERBAL ok, and that's what the Board is going with.

Fairfax County Code (posted on the web for all to see)  http://library1.municode.com/default-now/home.htm?infobase=10051&doc_action=whatsnew

Section 69.1-1-15.  Animals.

No animal shall be permitted within any water recreation facility; provided, however, this section shall not apply to support animals that provide assistance to the physically challenged. Support animals that provide such assistance shall not enter the pool water. (28-01-69.1; 5-05-69.1.) 

Some folks want to say that this does not apply to condos. I see no exceptions for dog dips at condos in code. See following: 

Section 69.1-1-4.  Scope.

This Ordinance shall apply to all water recreation facilities intended for recreational use only and not for competitive swimming or competitive diving, as indicated and herein defined. Facilities constructed for competitive swimming or competitive diving shall meet the requirements set forth by this Ordinance and/or by the Director and/or the applicable FINA Standards. This Ordinance applies only to public pools and does not apply to residential pools serving a single family residence. Swimming pool facilities, spa pool facilities, and waterpark facilities for which building permits are issued subsequent to the effective date of this Ordinance shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the VUSBC, the National Electrical Code, OSHA, the Fairfax County electrical, fire prevention, plumbing, and zoning ordinances, and this Ordinance. Whenever any provision of any state code, other County Code, manufacturer's specification or recommendation, or industry standard imposes a greater requirement or a higher standard than is required under this ordinance, compliance with the provision of such state code, other County Code, manufacturer's specification or recommendation, or industry standards shall be required. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be held to preclude compliance with the applicable provisions of these codes, standards, specifications and recommendations. (28-01-69.1; 5-05-69.1.)
 

What really needs to be attended to is how much money is being thrown away on decor issues. The tally so far is around $50,000: $15,000 for Kearns' "proposal" which included their carpet selection. Now it appears that the decor committee wants to pay the same firm more money AGAIN for their carpet selection--the same one or another one??? If no one liked their initial one why are we paying for another one???! Plus, for the elevators the lower levels, etc. etc. WE paid around $4,600 for their canopy pictures, and who knows how much for the rest. So that boils down to nearly $20,000 to Kearns for NOTHING!!! What have we got from them?????? Then add the additional $30,000 to the other two architect firms for their bids. So that's around $50,000 FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!! That's your money. That's worth getting upset about!!! And more proposals to WASTE more money and basic maintenance/equipment replacement is not being performed--(one example: the Jacuzzi) . . . will it ever end?
 

Doggie Dip Update July 13 doggie dip(click)NEW PETITION Petition can be printed for collecting signatures

What did you get for your $45,000?
 for concept designs, and now another $5,000???


Renovation/Maintenance
Kearns Proposal Montebello's Decor Survey  Elevator Cab Cosmetic Redo
Interior Designer vs Architect Costs for an architect How to select a designer
Fiduciary responsibility Assessments Solar canopies
Petitioners Survey LETTERS TO THE EDITOR http://www.montebelloinfo.org/design/page810.html
petition Tomi Harmon letters to the editor Transparency/Montebello Web Site
bathroom flood    

Saturday July 10, 2010

Apparently, nearly $3,500 of your money went to architects for designs for pool canopies--this does not include the approx. $1,400 (or was it $1,600) for the temporary canopy that has been such a hit this summer--and does not include the cost for the permanent canopy whenever that happens-apparently next year--and who knows at WHAT cost; the $22,000 budgeted has clearly been exceeded in any event. Not to mention the inconvenience to the outdoor pool regulars (what do they need shade for anyway?)
 
Now the architects are going to be involved with the selection of carpeting, elevator interiors, and whatever else the "decor" committee can think of. Should be noted that we have in-house design talent as well as, I'm told, a talented individual with connections to the carpet mills, who's able and willing to lend her expertise and connections to get a really great deal for Montebello on carpeting. Why do architects need to be involved? I guess they must need the money.
 
The going rate for these paid consultations (to architects) is 10-15%. (Clearly not the architects fault--hey, if someone is willing to throw money at you, why not catch it?) The estimated cost per building is $277,000 or $1,108,000 for "renovating" 4 buildings. Ten percent of that is $110,800. Fifteen percent is $166,200. That money could go a long way to making some real improvements; besides the prices appearing to be inflated.
 
It should be noted that elevator cab interiors are pre-fabricated and surely our in-house design talent could make a worthy selection--although, the point should be made that NEW interiors are actually an UPGRADE {even if inferior quality} and do require a vote from the owners as cost clearly exceeds the $70,000 the Board is authorized to spend (without owner approval) (as well as the Board's explanation in the Montebello Times in response to petitioners' concerns regarding the expensive lobby redo: that the cosmetic redo of the lobbies would require voter approval {it therefore, follows that the replacement of the interiors of the elevators is also cosmetic and not a maintenance issue and exceeds the $70,000 something limit, therefore, would fall into the same category)--not that that means anything around here. Elevator cab companies do provide renovation of present interiors for a fraction of new interiors--but that might not cost enough. See: http://galinka.com/Montebel/elevatorcabs.htm  Again, it should be noted that Kearns' "estimates" for interior cab redo was 2-3 times the going rate; but heck, it's a recession, these people need money; who can't afford to waste more money?
 
Signed:
A concerned petitioner

postscript: Over-budget then come under--then brag about how fiscally responsible--does anyone still buy this? Oh, the ongoing mantra of raising property values--who still buys in to this argument? Just raises taxes, if indeed, this argument holds water. Bottom line is we're in a recession. Montebello has held its value exceedingly well all things considered. AND, anyone who's worked in the design field can tell you that there is NO accounting for taste. No matter what design, color, whatever, there are those that won't like it. There is never consensus when it comes to design or color. Just a fact of life.

Saturday June 26, 2010

THERE ARE MANY REAL ISSUES THAT MONTEBELLIANS need to deal with instead of these continual initiatives to waste your money--and the waste of time for owners to have to continually monitor what's going on with their money, attend meetings, listening to long-drawn out explanations to justify money dumping on nonsense.  For one, how about trying to SAVE money? What a concept!!! Or how about trying to make this place less toxic? Get rid of harsh cleaning chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, etc. We've got the expertise here to help. I know too many people at Montebello with real health issues due to the chemicals.

And to get more energy-efficient. Get rid of those incandescent light bulbs in the zillion lamps in each lobby. Replace with energy-efficient ones.  Get rid of the excessive chotzkis and plants all over the place, for those that want a less cluttered environment. Get rid of the horrible chewed-up fake and real plants at the indoor pool. Really creepy. Many condo associations are having meetings and brainstorming sessions with owners to find ways to save money in this recession. Not here. It's who can think of a way to divert some money to Kearns?

ADDITIONAL CANOPY COMMENTS: During the Board meeting, residents made it more than clear that they just want a basic replacement of the previous one-large-canopy--and they gave compelling reasons; not that that means much to certain Board members. Besides the exorbitant price for PRE-FABRICATED six little rectangular canopies--check out the prices only for these pre-fabs (cheap compared to Kearns--but then again, you're not paying for architectural drawings of the canopy and for architects.) Another way-weird comment by a committee presenter that the purpose of the canopy was to keep food from contaminating the pool. HUH????? Sure, corporate America has done a good job of contaminating our food source, but it's really not that dangerous to swim in it. The BIG reason is to keep the bugs and flying insects contained in ONE area (not six!!!); especially due to the exposed flesh tempting the stinging insects; especially to those with allergies and the little ones. (How hard is that?)

 And, of course, the never-ending mantra of how these wacked-out 6 canopies are going to raise owners' equity. Ok, let me understand this; replace a perfectly functional pool element with an inadequate one and that's going to raise owners' equity; Oh, don't forget to pay too much for this next to useless replacement at the same time. Don't certain Board members realize that owners are getting tired of these crack-pot schemes to waste owners money? Heard countless disparaging remarks since the meeting regarding the non-stop attempts at money-wasting. . . and while maintenance issues are ignored . . . .

Per the presenter the decor committee was tasked by the Board to have Kearns come up with different options than the previous canopy. Why? Just to give Kearns something to do? Before, deciding on an "upgrade" should a little research take place like, having a reason; other than spend money? Talk to some pool regulars? Understand the issue?

GENERAL POOL COMMENTS: Seems the issue of closing down the pools prematurely and too long (particularly the indoor pool) is on again. Same issue came up a couple years ago resulting in a petition signed by 61 mostly indoor pool users--to no avail, of course; hence, issues raises its ugly head again. It would be so easy for the staff and Board to deal with issues as the come up rather than blowing them off. THE ISSUES JUST KEEP COMING UP AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL RESOLVED. Fairfax County and the standard is 30 minutes after lightning. The National Weather Service can provide REAL info regarding lightning and advise if and when to close outdoor pool. That's what Fairfax County pool system does, and most large experienced pool companies. This issue came up a few years ago with frequent unnecessary closing of  Montebello's indoor pool--and longer than necessary of outdoor pool {45 minutes versus 30} Fairfax County does not close their indoor pools with thunder and rarely for any reason. Call their chief pool person and check for yourself. I talked to them all. They did a survey and there's no recorded incident anywhere of any issue regarding an indoor pool and lightning in the history of record-keeping. More dangerous to talk on the phone while lightning. The "excuse" of the glass windows of the indoor pool didn't close down the Montebello bar, which has the same glass windows. Gotta have your priorities in order.

Did notice the Jacuzzi particularly scuzzy, foamy, and cloudy lately. YUCK! Guard didn't know about "Foam-Out"; had to show him bottle. Think it was a language problem as well.

Letter to the Editor

Pool Canopy verses Six Pool Awnings

I believe Kearns pool proposal for six awnings instead of what we had previously (a singular pool canopy) is absolutely wrong for our community for three reasons.  The first reason is design.  Remember this is a community and now with six awnings on the pool deck it fractures this sense of community.  We will no longer have the community together to picnic under one roof but now scattered about staking out their awning for the day.  The second reason is maintenance.  Just because Kearns gives us an Assembly Manuel, CD and installation tool all alluding the installation takes eight hours only.  Are we supposed to take this as gospel?  Is that one awning and eight hours or six awnings at eight hours each?  I think that is why we left the circular canopy up after the summer season it was labor intensive to disassemble.  Also, one resident stated at the Montebello Board Meeting (June 22nd) the awning panels are very durable but the threads used to stitch the panels together are not – they break and need replacement before the panels.  The final reason is cost.  Why in the time of recession is the Board even considering approving a new design for an amenity that is used only for three months out of the year and is over budgeted by $24,875?  Just get a pool company in to give us a singular canopy like before and get Kearns an architectural firm out of the way!

