STATE OF THE
I thank all of the people who
contributed to the effort to develop a high quality of life here at the
To members of the Board, to
Draper & Kramer, Kathy Ricciardi and Jeff Hoosin, and David Shaw, to Chris
Daly and outstanding members of his staff, to Lucius White and key members of
the door staff, I express gratitude. Special thanks to the people who served on
committees and worked to improve conditions in the
Control of the building was
turned over to the Association at the first meeting of unit owners, held on
At the second owners meeting held
on
The new Board was faced with many serious challenges which required immediate action. Construction of the building had not been completed. Workmen circulated throughout the building each day; drop cloths and workman’s materials seemed to be everywhere. Protective paper covered walls. The dock area was in disarray with construction materials, and rubbish placed in a disorderly manner. Owners reported rodent sightings in this area and in the rear hallways inside the rear portion of the building.
We began the task of hiring our
professional consultants. On October 13, we signed a formal agreement with Mark
Pearlstein to represent the
We also began the process of hiring a property management company to manage the building. PM Associates had been selected by the Developer to manage the building prior to the cut-off. PM Associates had selected Bob Bonofazi as the on-site building manager. We began the process by interviewing and accepting proposals from a number of major firms active in the downtown condo market.
On November 20, we entered into
an agreement with Draper & Kramer to begin on January 1.Thereafter, Bob
Bonofazi gave notice that he was leaving but stayed on for a time to allow us
to search for a replacement. Jeff Hoosin started work on
Since the first of the year the Board has worked closely with Jeff Hoosin and Kathy Ricciardi, supervisor of Draper & Kramer, to implement personnel policies for the work force and building procedures to enhance efficiency and productivity. Draper & Kramer has also increased maintenance, upkeep, and staff response time to resident needs.
In November, the Board retained the services of Allen Lefkovitz & Associates to examine and appeal our tax assessments with the Cook County Assessor’s office.
Mr.Lefkovitz advised me earlier this week that he was successful in certain instances in getting tax assessments reduced. We expect his written report to arrive shortly.
In late October, the Board
discovered that we had a narrow time-frame within which to file our warranty
claims against the Developer. We had anticipated that the time would run from
the date we were given control, September 13. Instead we found that we had to
file our claims with the Developer by
We faced the daunting task of hiring an engineer to inspect the property, examine the components to make sure that the building had been constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications and, thereafter, write a detailed report in time for us to meet the deadline. The Engineering Committee took the lead.
We contacted several engineering firms but found that it was difficult to generate interest because business was plentiful and companies disliked the idea of potentially criticizing the work of a major contractor. We located LZA Technology, which has a solid reputation in the industry. On November 20, we entered into a formal agreement for LZA to act as our consultant. The Board also conducted a survey of the owners concerning their individual punch list items which were incomplete, and advised LZA of the results. LZA completed their assignment which allowed us to submit our list of claims within the time period.
We worked closely with our attorney and our own engineering staff to seek solutions to many issues that the developer had not considered during the design and construction phases of the building. These included, but were not limited to, HVAC controls, garage membrane, and acoustical insulation matters such as pool pump and sound transmission between units. We also fielded questions from owners regarding punch list status, and the operations of various components in their units. We reviewed the architectural drawings and specifications for construction issues of the common areas, individual units, and the commercial space.
From the date of our takeover the Board had requested that Paula Harris attend a meeting with owners to discuss the status of our punch lists and the condition of the common areas. Ms. Harris finally agreed to meet with owners but as a condition precedent, insisted on initially meeting with members of the Board only.
This occurred on December 13. Paula Harris, attended with her attorney and key members of her staff. We discussed heating units, thermostats, stress cracks, ventilation, smoke and sound transmission in units, the lobby and garage, along with common area issues and owner’s punch list items. The Board made no decisions and reported what transpired back to the residents. The Board was given reason to believe that substantial progress would be made. After this meeting, however, Paula Harris stated that there was no longer any reason to meet with the owners.