Peg Wesbecher 2-210

Tuesday June 22, 2010

There has been a huge response from residents regarding the proposed canopy. Everyone just wants a replacement--not the proposed smaller 3 (actually 6!!!) rectangular canopies in brown and beige. It should be noted that beige and brown are very tricky to match--they must be from the same color family, otherwise looks terrible; with different materials difficult or impossible to do. Plus brown is too dark to be used outside (absorbs heat faster, fades faster, etc.) The overall consensus is to get up a REPLACEMENT like the previous one with same colors to match the rest. Justifiable concern for health issues--parents concerned about UV exposure to the little ones, who are most vulnerable. Residents want a like replacement up this summer. WHAT EXPERIENCE DOES KEARNS HAVE IN CANOPIES??? Looks like NONE. But they're doing a good job of wasting your money. One renter suggested getting legal counsel to ensure that residents get a say in how their money is spent.

Sunday June 20, 2010

Despite the majority of votes for a new Board member that advocates prudent fiscal responsibility while providing proper maintenance, attempts to money splurge continue.
 
Why are Board members involved with proposing pool canopies more than double the budgeted amount when pool regulars just want a replacement canopy?
 
Pool users have requested that the pool stay open an additional week--at a reported cost of $3,000. The Board delayed decision based on financial considerations. Then, how can a canopy over-budget by around $26,000 be proposed by a Board member(s)?
 
Flyers were distributed earlier stating that around $22,000 has been budgeted to purchase the pool canopy indicating that this was going to happen. Why now has the figure risen to around $46,000 for canopies that no one seems to want except some Board members?
 
What is the amount of money paid to Kearns for the canopy proposals? 
 
Why are Board members proposing to go over-budget on the canopy, when it's possible to get most things in the building industry way under-budget due to the recession?
 
Why is the proposed over budget canopy scheme--involving 3 smaller rectangles (instead of one large circular one as in the past) in a new color scheme (sand and brown)? Is this to justify more expenditures and money to Kearns to color-coordinate the new color scheme in the future?
Since the colors are brown and sand and the info states that chairs and umbrellas will be changed out over the routine change out schedule, what is the scheduled change out and how long will we be having the two sets of colors.  Why not keep the same color scheme?  It is bright and cheerful and looks great!
 
There is much needed maintenance at both the indoor and outdoor pools; most dramatic example is the Jacuzzi that is constantly broke--a contractor has stated that one issue is that the pipes are too narrow resulting in the motor being over-worked (hence so loud)--as well as very weak jets. Management has also stated there are functional design problems that inhibit jet function due to air-intake if more than 2 or 3 people use it--although capacity is for 10. The Jacuzzi is way beyond it's life-cycle, yet no plans to replace it or make major repairs to avoid a total melt-down and extended loss of use to owners.
 
Watch for the next money drain to Kearns on the elevator interior kits. Note, that Kearns estimated 2-3 times a logical cost (refer to: http://galinka.com/Montebel/elevatorcabs.htm). Why on earth would an architectural firm be involved with selecting a pre-fab elevator cab interior kit?  How hard is that? Oh, I forgot, the normal cost for these "consultations" is 10-15% of the total. Plus, "whatever" else.
 
Signed:
Some petitioners

15 June 2010: Update on Pool Canopy:

Letter to the Montebello Times:

Montebello Board,

I attended the Décor/Design Committee meeting on 14 Jun 2010.  I am appreciative of the committee’s work and their consideration of cost.  They discussed possible wholesale purchase of carpeting which is very responsive to owners concern for maintaining cost.  What does concern me is Kearns proposal for the pool canopy or multiple canopies; as they proposed three canopies to be exact.  Besides being costly I think their design will clutter up the limited space in the pool area.  That is just one of the issues I see as a problem in their design.   My question is why we gave them money for a new design in the first place?  Why can’t we stay with the classic circular single canopy?  It looks nice; it keeps pool users who eat and drink confined to one area (as opposed to 3 different areas) and leaves space for sunning pool users.  Again why is it so necessary to spend money for new designs? I can see spending money to update (including sturdier material and easier assemblage) but why are we using an architectural firm to design pool canopies.  Kearns seems such a waste of money.  (signed)

It has been reported that the cost of the canopy now is going up to around $48,000 for a proposed 3 rectangular canopies. This is an upgrade not replacement. This, of course, would mean MORE money to Kearns. Why are upgrades, by those that don't even use the pool, being considered when maintenance issues are being ignored? Design-wise the introduction of rectangular canopies does not even fit the curves of the pool's overall theme. The previous canopy was GREAT and fit in with the other elements. Why couldn't it have just been replaced? Why this money dump? Why has Kearn's already got about $2600? Why was there no answer when this question was asked at the last Board meeting? Why was the "answer" put off to 22 Jun? The money has been spent or it hasn't. How hard is it to reply to those whose money it is?

Instead of wasting money on non-essentials that the pool crowd doesn't even care about or need--why not do required repair and replacement of functional elements? The Jacuzzi is on its last legs. It's constantly broke, and clearly has far exceeded its normal life-cycle. The DESIGN is fine, it's the functionality that's shot. The water pressure of the jets is very weak, and many jets are broke and have been broke for years. There is only one relatively strong jet that the omni-directional attachment still works--when it doesn't fall off. It is easy to tell which one it is because there's a huge black grease spot/stain on the edge of the Jacuzzi where everyone sits to use that ONE functional (sort of) jet. One of my guests couldn't understand why the jets are all rigidly pointed at one's posterior. Normally, in a Jacuzzi, they are at different heights so that one could benefit from the massaging effect on back or shoulders. Forget it at Montebello. Plus, there's the issue that the Jacuzzi can't accommodate more than 2 or 3 people at a time as the water level goes so high that it covers the air intake valves and the pressure goes down. This issue has generated 100s of complaints in the past to no avail. Response from staff, is that it's a functional design flaw. Let's get this fixed!

 GET RID OF KEARNS! WE DON'T NEED ARCHITECTS! GIVE UP THE UPGRADES THAT NO ONE WANTS AND ADD NO VALUE! STOP WASTING MONEY ON NONSENSE! REPAIR AND REPLACE WHAT WE HAVE, BEFORE WASTING TIME AND MONEY ON NON-ESSENTIALS THAT ONLY LINE CONTRACTORS POCKETS! THESE REPAIRS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE MADE SOONER OR LATER -- WHY WAIT UNTIL IT'S A SUPER-MESS AND EVERYONE IS INCONVENIENCED?

Spontaneous Discussion at outdoor pool on 15 Jun: Several pool regulars joined in a private discussion regarding the delay and money drain for permanent canopy(ies) and expressed severe disapproval of proposed price increase for the canopy(ies) and overall disapproval of the temporary canopy. Consensus is that temp. canopy is useless as a sun-shield as it's full of holes. Everyone just wanted a replacement just like the other one: it fit the decor, was attractive, and served the purpose. Why is this so complicated? Why the constant nonsensical brainstorming looking for ways to waste owners money to give to Kearns? Inquiring minds want to know.

The Activities Committee is proposing a Doggie Dip for the last hour the outdoor pool is open on Labor Day, from 7:30-8:30 pm. The Board needs to hear from other outdoor pool enthusiasts to get their views on this proposed activity.
 

On another note, if anyone witnessed a Green Toyoto Echo behind building 3 near the B2 entrance being hit while parked there, please let me know. I have about a 3 foot by 6 inch dent and scrape on the side of my car while it was parked on Thursday, May 13, 2010. There was no note, insurance info or anything. Probably about $1,000 damage. It's just amazing how many scratches, dings, and now major damage have happened to my little car while parked at Montebello. I've parked in DC and Maryland for years while working and nothing. Accidents happen, but at least the person that hit my car could have left their name or insurance info. Now, I have to foot the bill for someone else's carelessness. Whatever happened to being a good neighbor?

CONGRATULATIONS TO HARRIET HUGHES FOR RECEIVING THE MOST VOTES FOR
 ELECTION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS!!!

This is clearly a mandate for those that objected to the money drain that's been going on. It needs to stop. Now. Read the RFP--there is no contractual obligation to continue ("we make no commitment regarding implementing any aspect of the Concept Designs") throwing money at architects. We have no desire or need for architects, especially for replacement items. Specifically, recently, we've wasted more money on the pool canopy with this firm as well as creating a delay in the replacement canopy (not ready for this year's outdoor pool season) as well as necessitating another expenditure for a temporary canopy. Sure, uses can be found for it after the fact, but it's a real pain to put up according to the staff--do we really need to be creating more work for them and spending money on stuff that's not been planned for or really needed? Now, is not the time to not get involved more!

The old canopy was fine (but broke due to snow)--something similar would be fine. There is little to debate. The pool has a color scheme of yellow and white furniture with blue tiles in pool. The old canopy was yellow and white--the new one should be as well; what's the point of this huge delay and additional needless expenditures?

It's easy to say how fiscally responsible the Board is and wax eloquently on how wonderful things are managed; but actions speak louder than words. Looks like business as usual.

Links:
What did you get for your $45,000? for concept designs, and now another $5,000???
Renovation/Maintenance
Kearns Proposal
Montebello's Decor Survey   

 from Loretta Ratkus Click for message

from Nina Kuch Click for message
Carole Hall -- Write-in Candidate:
See below

Elevator Cab Cosmetic Redo
Interior Designer vs Architect
Costs for an architect
How to select a designer
Fiduciary responsibility
Assessments
Solar canopies
Petitioners Survey
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
http://www.montebelloinfo.org/design/page810.html
petition
Tomi Harmon letters to the editor
Transparency/Montebello Web Site

I hope you will vote for Harriet Hughes for the Montebello Board. I know
she will support what the majority of the residents want. She believes in
determining the residents' desires by surveys and voting on options. She
has great leadership skills and lots of experience that is relevant to
Montebello's needs. She was a leader in getting our petition drafted and
circulated as well as our survey. She believes in maintaining Montebello
but not blowing money on unnecessary plans that are not affordable and that
most owners don't want. Please pass this on to your friends.
 
If you have any questions you can email her at harriethughes@cox.net or
call her at 703 960 1052.

From Nina Kuch, candidate for the Board of Directors. 

"I am interested in hearing from petition signers because I think there are ways to maintain Montebello’s property values while keeping condo fees in line. Even if you don’t agree with me, I would like to hear from you. I can be reached ay blkuch@aol.com or 703-960-6582."

A note from Carole Hall, Write-In Candidate

Dear Friends, 

Just wanted to let you know that I am offering myself as a write-in candidate for the Board of Directors. 

I am doing so after concluding that the current slate of candidates may not be the best choices to lead Montebello in the next few years. 
Because of these recent change of circumstances and because I feel it is time for me to get more involved, I have decided to offer residents an additional choice as a Board candidate.  I feel that my background of service to Montebello and your knowledge of my abilities and personality make me a good candidate.  

In particular, the recent debate about décor has demonstrated the need to have Board members who can find common ground, who are good listeners and who excel in communicating with residents.  I feel that I have been doing this since I first moved into Montebello 22 years ago.  I would like to continue to work hard to ensure the best for Montebello and my neighbors, and navigate the difficult decisions and options in the years ahead in the best interests of the community as a whole. 

If you would like to support me, please vote for your top one or two choices on the current slate of candidates, and write my name in on your ballot as the third choice.  If you’ve voted already, you may go to the Front Office and change your vote.  If you would like, feel free to endorse me to your friends. 

My candidate’s statement and bio are attached for your information. 

Many thanks for your consideration, and hopefully for your support!

 

Best,

Carole

Meet the Candidates Sunday April 25, 2010

The candidates deserved better! That's what a neighbor said today. How true. Not everyone is a speaking professional (or has English as a first language); surely the questioners should have been clear and concise--BUT, that does not give the audience the right to be yelling out commands for questioners while the questioners are speaking -- residents that were recognized by the moderator. It was up to the moderator to recognize a resident to speak. Under no circumstances should the audience have been yelling out to anyone for any reason. Even the applause was out of order. Ok, ok, I clapped too. Guilty as charged. This event was out of control. Surprised one of the board members in the audience didn't jump in to restore order--(they clearly know how to conduct a meeting; mind you, I'm not saying they're not sarcastic, not dismissive, or not regular eye-rollers.) IN ANY EVENT, THE QUESTION OF WHY WAS AN ARCHITECTURAL COMPANY USED INSTEAD OF AN INTERIOR DESIGNER?? WAS NEVER ANSWERED (AGAIN)!!!!!

Anyone with the guts to conjure up the courage to ask a question in this environment, rambling/pontificating/emotional or not, deserves respect. The candidates clearly worked hard preparing themselves and donating their valuable time. They deserved respect. It was up to the moderator to keep order. That didn't happen. Where was our Officer Hill when we needed him to escort the rabble-rousers out?

In future, to avoid such a debacle, have attendees write questions with their name--have moderator, identify questioner and ask question--and clearly control the outbursts and guide the questioners to be concise. And keep the mob QUIET unless recognized by the floor. My iciest stare of disapproval did no good at all.  The catty comments within earshot were very low class. Luckily, the candidates did not hear them.

I did get some insight on the $45,000 for "concept" designs, and the outrageous amounts of money allocated for carpeting, etc. I was told by a reliable authority that these amounts came from the Board. They were the amounts budgeted for by the Board for these items (overly high, I may add). Apparently, Kearns just punched these numbers into their proposal. Ok, let me try and understand this--we give the bidder the amount we are willing to pay for stuff, then they take these numbers and put them in their bid (oops, "concept" design) and we pay them $15,000 (times 3) for the concept design. Huh????? Whaaaaa??? And folks think this is ok? Oh, also, when I asked why these 3 firms were offered $15,000 in the RFP -- the response was "because that's what they wanted." HUH????? Clearly, the $45,000 is way out of line and that's the reason the messenger is being attacked. In this economic climate, probably could have got these bids for free--and we wouldn't have to give them the numbers!

As an aside, if one over-budgets and comes in under-budget, that does not mean that one is being conscientious with money and wisely spending (others) money. Coming under budget when you've over budgeted does NOT deserve a self-pat on the back. Some have conjectured that the over-budgeting is a way of getting extra money to spend on things (e.g., decor stuff) that have not been planned for and an excuse to blow money cuz "it's in the budget."

In any event, who hope that whom ever gets on the Board, will vote their convictions--not feel that they need to go along to get along.

Board Meeting April 20, 2010

The highlight of the meeting was the spontaneous applause for Loretta addressing the Board regarding communication to owners, especially regarding notice for committee meetings, inasmuch as there is inadequate notice. The usual response was how difficult it was to get information out , how much work, how long it takes, etc. etc., sprinkled with some consternation then make-nice. BUT, we, the petitioners, can tell you without hesitation that the Board and association can respond with LIGHTNING SPEED if owners have the unmitigated gall to try to assess the wants of the majority of owners via a survey. In fact, the association had flyers under every unit door pooh-poohing our survey, sent out emails, and hand-delivered warning snail mail letters (alleging we had violated some non-existent by-law) to each of us, BEFORE we had even finished passing out the survey!!!! So, yes, Virginia, these folks can get the word out incredibly quick and efficiently if they so desire.

One board member inquired about the costs of Kearns regarding design issues but was quickly shushed as this clearly wasn't info to be shared with those whose money is being used. The design crowd is still hammering away trying to figure out a design for the broken canopy at the outdoor pool damaged by the snow. Last month the Board voted on the color for the temporary canopy: white. As a design has not been made approx. $1400 will be used for a temporary one. The GM jumped in and ordered the temporary one, so there would be something by outdoor pool opening time.

It was also mentioned that the pool company could keep the outdoor pool open an additional week at the end of the summer--many owners have requested this (generally the first week the outdoor pool is open, no one uses it, because it is too cold). The extra week would cost $3,500--Board tabled to a later date because so much money. Too bad this attention to cost did not apply to the $45,000 for "concept" decor designs. It should also be noted that Wnuk Spurlock, one of the architectural companies that was paid $15,000 for their "concept" (bid) states that a good quality carpet should cost $32 sq. yd. installed--Kearns (who won the bid) quotes $5 sq. yd. (there are also carpet removal costs listed) or $45 sq. yd. Calculate the difference. As mentioned, the elevator cab quotes from Kearns are way out of line according to two elevator cab companies. Also, note the 10% design contingency and a 5% construction contingency.

Shovels and de-icer bags were stolen during the recent snow storm--how long would flat panel monitors/computers last in the lobbies???? And we paid for these "ideas."

Harriet Hughes

Harriet Hughes, chief architect of the petitioners, is running for the Board. She brings years of experience as a successful senior executive in finance for the Federal Government. She has spent countless hours studying the issues and surveying the physical condition of the facilities. She is committed to ensuring that we get the best value for our condo fees. Foremost, she is determined to ensure that the desires of the majority will not be ignored, while ensuring that needed maintenance and safety issues are promptly and properly dealt with to avoid costly expenditures in the future. She will make every effort to work with all parties to find the best solutions.

There has been a perception that the petitioners do not want to spend money on anything, probably fueled by some mischaracterizations in the Times regarding the petition and survey. Necessary maintenance and appropriate upgrades, of course, are necessary. The petition asked for a deferral of decision-making regarding the proposed concept design pending concurrence of the majority. The petition clearly states this: "(1) an option to only do necessary maintenance to the existing decor, (2) an option to maintain the current décor but with appropriate changes to make the buildings more cost effective to maintain and functional over the long run, and (3) option(s) that would make various moderate to major changes (i.e. recent submissions by design consultants).  All options need to include the cost impact on condominium fees over the next 5-10 years.  A second set of options could prioritize the various types of changes desired at the level that the majority of unit owners selected."

Another expense coming up will be the flooring in the community center hallway. It is regularly wet-mopped and the edges and flooring are warping and starting to buckle.
 

Board meeting on March 9, 2010 reported that $175,000 spent for snow removal--$18,000 budget--$9,000 given for staff bonuses including management; does not include overtime.

It was brought up to the Board at this meeting, that Montebello should have a web site with a discussion list when an owner brought up to the Board that he wanted his writings published on this site.

March 12, 2010 flyer under door (was this an emergency?) notes $1,008,000 available for 4 buildings cosmetic refurbishment--not counting around $225,000 per Kearns proposal for interior cab refurbishment. (click for prices from two elevator cab companies). Although, the flyer states no additional condo fees are necessary to fund these projects, it is rumored that another 6% condo fee increase is planned for next year. "The spending in subcategories is less important as long as the total does not exceed $277,000." This sounds like, there won't be a condo fee increase to fund these projects, BUT, probably condo fee increases to fund other projects or maintenance--or maybe money is being used from other categories to fund decor? It takes about 4 hours to distribute flyers under doors--this we know from experience! Think of the expense and staff time.

Interior Decorator (designer) vs. Architect  (click)  $45,000 spent for architects' "concept" plans -- what should a concept plan cost? $700-$1000 per www.costhelper.com           How to select a designer       (click blue underlined for more info)
Fiduciary Responsibility

Facility Management: Contributing to the discordant feel that some owners notice to present decor is the poor management of maintenance--clearly the staff works hard, but the use of several different shades of paint for touch-up and the mixing of flat and semi-gloss and gloss is just unacceptable. Clearly the halls should have flat paint, as gloss shows every imperfection and creates glare--there is a huge mix depending on what floor, building, etc. The edges of carpet exhibit a chemical change in color due to improper maintenance. Things will deteriorate quickly again if there is not proper procedures and oversight provided by management. Recently, in bldg 4 elevator lobby, color from wall-covering around elevator button has been removed due to overlapping of strong chemicals used to clean brass. These types of accidents should be repaired in a reasonable amount of time--would rather have staff fix these items rather than putting flyers under 1000+ doors for non-emergency issues. Same 30 days should be given to Montebello management to fix these color and maintenance violations that owners are given when allegedly they "violate" some Montebello "standard".

Latest comments Mar 4---, 2010--Spontaneous emails generated the below discussion:

I'm glad to see this discussion among the owners, finally. The board over the years, in my opinion, has been acting like three monkeys with eyes, ears, and mouths closed. They do not want any controversy and they seem to only tolerate suggestions. Many years ago I was asked to join the Operations Committee (now Buildings and Grounds). I had done studies on security and Montebello purchase of electricity as a single purchaser. (I can forward an electronic copy of each study to anyone who wants it.) In each case the board botched it; they did little to fully research the proposals. Here are some other ideas that I proposed that were not considered, but had potential for actually making us money:
 
(1) Consider installing photovoltaic cells on the roofs to generate electricity (management's excuse was that a roofer said the roof would not hold the photovoltaic cells -- nonsense);
(2) Consider installing a water reclamation system for use on our grounds and perhaps toilets to save on our water bills; also 
(3) Consider forming our own cable company, installing our own satellite dishes, and paying ourselves the profits (I have not yet proposed this.);
(4) Consider installing solar canopies in the open parking lots to generate electricity AND protect parked cars from sun, snow, rain,etc. (I have not yet proposed this.) See attachment. I am sure that there are residents who have other ideas but have found boards to be unreceptive or not willing to fully explore new ideas. When the balcony repair issue first arised I informed the board that the person they were about to choose as an architect/engineer was not
a member of the American Institute of Architects and her firm was not a member of the Better Business Bureau. I had contacted Clark Construction and gotten the names of excellent companies to do the work, but the board would not listen. Another resident in building 2 doing independent research came up with the same name of the firm given to me by Clark Construction. Only recently has the board
benefitted from a learning curve about balcony repair and chosen the best company. We wasted a great deal of money, in my opinion, because the imperious board would not listen. In my experience, the board will never admit that they made a mistake, ever.
It would help as well to stop spraying with glyphosate (Roundup) what little vegetation remains. Now that the vines that covered the perimeter fence have been killed, the Board wants to replace the fence.
These are actions and expenses that do not serve us well.------

Replacing the perimeter fence has been under discussion for years now. This is not a new idea. It is part of the overall security 5 year plan.------
 

Thank you Galinka.  You provide a great service.---

(thank you!)

I look at one of our competitors, Carlyle place: new, walking distance to metro, shops, grocery stores, businesses and university buildings all within walking distance. The whole village is upscale. Having a Walmart move in just down the street does not improve our property values.----

The tax appraisal on my condo has been reduced 20% in the past 2 years while my association fee has gone up 19% in the same two years.  -------

A month ago, by the way, I am in Building 2. A owner told me she is paying $540.00 dollars in condo fees. Last week, on the 9:33am shuttle bus, another resident in her 70's said she was paying $740.00 dollars in condo fees. And my next door neighbor who has only been living here, has put her condo up for sale. I too, do not understand why the condo's fee's keep going up every year. -----
 

 

Thanks for doing this -- I want to be kept informed -- too much of what is done at Montebello doesn't see the light of day.---
 

Please continue to use my name.

And thank you for all the good work you are doing.
Janette Sherman--
 

Many thanks to the fellow residents who initiated this debate. When the condo fee rises ~15-20% (inflation adjusted), it will be extremely difficult to sell any property here.
 
We need to learn how to accomplish more for less.-----

Thanks for the info.  In the survey I said that the lobbies need to be redone so that there were no stairs.  Also they need to be changed to some type of set up that encouraged people to actually use them.  (TV sets, coffee areas, computers-I'm not sure what- but they should be used.) The decor itself I think is fine except that it is more of a look at and not use set up.----
 

I took another look at the lobby.  Any affordable ramp would be visually disruptive, and, too steep for all but a powerful wheelchair. For wheeled luggage a narrow ramp at one side of one of the stairs is a possibility. For ADA purposes an inclined stair elevator would be the cheapest way out but would give an institutional look to the lobby.---

We have talked to real estate agents not associated with Montebello and were told that right now due to the economic situation that condo fees are indeed a big deal. One non-Montebello agent or owner, said she couldn't get anyone to even look at her listing here due to the high condo fees. She said people really didn't care about the amenities, etc.; she did, though, think the lobby was beautiful and Montebello was a great place. Advice re: costly upgrades?: Sell.
 
Also, during a recession the first to suffer are high end properties and condos--also what was taught in a real estate class I took about 20 years ago. Apparently, there are also some new rules regarding financing condos (someone said) that make it a bit more difficult now. Also, 3 most important things about real estate: location, location, location. And Route 1 is Route 1, and Huntington is not upscale, cool, hip, or "in" last I heard. Being inside the beltway or at Kingstowne would really raise prices! But, again, to many that plan on living here for the rest of their lives, raising prices is not an issue--actually works against those on fixed income as raises real estate taxes.-----

 
 

Montebello has no value - don't you realize the housing market is down -- Just check what units are selling for. Color. etc. in the lobbies will not change the economic situation on the outside. It will only add to the condo fees and thus make potential buyers look elsewhere Ms. D.-------
 

As a real estate broker, I disgree with this statement. 
Montebello is a terrific value for its fees, which are lower in comparison to other condos with less to offer. Ms. mmm---

I agree with Ms. D - and the finding that our tax base has decreased while condo fees have increased.  Some of us are retired, others will not see a raise in pay as the economy is poor.  Increased condo fees are harming owners.

Ms. J-----


I must disagree with your statement Ms. mmm.  We have lived at Montebello for 18 years and have watched with sadness as the place has slowly gone down hill and we've had condo fee increases that are way out of line with what we receive in return.----

Ms. mmm
And how many units have you sold recently? Seems thatl potential buyers are turning away because of the high condo fees. If it's all such a bargain, how about selling my condo?------

 

__ Just reading this after being away for weeks.
 
The wording of this survey was negative, inviting negative results - -
 
The lobbies are dated, tired and reflect poorly on the value of Montebello.  New colors and fabrics will do wonders for appreciation.----

 

The original survey was also biased.  Mount Vernon is dated, but nobody is complaining.  Classic never goes out of date.-----

   
       
       

Realtor Views on Assessments
Analysis of Survey Results 

As of February 21, 2010, 137 surveys have been received.  Only 9 were from renters (6.5%).  Since the previous surveys also included renters, the following analysis includes all of the respondents.  I can provide a copy of the Access Database which has the data, if someone wants to do additional analysis.  No comments are included in the database.  They are separately recorded on the website:  

 Question Results:

1.       While I want to maintain Montebello, I am concerned about condominium fees.  122 Agreed (89%); 2 Disagreed (1%); 13 did not answer. 

2.       I am willing to pay for replacement of worn carpet, worn furniture and worn fixtures in lobbies, hallways, and the community center but do not want to make any changes that increase condo fees beyond what they are today. 103 Agreed (75%); 19 Disagreed (14%);  15  did not answer 

3.       I am willing to pay for changes that will decrease costs sufficiently to recover the cost of the change over a period of 5 years or less such as electricity-efficient lighting fixtures or carpeting that doesn’t show stains.  109 Agreed (80%); 11 Disagreed (8%); 17 did not answer. 

4.       Safety items such as the elevators need to be maintained/replaced when necessary but should not include unnecessary costs. 116 Agreed (85%); 8 Disagreed (8%); 13 did not answer. 

5.       I am willing to pay for décor changes that would improve Montebello providing that the cost of the change is not more than______% per year (fill in) of my condominium fee over the next 5 years. Note this is above the maintenance costs.

The wording of this question was confusing, so the results are questionable.  94 did not answer the question.  No  conclusions can be drawn.  

6.       I DO NOT want a change in the color scheme of the lobbies and hallways.  94 Agreed (69%); 21 Disagreed (15%); 22 did not answer.                                                                                                                                                                                    It is clear that dissatisfaction is not just with cost but a clear majority of the respondents do not want to change the color scheme.  Only 15% have a preference for changing the color scheme.   

7.       I DO NOT want style changes to the lobbies except those required to maintain the lobbies at the lowest reasonable cost.  Changes may be necessary when items need replacing and identical/similar items are not available or are very expensive. 120 Agreed (88%); 7 Disagreed (5%); 10 did not answer.                                                                                        A clear majority of the respondents do not want to change the style of the lobbies.  Only 5% have a preference for change in the style of the lobbies.    

8.       When the final recommendations of the Design Committee/Consultant are ready, they should be submitted, including cost estimates over the next 5 years, to all unit owners for their approval/disapproval. A 50% approval vote will be required for adoption in accordance with the by-laws for major capital changes.  120 Agreed (88%); 6 Disagreed (4%); 11 did not answer.                                                                                                                                                 A clear majority wish changes to be submitted to a formal vote of the owners. 

9.       I am a renter and concerned that condo fee increases will increase my rent.  7 of the 9 renters agreed with this statement.  A number of non-resident owners also agreed with this statement.

NOTE: It was stated at the January Board meeting, by a Board member, that the Virginia
legislature has passed new laws that make it illegal for condo Associations to prohibit
residents from conducting surveys. Surveys do NOT need to be approved or sanctioned by the
Association. The survey is and was in FULL COMPLIANCE with Rule 57 of the by-laws.
This copy of the by-laws was provided to us by Montebello staff just prior to releasing the survey.

https://webapp.dpor.state.va.us/va_laws/condo_act/condo_act.htm#§ 55-79.75:1. Distribution of information by members.  ---This web site provides valuable info regarding VA condo law.

The bldg. 2 rep. has received two surveys in red ink unsigned without identification of author or accurate unit# or bldg.# We won't tabulate or post comments from these for obvious reasons.

It should be noted that Kearns proposed $196,000 for cosmetic refurbishment (to stainless steel) of elevator cabs (wall, ceiling, and panels)--not including freight elevators (an additional $25,000 plus to redo ceiling of freights) (this does not include replacement or repair of elevators--a separate expenditure). As this amount is over the $70,000+ thresh-hold, it SHOULD require a vote of owners; we fear that this expenditure will be spent in increments or labeled "maintenance" to avoid a vote--it is an update or "improvement" (thereby requiring a vote). Suggest concerned owners study Kearns financial estimates (note these figures are for 1 building so multiply times 4). Info from elevator cab decor experts (click for info) Regardless, of position, why pay or even consider unnecessarily high prices, especially in this recession?

Info on fiduciary responsibility of condo boards

(more comments from surveys and emails)

Why use 3rd party contracting for carpeting and painting? Don't need architects for that! Plus adds 10-15% to the price (Prices need to be checked--as elevator decor too expensive {2-3x the going rate}). Has a non-aligned independent elevator expert consultant been used for elevator repair project?  Could save a lot of money! G.L. Goriesky ----------

The escalating condo fees are the biggest issue in terms of sale-ability of units, and viability of renting them, as they discourage potential buyers and eat into any profit from renting. Staffing cuts may need to be made, and "everything" should be on the table for a cost-improvement evaluation. The elevators must be upgraded. They, again, take away from the appearance of the condo and discourage buyers and renters (aside from inconveniencing residents).-----

My visitors, some of whom are realtors always comment on the lovely grounds, the polished lobby floors (thanks to our very hardworking staff!) and how clean everything is. The never mention "shabby" outdated, etc. We are a traditional, not modern/contemporary community. Unfortunately the Board hired a design company that only makes money with change most residents do not want or need. By the way, high condo fees are a bigger turn-off than lobby furniture and wall coverings.---

In these economic times, I feel it is irresponsible to redo the lobbies because (I suppose) some of the wealthy owners here are "ashamed to bring their friends into our lobbies" as reported in the Montebello Times. I have heard many other residents say they see nothing to be ashamed of------

We need to "clean house" during the next Board election.---

I have rented at Montebello for 21 years, so I am obviously happy here and generally pleased with management overall and grateful for those who volunteer their time to ensuring continued good management of this outstanding complex. I am considering purchasing at Montebello but am concerned about property values if the association fees are not controlled to prevent such a large expense to deter perspective buyers.  I realize that it is difficult to balance all of the demands of maintaining rent . . ?. .property costs increase without some growth in condo fees but encourage board members to carefully weigh the impact of increasing fees.-----

Do not change Montebello style and look. Do not build any ramp at the front lobby.------

Definitely want to see carpeting replaced---

The earth-toned Italianate decor is one of the things I especially like about Montebello----

Don't want increase of condo fee----

Again why are we using and Architectural Firm instead of Interior Design Firm?  Phase 1 the elevators will have their own installers. We don't need Kearns.  “Conceptual Cost Estimates” for Montebello are troublesome.    I question  the 3rd phase; $1460- Pendant fixture, $620-  $1,240- wall sconces, -- $25,000 -Custom Wood Screening, -- $5,000- sofa and 2 lounge armchairs.  Added up this comes to $33,320.00 per building.  This does not include lobby basics (carpet and painting).  How do we know these costly items in phase three will increase our property value???  Upgrades can be made in painting, carpeting and minimal furniture, lighting changes but new wall sconces and custom wood screens is way out of line!!!!  I hope you chain down the $25,000 custom wood screen for fear someone will lift them!  We pay the condo fees and AGAIN the Board is steamrolling the owners for the desires of a few!   -----

Any elevator interior should be easy maintenance so house keeping staff do not have to polish fancy interiors. Why is the painting staff painting the trim along the carpets in the halls if the carpets will be replaced any time soon? Thank you good neighbors!!-------

Replacing quiet elegance with Disneyworld & Cable TV is not the answer.-----------

I want to be kept informed.---

Fresh paint, new plants, furniture and upholstery cleaned would add a new look for a reasonable expense----

THANK YOU FOR  THE INFORMATION SENT!  I HOPE THOSE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE NOT YET ANSWERED THE SURVEY, WILL BE "ENLIGHTENED "TO THE IMPORTANCE OF IT .  IT IS A PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE ISSUES!---------

We feel lobbies are attractive as they are. Elevators should be replaced within the next 5 years. Hall carpets have a nice design--replace with same design. Condo fees are high enough already--some things just have to wait--

These are some exceptionally lovely lobbies.----

How about removing the storage container in back of bldg 4. It is a hazard and eyesore.---

Some of these options are too restrictive.--------

Renters should not be included in surveys such as this. The design committee and board had a set amount of money presented to the firms. All presentations were on budget. Is this in regard only to money? and color choices of a small group? Where were these neighbors during all the design committee meetings. The money has been allocated and very appropriately designated to improve and upgrade Montebello lobbies and halls to make entrances to the buildings inviting and beautiful.--------

 

We are opposed to ANY assessments for wall coverings and lobby
decor. We have been owners/residents here for 15 years, and have never had additional assessments for expenditures. Our major considerations in buying here were:
(1) Security (2) A strong, healthy association reserve fund--good money management (no history of any special assessments to residents); (3) No increase in condo fees assessed for several years then (the fee was lower than our condo fee in Maryland--now it is nearly as much as our monthly mortgage payment); (4) Bus to Metro Station; and (5) Well-maintained grounds and buildings.
We were overwhelmed with the lobby--very palatial, and it has remained that way after 15 years. Visitors comment that they love to come here and see the gorgeous lobby. In fact, one frequent guest says to enter Building 1's lobby is breath-taking--she is just overwhelmed with its serenity and beauty. Forming numerous committees at outrageous costs to the association is a concern--$25,000 here, $25,000 there, and more, could be better spent on saving for some emergency. While the Board says it handles matters in the best interests of residents, this really sounds like the most recent pork barrel spending of the U.S. Congress...money that they don't even have. Some folks can't wait to spend other people's money for their own benefit. In this case, committee members seem to be trying to convince residents that the lobby overhaul is needed for a more modern, fresh look to keep property values up, when, in reality, their concern is to sell THEIR units. This is fine for them and their own little empires, but many other folks would not really benefit for this update. Lobby appearance isn't a major selling point for units--it is still the unit that will or will not sell itself. Realtors, contractors, and architects will ALWAYS recommend change, because that is their job. A large percentage of owners / residents live on fixed incomes and cannot afford any special assessments. Many folks' jobs have been outsourced. Some folks are experiencing high medical costs, and for some, unforeseen and catastrophic expenses that even the wealthiest folks can't afford. On a personal note, with unfortunate events and unforeseen expenses, our unit upgrades, a new car, and even some needed and routine healthcare have all been put on hold--it's called survival in tough, economic times. Some folks can't contribute to the unneeded whims of others, especially a glass-wall in a gym, referenced in a recent newsletter (even the modern Gold's Gym doesn't have that). A gym isn't just something pretty to look at and this is not a spa or a country club. A gym is for serious exercise and results...sweating and working out! Also mentioned was a lobby for chatting: In 15 years, we haven't seen folks congregating there to chat! On several occasions, we have seen a sub-mailman snoring / napping / eating lunch, while the regular mailman was working, and kids playing ball and crawling around on the floor, and that wasn't very pleasant or appealing for any potential homebuyers.
The proposed budget for wall coverings and lobby decor for Bldgs.
2,3 and 4 is entirely too high at $831,000. Savings in that area could
be used toward inexpensive, common-sense upgrades, such as needed tree trimming, especially in the rear of Bldgs.1 and 2, where tree branches precariously overhang the parking lots. A policy of preventing avoidable tragedies needs to be pursued by trimming back tree branches. Another simple expenditure would be to add a stop sign at the intersection of the Bldg. 1's B-2 garage entrance.
The focus of any lobby decor changes should be on a more realistic,
moderate update, as opposed to a costly total overhaul--if the upgrade is approved. Just because Montebello has a healthy dollar sign--$7.6 million reserve fund, that is no reason to spend it all over the next 5 years, given the difficult economy. In fact, with an uncertain economy, and many people at Montebello on FIXED INCOMES (noted above), that's all the more reason to conserve the reserve fund, and justify EVERY SINGLE EXPENDITURE! -------
 

Thank you for refusing to be discounted by the Board.---

Only structural change should be ramp in lobby. As for style--there has to be a middle of the road--some areas are very outdated, others ok.-----

We need major changes in order to keep Montebello a desirable, vibrant community! If not brought into the 21st century the value will go down dramatically.----

I applaud the board for being cautious about increases to condominium fees. However, we must be aware of how interior upgrades, through design and decor, can improve not only the property value and desirability of Montebello but our own aesthetic enjoyment as a resident. No matter how much home owners invest in individual units, we will start on a slippery slope by letting our common areas become dated and tired. There is an immediate need for a ramp on one of the two stairways to make the lobby ADA accessible and to enable residents with wheelchairs, baby buggies, luggage, etc., to use the front entrance. This is long overdue.--

Structural repairs such as common area water pipes and elevators should be repaired/replaced before any funds are spent on "nice-to-have" items such as lobby changes. Management & BOD need to be licensed & certified & willing to accept majority of resident desires not minority desires.-------

I support the actions of the Board concerning the above issues.--

I am satisfied with the lobbies and believe that spending money to upgrade is a waste. Elevators that work and are dependable are a high priority.------

Will this Board continue to "fiddle" while or owners' equity "burns"? The surest rout to destroy value will be to continue escalating condo fees at rates significantly exceeding inflation rates. STOP! The M. Times should stop painting nasty, negative "op-ed" rants by directors venting about irrational scenarios--scare tactics unacceptable! THANKS to owners taking initiative for democratic dialogue to limit fees! However: The Design Committee made sound recommendations for standards long over due. Implementing these standards at low cost within existing budgets can be accomplished gradually over time. Kerns Group was the best, most professional firm. We like their low cost version of plans.------

Thanks to each member of this group for helping to make these decisions more democratic. I am strongly opposed to changes in decor/design for the lobbies. Although I appreciate contemporary design in architecture and in furniture, in my 27 years at Montebello  I have come to far more deeply appreciate the decor and design of our lobbies and view them as a strength rather than a weakness. Guests have commented very favorably on their tasteful elegance, and I see no need whatsoever for change beyond the installation of a ramp for the handicapped.------

I strongly feel that the decor of the lobbies should remain traditional, totally unlike the three modern alternatives that were presented. Several others have also told me this view.-----

We like the look of the lobbies now. Remove ashtrays-----

The place looks great compared to the way it used to look when the builder left it-----

I really do like the current comfortable looking décor that we currently have in the lobbies in each building.  I fear that the décor committee and board is moving to a much more contemporary and sleek look that is similar to many impersonal hotel lobbies that I see.  Montebello is my home and not a hotel and I want to feel that when I enter.  I also continue to get raves about the beauty of our building  & lobby from all my guests.  When I say to visitors that a large décor change is possibly forthcoming, people respond  with “Why would anyone want to change it? We like it the way it is.”  They express my sentiments exactly.  Please do not make any drastic and unnecessary color and style changes. Item 5. I do not want to have any increase in condo fees due to decor changes above current maintenance costs. My name and unit may be submitted . Joan Berg 4-1215------

Sofas could be upholstered.--

Want to brighten lobby. Want to change drapes in bldg 1. Too dark. A lighter treatment would be great!!!-----

I feel strongly that any design change should include the addition of ramps to the lobbies. Residents with luggage, strollers, and grocery carts will all benefit-----

I love the decor in the entrance of Bldg. 1. No change is necessary!----

I am looking forward to the condo/assoc. decor/design changes. These changes I strongly feel are necessary to bring in new owners, increase the value of our condos, & make the buildings more inviting, pleasant, safe, & user friendly for all of us. The above planning process has taken considerable time & has been open to the public. I am in support of the new plan, the design firm that was chosen, and commend the design committee for all their time & efforts. I have gone to some of the design committee meetings, as well as the full day presentation of the design firms. Know this process will take awhile.----

I believe Management and the Board members do not really care about the plight of many Montebello residents. Are they really aware of today's dire economic situation where many people are on fixed incomes? The sometimes seem to care more about employees than about residents. There are many ways to save without sacrificing the the quality of Montebello. My experience has been that potential buyers of my unit have declined because of high condo fees and the threat of even higher fees----------

I believe we can refresh (update) Montebello at a reasonable cost by focusing our efforts on items in #2 above & leave alone paint colors, wall paper. Replace tiles in lower levels, provide more light in halls & lobbies. Eliminate clutter (kitch) in lobbies (ash trays, pots, etc.).----

I don't know what to fill in on #5. Thanks for your efforts--------------

Handicap access is the prime importance. I feel the lobby areas are very attractive and wonder why all these changes are being considered. All our guests comment on the lovely entrance areas & hallways----

This is a confused/confusing survey. The user cannot perceive whether it is about design or cost. I am in favor of maintaining a Design Master Plan, as proposed by the design committee, & using it for a guide when making future changes. I favor the budget as adopted by the Board----

1. I do think that the areas by the elevators on the first floors & the service elevator on all floors should be replaced with tile/granite/linoleum to better withstand the wear & tear from animals & service personnel & movers. 2. Some enhancement of the parking level entrances is needed--improved linoleum & walls. Minor color changes are ok.------

After reviewing the proposals by the 3 design firms, I prefer the current scheme including the interior of the elevators. To answer the other questions would not fairly represent my views---

 

FINALLY, THE VOICE OF REASON---------

We are in a depression------

Thank you!---

And thanks for your efforts.  There is little doubt that most of the owners are opposed to radically expensive costs in redecorating lobbies.  Increases in condo fees mean decreases in the resale value of the property.  Are people so stupid not so see that?  ----

Renters have no say on how MCUOA funds are spent. Carpeting needs replacement, doors need repainting--why not replace/repaint with design/colors that are more compatible with our wooded setting? Total lobby replacement is not necessary, they they are dated and drapes, paintings, silk flowers, etc. need to be removed and not necessarily replaced. The design committee has met in open meetings for many months, posted minutes of meetings, wrote articles the The Times and reported at Board meetings. This challenge to their work is very late in the process. There were opportunities all along to voice opposing opinions since none of their deliberations were secret.----- I am glad someone is doing something.

Woods: Gave company $5000 to clean up the woods, so we can plant some trees, when you get it done in 6 months. Why spend so much money on everything.----

Montebello needs to make up-grades that make the property attractive to younger buyers & improve property values. Leaving as is looks like an assisted living facility.---

Montebello is a wonderful place to live and invest in, but is in serious danger of becoming outdated, state and more like a retirement community than a residential condo community. We need serious redecorating, new fitness centers, etc. I'm concerned about costs, of course and don't want my condo fees to increase unreasonable, but the status quo is unacceptable and will endanger our future value and curb appeal. I'm not savvy enough to list a fee percentage increase or overall cost that I would post as my limit, but would be willing to consider anything within the context of package of proposals. The only thing I would find unacceptable is leaving things the way the are! Thank you. ------ The carpet desperately needs replacing especially in front foyer in front of elevators. Moreover, I like the lobby as it appears today and I don't think it needs any upgrading. I see both sides.-------- No opinion. To make a blanket statement like those I marked no opinion I cannot do. Each project or proposal should be on a case by case. For example, I would support a car wash or a place where cars could be washed or perhaps a fountain.---

 

February 7, 2010 (more comments from surveys)

The lobbies are elegant--replace only if worn. Carpet in hallways, etc. could be a little more colorful. Elevators seem to need mechanical work but do not need to be replaced--might consider soft classical background music in elevators. We are renters hoping to purchase the the "right" unit becomes available. I am very much opposed to giving our elegant Montebello a modern contemporary look!----- In my opinion the lobbies could stand to be refreshed--but for a minimal amount of effort . . . remove the heavy, pleated drapes and replace with a small valance or remove the rods and leave them plain. Paint all the moldings black, paint the large chandeliers black. Remove the skirts on the side table and paint them black or remove them altogether. If/when the carpet needs to be replaced go with a newer rug. But I like the wallpaper. If we do a little improvement, taking it easy, then we can see what furniture (if any) needs upgrading. But I don't desire a $600 maintenance fee to do a complete re-do. ------  
Condo fee should include updates to the common area. Spending just to be spending when there is a pot of money left at the end of the year is not being a good steward of our condo fees. Also, any spending of maximum allotted in one year is for one project ant not one project with payment over 3 years.-----    
     

February 5-6, 2010

We're still getting surveys in but need MORE! Thanks to all for kind and supportive comments and emails. Anything anyone can do to help with getting surveys to those that did NOT want flyers under their doors (bldg 1: 102, 210, 209, 307, 618, 709, 710, 717, 809, 812, 918, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1211, 1216, 1614; bldg2: 204, 217, 218, 301, 414, 506, 509, 712, 718, 802, 806, 817, 1102, 1112, 1412, 1505, 1511; bldg 3: 411, 809, 901, 905, 909, 1012, 1105, 1205, 1402, 1403, 1411, 1502, 1518, 1611; bldg 4: 110, 210, 306, 310, 312, 318, 407, 511, 515, 604, 606, 614, 711, 712, 810, 814, 816, 901, 909, 910, 912, 914, 916, 917, 1005,1015,1109,1110,1118,1211, bldg 5:101) let us know; we have enough extra surveys , and they also can be downloaded from this site. We also hope that when we hand in the final results to the Board that people will attend the Board meeting and support their cause. We need eloquent speakers to ask questions and make statements!

Several people thought question 5 was confusing or did not understand per their comments. As we understand it per a board director's statement in the Jan. Montebello Times "the cost would be between $2-5 million . . . or between $2-5 thousand for an E unit owner" for the decor redo (these figures contradict the stated condo fee increases used in the response to the Letters to the Editor). An E pays now $525 per month condo fee. For five years that would involve a condo fee increase of approximately 16% per year or $83 per month for $5 million--not including increases due to inflation, etc., so if an additional 4% (considerably less than recent increases) was added it would be an additional $21 per month--for a monthly condo fee of $629, the first year and $21 each year for 4 more years or $713 the fifth year. For $2 million it would be an increase of $33 per month or just over 6%. With an additional 4% (for a total increase of 10%) per year it would be $53 per month or $576 the first year and about $660 the fifth. The replacement of worn carpet and painting has already been budgeted for and should not involve an increase in condo fees. The increase would only be for the "new" look. (These are estimates only based on available figures. The petition in December 09 asked that owners be provided by the Board condo fee increases for the redo, so that the owners could make informed decisions via a survey, but this did not happen).

Below are latest comments

My husband and I like the blue in building 3's lobby. We do not want "olive green" furnishings, or anything "trendy." We do not want red, either. Mirrored elevators (passenger ones) would look less "claustrophic. Elevators ought to be inviting and easy to maintain. ----

I have many visitors to Montebello who walk through the lobby and are in awe at their beauty. They use words such as "gorgeous", "lovely," & "beautiful." Despite their being nearly 30 years old. Replacement due to wear is fine, but I do not see the need for architectural changes, massive re-decorating, etc. I do not want to pay to have someone else's taste in decor forced on me. (Loretta Ratkus)---------

The only thing that needs to be replaced every 3-4 years is the carpet. The furniture and the lobby fixtures are fine. I've been here for ten years and our lobby and furniture still looks the same. Given the economic climate is it necessary to spend money to decorate the lobby? None of the furniture is worn. Just replace the carpet and paint the doors to the units. I know one unit owner on my floor that is paying $549 in condo fees. Why should our condo fees be increased any more for lobby decorations. Secondly, why are we hiring firms to decorate our buildings? With all the tenants living here, why don't we form our own decorating committee and save money hiring decorators. It's not rocket science for any of us to vote on a carpet selection from the internet. How much time is it going to take to order lobby fixtures off the internet? We have a staff of engineers that is capable of replacing lobby fixtures. With the exception of replacing the carpet this year, I feel we should hold off another two years redecorating our lobbies-------------

I will do anything necessary to help the owners here at Montebello regain control over how our money is spent, replace the current board members and hire new management.  I know the latter is probably impossible, but they are part of the problem.----

CC: info@zalco.com; mcuoa@vacoxmail.com

(by Gail Taylor:)
I appreciated the opportunity to complete a "real" survey" from a real owner here at Montebello!!  I also am grateful for the fact that said survey has "pushed the buttons" of the "board" and "management."  Within 12 hours of your survey distribution, we get another notice from the "board" that the survey was not of their doing.  No kidding!  The current board and management have never been concerned about the majority of owners opinions.  And not only did they waste time and money putting the notice at our doors, but also sent an e-mail!  I thought all non-urgent matters were to be sent by e-mail beginning 1/1/10!  More money wasted!  But we still have not received a response to our questions as to what caused the fire ...).
 
Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help resolve the problems we are facing as owners of a fast fading "luxury condo."  I have been trying to get something done for the past 15 years and am told "we are the only ones who complain."  If you need help distributing notices, leg work, etc., please feel free to contact me at the number listed below.
 
Thanks for your efforts,
-------------------------------
2. May include changes to color as long as doing so does not result in a need to change anything else. 5. I may be really stupid but I can't wrap my mind around what % over 5 years really means. Does not mean each of the next 5 years the fee will be that % more? Isn't there already some money in the budget? Is this more on top of that? 6. I could give on this one as noted above for question two. 4. Does "unnecessary costs" include anything other than changes to decor? Please clarify. Also, any changes to decor MAY NOT be included in costs allocated for elevator repair or maintenance. 7. This is much too absolute a statement. Is is as out of line as the Director who tried to draw a direct causal relationship between not decorating and Montebello becoming a slum. 8. the committee/consultant should be required to have an alternative prepared in the event their recommendation is voted down. This should include costs only to replace carpets in common areas and paint trim and any space w/out wallpaper.--------

Thank you so much for conducting the survey.  I very much much object to the Board wanting to change the decor of the lobbies and facilities just for the sake of change. It should only be done when things are worn out, broken, or need updating the electrically efficient. Don't spend money necessarily.------------------

Pennywise, pound foolish. We have to keep up to main property values. Could "save" $10 a month and loose $50,000 on a sale. Not bad. To reiterate: wise spending may prevent a serious loss in property values. I just bought here (for location) but I didn't pay what I would have had the common areas been more up-to-date. Everyone will have to sell eventually. Let's all get this place looking good so we can get decent sales prices.---------------

I want to avoid extreme changes in decor and large increases in condo fees.----
I agree that in today's economy the minimum needed needs to be done. I don't think that our lobby looks soooo outdated. It is neutral and basically looks fine. Should save the $ for rainy days.------

On item 8, it would be difficult to get 50%.--------------

You five people are to be commended for your action! This "decor" (dream) action must be stopped!!! Good luck to stop it.------

I agree with everything you say. But so relieved some people feel as I do. You all are doing something. Action works--I wish you success. Thank you!!!-----

I have problems with the wording of this survey (ambiguous, biased). I think this effort, like the petition is counterproductive. Montebello needs professional improvement of its visual condition--------------

Thank you!---------

I support this survey. I do not want any dark carpeting.---------

After all, we are in a recession! I'm glad you wrote this questionnaire! Economize, Economize! Thank you!------

The lobbies are one of the more favorable features of Montebello's decor. Minor changes, like moving the large book cabinet to party room, might be considered first. Should be 51% approval vote---------

Thank you for the survey "flyer". Had I been aware of the petition circulating in Bldg 4 earlier this year, there would have been a 207th signature (mine) thereon. My comment on your form is one I should have made months ago--as the drum beat of a few residents' speeches at Board Meetings & "letters" of The Times of Montebello verified the adage of "squeaking wheel gets the grease." It's past the time for our opposing wheel to get greased: a. The % approval vote sentence in query #8 should be much higher--such as 2/3 of all owners. Alternatively that sentence could be removed, restated as a question. B. All MCUOA Board members who are related to Design Committee members by blood or marriage be reminded of that fact, and ABSTAIN from every vote of the subject in public or private meetings of the board-------- Bravo! I was beginning to think that the owners were asleep. In my opinion, this has been an attempted tour de force by those who want to exclude all design options except the modernistic style. I spoke up about this at a board meeting. It seems like the parties who had their way on the design of the community center were about to pull another fast one. I have spoken to many residents who all think that the lobbies don't need any design overhaul. We would rather see lower condo fees. Also, I could have chosen a better design firm. I have the names of firms that designed lobbies for Abe Pollin and other builders in Chevy Chase. I commend you for this effort.----  
     

February 4, 2010

Last evening and today we distributed a survey (if you'd like a copy, click on "survey") regarding preferences regarding decor. Within hours we received emails and completed surveys from several people. Overall, so far, there is an overwhelming agreement to limit costs. We need many many more to complete the survey to have an impact. We did not put surveys under doors of those who did not want anything under their door from a list from Montebello, but will be glad to provide them.

Some comments from residents are listed below--others are being compiled and will be added as time permits.

Before, we had even completed distributing the surveys, the association sent us (named on the survey) hand-delivered letters, emails, and flyers under the doors (of all units!) from the Association. The flyer's statement: The survey portrays opinions of the individuals distributing the survey is clearly untrue--no opinions were on the survey at all. The petition was also mischaracterized in the Montebello Times.

MONTEBELLO'S RESPONSE to our survey:

"Dear Mr. xxx, Ms. xxx Ms.xxx, Ms. xxx & Ms. xxx

This is in reference to the recent resident survey you sent out under the doors, please print the following disclaimer on the survey as the Association Office received some complaints:

This is a private resident survey and is not connected to or approved by MCUOA.

Please cease distribution of this survey until the above changes have been implemented. Thank you.

Sincerely,

MCUOA Board of Directors & Association"     Updated 7 Feb 10 (Rule 57 that governs this does NOT include this statement as a requirement . . . petitioners . . . click for rule)

Feb 5-15-everyone should talk to people about the importance of getting the survey in regardless of the side they are on.
PLEASE SEND LETTERS TO THE EDITOR OF MONTEBELLO TIMES
AT MCUOA@VACOXMAIL.com before the 10th, and we are looking to support someone to run for the Board who is concerned with fiscal responsibility and needs of the owners, not their private agendas.

Feb 15-21-those of you who can, determine which ones are missing and try
contacting the individuals. The goal is to get at least 500 (50%). WHO CAN
VOLUNTEER FOR THIS EFFORT?

Residents responses 4 Feb 10:

My thanks to Gail, Harriet and to Andrew , Joan , and Peg
 for your survey.
(Please share this with the above people - I don't have their e-mail
addresses).----

At this time of financial insecurity and possible additional drops in our various retirement funds, this is not the time for a major overhaul of Montebello's decor.-----

I understand the need to keep elevators safe and to replace them when required. I hope that we will use interiors that are low maintenance and do not require continued polishing by the housekeeping staff.------

Rather than replace the entrance tables, they could be covered with fabric, and topped with glass to keep them clean and accessible. The rest, except for carpet replacement are acceptable.
Again thanks to all,
------------------
I thought we lived in a democracy, and that we are free to say/ print what we wish... except if we are inmates at Montebello. Years ago, a marvelous woman started an alternative newsletter, but she unfortunately died.

Obviously the Board is not pleased.

I very much appreciate your work.

Thank you,--------

 

Attached is your survey. Based on the current economy, I feel that attempting a major remodel of our lobby area would be ill-advised at the moment. However, if you look at the standings of the US dollar, it may be prudent to engage pre-inflation dollars towards this project if it were necessary. I have read some of the arguments and they both have merit. So, who knows what should happen. Do you know who started this campaign to change the lobbies? Seemed ok to me but I'm probably a non-sophistic (a new word).

Montebello has been run in the past with great responsibility and care and that is why I have lived here since 86'.

I know that the homeowner collective usually votes well and with their pocketbooks in mind. At any rate, good luck and if you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to e-mail or call
----------------------------
 

Updates are good. The reason I asked about who started this is because I thought we just had the discussion not too long ago to change the color doors, carpet, paint, chair rail, lights etc. etc. which was done . I don't know how long you have been here but the builders color scheme was lacking. We went through an enormous "picking" process to get what you see now. The color doors, the new carpet in the hallways even the paint on the walls were addressed. So, that's why I feel the change may be premature. But you know how fast time flies now its that time again and maybe I'm in some kind of vortex that landed me in a "Rip Van Winkle" scenario. Anyway, thanks for the response and good luck.
-------------
I left my completed survey under your door. At some point I would like to talk to you. I have been living here for xx years and have served on the xxx committee many years ago. I have practically given up on talking to the board.----
 

 

     
     

November - December 2009:

A petition was circulated in little more than a week the end of November 2009 (actually only a few days) with 206 signatures of owners (3 came in later--if you want to sign and haven't previously, please print, sign, and place under door of 4-1411, 4-1215, or 2-314). We thought we'd get maybe 100, but there is clearly a ground swell to stop the money drain and major decor changes. Many owners thanked us and volunteered to collect signatures. On the left below is correspondence with the design team. On the right are comments that we've received, random thoughts, etc.  It is unclear how the creation of the Montebello master design plan went from an internal guideline to: future design concepts costing millions when no real interest was demonstrated by the majority of the community for significant change from the present decor. http://www.montebelloinfo.org/design/page810.html

The petition was presented to the board prior to the December 8,  2009 board meeting. Despite the petitions request to:
1. defer decision on design issues until there was a majority consensus,
2. include the option of keeping the present decor design, and
3. provide specific condo fee increases regarding the major redos
-- two motions were passed:
1. The selection of Vendor B as the architectural design team, and
2. Architect fees in the amount of $21,000.
It should be noted that the $45,000 already paid to the 3 firms does not include any additional services and additional amounts will need to be allocated.  Seems like $66,000 could have gone a long way to "refresh" the lobbies.

The president of the board described the background of this initiative as dissatisfaction with the GM's previous selection of materials for interior design of various areas. It is unclear how such issues resulted in contracting with architectural design firms rather than interior design firms or individual accredited interior designers; which would have been more appropriate and much cheaper--if indeed necessary at all. Clearly major changes were anticipated and are still planned by passing a resolution to hire an architect, presumably from the selected architect design firm. Many believed that the design committee would be selecting the actual fabrics, carpets, and items involved with refreshing the lobbies rather than contracting with outside firms.

A view from the proponents of the major redo. (click on link).

Upcoming meetings: Board Working Meeting 5 January 7:30?, Board Meeting is 12 January. 26 January next working session--Residents can attend these meetings.

http://montebelloinfo.org/design/ For more info and to view design schemes., surveys, info to bidders, etc.
http://www.montebelloinfo.org/design/page86.html For viewing the Montebello Design Master Plan, They are PDF files so they
have to be downloaded and opened with Adobe Acrobat Reader--if you don't have this program, you can download it free. If anyone has problems,
we can send you copies.
http://www.montebelloinfo.org/design/page814.html
Unable to get into this page requires a password
http://www.montebelloinfo.org/design/page815a.html This page contains the surveys, questionnaires, or comments. They are PDF files so they
have to be downloaded and openned with Adobe Acrobat Reader--if you don't have this program, you can download it free. If anyone has problems,
we can send you copies.
http://www.montebelloinfo.org/design/page825.html
This is the firm whose design won. Describes themselves as a local architectural firm, with planning and interior design staff. Montebello design web site describes their experience as: "Numerous clients of volunteer associations, principally churches." They list two nursing homes as clients.  http://zzzz/
Basic Concept of zzzz Architects

Check the financials--
rfp or letter to vendors: http://www.montebelloinfo.org/design/page820.html
Terms of reference or mandate of design committee: http://www.montebelloinfo.org/design/page81.html
 
 
Below is correspondence with Co-Chairs of the design committee and owners: Note how significance of survey changes when the survey confirms that the majority of respondents do not want a major redo. Then refusal to answer any more "policy questions." Also note how wording is changed from survey when it is used to justify the major redo. Scroll to bottom first.
 
From:  
Sent: Thu 11/12/09 7:26 PM
To:  

Dear ,

I didn’t complete the survey (I am an owner) but I have a strong preference for limited the cost of improvements to the lobby to those things that are worn out rather than “dated”.  I continuously get complements on how wonderful our lobby is from outside visitors.  Gail made some good, low costs suggestions like improved lighting and recovering the couches that require new fabric.  Even purchasing a new couch if that is more cost effective is okay.  I would not change the colors because in a couple of years the current colors will be back in style.  The wall paper is in good shape, the wood furniture also.  If I were decorating my own home, I would not decorate in the style of the lobby but the lobby needs to be a classical style that most people can live with rather than something that will be hard to  live with over the long haul. 

Any survey should include a question as to what percentage increase in the condo fees the individual is will to accept to get their preferences.  Without that, it is easy to ask for the most expensive option. 

Sincerely,

Petitioners'' Comments:

"It appears that our board of Governors has evolved into a quasi-government with doctorial powers and no system of checks and balances vis-à-vis the wishes and desires of the majority of Montebello residents.

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) The 224 responses (I assume they are one per unit, which does not account for differences between household members) account for  approximately 22% of the units at Montebello. One can assume that either silence is consent or it is decent, however only 16% of respondents desired improvement and 19% desired nothing be done or just the minimum. Most importantly, the question of whether or not one is satisfied with the current décor was never addressed. Additionally, the wording of the question connotes a preconceived notion of what a select few had wished for in the outcome of not only the survey, but also, and most importantly, the design concept itself. 

As of this date, I have spoken to more than 35 individual Montebello residents, all of whom are completely opposed to the redesign project. There are simpler and less expensive ways to improve the appearance of Montebello if, in fact, that is the intent. The opinion of realtors, whether residents or not, should not sway or over ride the wishes of our residents. I would venture to say that if a more concise and accurate survey, to include the costs, were conducted today, the results would be significantly different."

"It's time to stop this spending and fix our elevators to operate on weekends. Fixing the lobbies and hallways is a waste of our money." Note attached to signed petition.

"Please leave lobbies alone. It's not necessary at this day and age. We don't need to be spending our money" Note attached to signed petition

Why replace perfectly good and attractive brass and metal railings (screen) with teak and buy teak furniture when it is an endangered Asian wood now only imported from Burma to support an oppressive regime? How does wasting endangered natural resources  fit into "nature" them?

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "design@montebelloinfo.org" <design@montebelloinfo.org>
To:
Sent: Wed, November 18, 2009 10:12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Serif Web Resources Form Submission
 
Dear ,

Thank you for taking the time to consider specifically the Concept Designs and for sharing your comments.  Rest assured they will be shared with the entire committee.

----- Original Message -----
From: server@serifwebresources.com
To: design@montebelloinfo.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:20:28 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Serif Web Resources Form Submission

Time Submitted: Wed, 18 Nov 09 01:20:28 +0000
Referer: http://www.montebelloinfo.org/design/page812.html
From IP: 70.108.118.85

NAME =
EMAIL =
COMMENT = First I must begin by saying I am not one of the 12% of the survey responders (and thus only 3% of the total number of condos here at Montebello) that indicated they felt a total decor redo was needed). I am one of the 9% of responders for doing nothing and/or 6% for minimal improvements. I am happy with the general decor as it is, with minor updates or refreshing. I really do not like ANY of the three concept designs. I feel that all of them give me the inmpression that I am walking into a large impersonal hotel lobby and not into a warm, hospitable entryway to my condo home which I now have. I am not a fan of sleek, contemporary and modern and I consider all of the designs to be in this category and all reflect a very cold feeling to me. I had commented in the survey prior to the design specifications that I would like to see an least one classic traditional design provided by designers, but that was not included in the requests to the designers.

My comments regarding the 3 design submissions are again that I do not like ANY of them, but comments are as follows:
(1) mmm            , my LEAST FAVORITE submission. Specific comments are:
(a) I definitely do not like their main lobby seating area with the large screen TV and layout with the sofa and chairs facing the screen or hidden screen. PLEASE DO NOT PLACE A TV IN THE LOBBY. We have a large screen TV that anyone can view in the community center.
(b) I do not want a sofa of any kind in the area near the mail room but would continue to want to maintain a table in that area to place items on while checking my mail to use for sorting my mail. Also the sofa they recommended in this high traffic area is not at all practical and I believe would not be used by anyone.
(c) The idea of a lift in the lobby vice a ramp is interesting and should be further investigated and not merely discarded in any final design option.
(d) I do not like the idea of dark wood paneling in the lobbies and am not really fond of their plactic panels with twigs encapsulated in them.
(2)mmm Group:
(a) I do not like the idea of dark wood and wood paneling.
(b) I am not sure I like the idea of seeing the long ramp taking up most of the entry foyer.
(c) I believe the idea of wall sconces in the corridor hallways would be a problem for movers and would be frequently damaged by the movers in transiting through the narrow hallways and their many turns between the elevators and the end of the corridors. I also believe they could be a hazard to the residents.
(d) I am not sure the large leaf patterned carpeting is practical because of large light carpet areas with no pattern which will show many pet and other stains which will be difficult to keep clean after a brief period of wear.
(3)mmm
(a) I like their idea of the ramp to the right of the entryway so as not to take up the majority of the foyer entryway and therefore allow for a sitting area to the left of the doorway.
(b) I see no need for task lighting at each residence doorway entrance in the hallways. There is sufficient lighting as presently designed.
(c) I do not like the color green to be used as a predominant color in the corridors/hallways walls, carpets, etc and as the primary accent color in the decor.
Bottom line if that both Kerns and Snuk-Spurlock have some features that are interesting to consider. I do hope the final design concept of the lobbies will have several areas where 3-5 people could sit in chairs that could be moved and gather around a table or desk with good lighting for use by study groups, gaming, or conversation groups. This is currently not possible in the current configuration and also not provided in some of the design concepts. At present there is a huge demand on the card room for the above activities and no other place for residents to go to when the cardroom is alreay occupied (it can not be reserved).
Overall I believe a very small number of residents (and I don't know if they are owners or renters who responded to the survey) are fully on-board for this large and expensive long range expenditure. As a result the train may have left the station and may not be able to be stopped. As a result much higher conde fees will result whether a majority of the owners are in favor of the major resulting costs or not.

 
 
Re: Montebello Redesign Survey‏
From:  design@montebelloinfo.org
Sent: Tue 11/24/09 4:12 AM
To:  
Gail,

Thank you for sharing your comments.

1. The cost of the Concept Designs was not $75,000.  (That rumor is an extreme exaggeration.) 

(actual amount is $45,000, gg)

2.  No comments related to the receipt of the Concept Designs are posted.  However, your suggestion to post is a good one.  As time allows, we hope to post additional comments. 

3.  Although we are making good progress, we have no clear deadline for arriving at our recommendations to the Board. 

Please also keep in mind: 

1.  The narrow purpose and authority of our committee is to create a Design Master Plan, to guide a process of receiving Concept Designs from three professional designers, and to recommend one set of Concepts to the Board.

2.  In keeping with our authority, the Lobby Questionnaire was designed to ask residents "...to comment on the functionality and appearance of Montebello’s public spaces – input for ...preparing Concept Designs ...".   The questions didn't relate to the policy issue of whether to proceed with refurbishment of Montebello public spaces.  The responses have no significance beyond being a random catalog of ideas and opinions. 

We will respond no further to discussions related to statistical significance or policy implications.

Sincerely,

Co-chairs, Committee on Design

Montebello Redesign Survey‏

From:  
Sent: Sat 11/21/09 1:36 AM
To: designmontebello (design@montebelloinfo.org)


Dear , Co-Chairs, Committee on Design;
 
After sending my initial response to your comments on the survey, specifically:
 
 "the questionnaire results show that 20 out of the 224 responses indicated a preference for doing nothing.  There are no data on how many of those 20 were owners.  In any case, those responses - 9% of the questionnaire results must be weighed against the 28 respondents (12.5%) who articulated a preference for a significant refurbishment."
 
It still bothered me as I was certain that the survey results did not warrant proceeding with this project or major renovations. Therefore, I checked the survey as posted on the web, and I'm wondering if the results you refer to are as follows:
 
 
3. Do you have any other recommendation for the lobbies, elevator lobbies, and hallways?
Most frequent responses

 
No. of Responses
 
Improve the feel of the décor (simple, airy, contemporary, welcoming, elegant, attuned to exterior) 
(no mention of significant refurbishment)
28
 
Do nothing
 
20
 
Provide access ramp
 
15
 
Do minimal
 
13
 
Use professional designer
 
9
 
Improve the color, including providing more color
 
7
 
Improve entry process at level-one vestibule
 
6
 
Concentrate on eliminating odors
 
5
 
Improve B-1 - B-3
 
4
 
Total number of responses
 
169
169  (This total comes to 107 not 169)
 
The question that you appear to refer to (with 28 responses) states: "Improve the feel of the décor". This could or could NOT be "significant refurbishment." No where on the survey could I find any questions that referred to "significant refurbishment." And actually only 9 people responded to "Use professional designer." In any event, 13 state "do minimal" which is pretty close to the 20 "do nothing"s. I've heard through the grapevine that the professional designers cost $75,000--please tell me it isn't so, when only 9 people wanted that--more people wanted an access ramp than a designer!
 
I also noticed that none of my responses have yet been added to the design web site part that lists comments about the design. I would appreciate that they be added.
 
Thanks in advance.
 
Sincerely, 
 
 
Montebello Redesign‏
From:  
Sent: Thu 11/12/09 3:14 PM
To: design@montebelloinfo.org
Bcc:  
Dear
Thank you for your quick response. To clarify what seemed to be confusing about my statement: It should be noted that 12.5% that articulated a preference for a significant refurbishment is a minority, therefore, the majority does not want a significant refurbishment. 28 respondents out of 1000 units would not in any event be considered significant. And 28 out of 224 does not constitute a significant preference and clearly not a majority. These numbers wouldn't elect any politician.
 
In any event, it is extremely difficult, as you must know, to devise a survey that gives accurate results. On the other hand, it is also possible to devise a survey that gives the results that you want--that doesn't make it accurate though. It was also noted that "There are no data on how many of those 20 were owners." Makes a huge difference!!! It's also extremely important as to how this data is interpreted.
 
Many people may say they want a major refurbishment but when it comes to raising their condo fees and they realize the costs that are involved, they change their mind. Therefore, for an accurate survey, the actual costs to the individual unit owners (in the form of increased condo fees) should be included in the survey and the question of whether they are willing to pay for it.
 
Having worked full-time as a professional designer for 15 years, I know without doubt, that when it comes to esthetics, consensus is simply impossible. It is absolutely amazing, how quick people will change their mind about their preferences when they find out the costs involved. 
 
Again, thank you for your prompt response.
 
Sincerely,
 
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:18:09 -0700
From: design@montebelloinfo.org
To:
Subject: Re: Serif Web Resources Form Submission
Gail, 
Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to make your voice heard.  Your comments will be shared with the entire committee.
 
Normally we do not consider it our role to respond specifically on comments directed to the committee, however your first sentence is somewhat confusing.  Are you referring to the the "Lobby Questionnaire" of last February sponsored by the Committee on Design?  If so, the questionnaire results show that 20 out of the 224 responses indicated a preference for doing nothing.  There are no data on how many of those 20 were owners.  In any case, those responses - 9% of the questionnaire results must be weighed against the 28 respondents (12.5%) who articulated a preference for a significant refurbishment.  

Survey aside, thank you again for your comments, which will assist us in our committee in making its recommendations to the Board.
 
Co-Chairs, Committee on Design

----- Original Message -----
From: server@serifwebresources.com
To: design@montebelloinfo.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:33:32 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Serif Web Resources Form Submission

Time Submitted: Wed, 11 Nov 09 16:33:32 +0000
Referer: http://montebelloinfo.org/design/page812.html
From IP: 70.183.6.189

NAME = Gail
EMAIL =
COMMENT = Unclear why proceeding with esthetic redo when survey indicated majority of owners not in favor. In any event, found concept designs very boring. Colors are all pretty much the same and are the earth colors that have been "in style" for the last few years. Therefore, by the time any of this happens, these colors will no doubt be "out of style" and again present a dated look. Keep what we have--do some inexpensive fixes; like, remove maroon heavy drapes in lobbies and let some light in. Replace lights with high efficiency lights--won't need that much light with drapes gone. Replace pictures that have become faded with time or update. Reupholster some or worn furniture to get urge to redecorate out of system. Spend money on needed maintenance like elevators--or clean filthy brick on exterior of first floor patios--gives an old ratty look to building. Will do much more than wasting money on lobbies. Lobbies are fine--leave them alone or get rid of extra stuff. Carpets in halls could last several more years--clean edges next to wall--dirt has migrated there; probably need special attachment to steam cleaning equipment. Thanks!