Throughout spring and early summer we maintained contact with the Developer, mainly through Mark Pearlstein. In May, the Board had grown frustrated with the lack of progress and instructed our attorney to draft a complaint against the Developer. When Golub’s attorney became aware of the complaint he showed renewed enthusiasm to negotiate and move things ahead. Our attorney advised us that negotiation would be more productive than litigation provided Golub was willing to negotiate in good faith.
Members of the Board met with the Developer on June 8, and later on June 26, and August 1, for the purpose of getting our claims completed. In addition, there were ongoing conversations between Mark Pearlstein and Howard Sweibel, Golub’s attorney.
Significant time has elapsed since this occurred. While some progress has been made, the total amount of work completed has been disappointing. Owners, moreover, have recently expressed a heightened sense of frustration. The Board will be making a final demand on the developer and will decide shortly whether to continue negotiations or file our complaint.
The Finance Committee did an outstanding job. Fiscal operations for 2000 were positive overall. Our revenues exceeded expenses by $177,000. The challenge, however, was to develop a budget for a full year of operations for year 2001. We had no reliable precedent. The developer’s budget was dated and unrealistic in many of its assumptions, which is typical of condo developers. As the new budget was being developed, assessments and expenses were carefully analyzed with emphasis on energy bills and delinquent assessments. Income and expenses were increased to more realistic levels.
We developed a conservative budget for 2001. A realistic Capitol Reserve for Replacements was used, for example, in the amount of $120,000. Thus far this year, our expenses are well within projected parameters and our income is in line with projections.
The Rules Committee took the conservative approach of comprehensively reviewing existing rules. Instead of making quick or wholesale modifications, they decided to live with these rules and, based on experience, change only those rules which clearly need to be changed. We have identified a security issue pertaining to the garage where a modification of the rules is needed to allow the registration of parked automobiles. This will enhance the security of the building.
The House Committee was very active. They organized our Holiday party on December 17, 2000, and decorated the lobby. This committee reviewed the role and service of the concierge and made recommendations on whether we should retain the position as structured or obtain the services on a fee basis. They made recommendations on the Fitness Center regarding a sign-in procedure, and a registration of personal trainers along with presentation of proper insurance coverage. They also tracked usage of machines to help determine the kind of equipment to acquire in the future. Suggestions to enhance the lobby were made along with recommendations to purchase addition items of furniture and equipment for the Fitness Center. These items were held in abeyance, however, pending the outcome of our costs of operations.
Other issues include signage on the front of the commercial space on the exterior of the building, and abuse of parking privileges in front of the building. For some time we have been in contact with the alderman’s office and may finally be making headway. We also petitioned our congressman to intervene with the Post office to designate The Bristol as a “permanent mail stop”. This was achieved and resulted in a permanent mail person being assigned to our building. Subsequently, we contacted the Post Master because of complaints about the mail delivery person. These efforts appear to be paying off.
We hired Lucius White to directly supervise the door staff, the security of the dock area, the garage and the building in general. We implemented a Key-Trac system, and a signing process for deliveries. We are addressing non-residents using the health club, and the entry into the building through the back door on Ernst Court.
We encountered several special problems. On October 23, flooding occurred in the storage areas. Electrical outages, criminal theft, two fires in the trash chute and several flame-outs of baseboard heaters also occurred. The Developer offered to remove the relays from the baseboard heaters which were identified as the cause of the fires.
Over a period of six months the Board tried to implement the existing contract with ServMart, which later sold its interest to ErrandMaster. Hours of operations and acceptance of deliveries were two major issues. When this proved unsuccessful, the Board researched alternative providers and finally selected the present service, Bristol Cleaners, which has also taken over the receiving of packages. It is hoped that the kinks can be worked out of the new system. Transferring the responsibility for receiving packages removes a huge burden from the door staff who can now concentrate on improving their performance.
The following miscellaneous items deserve an honorable mention. In April, the inaugural issue of our condo newsletter was published. We installed new floors in the elevator cabs for which residents appear to heartily approve. We analyzed our energy bills for year 2000, and were able to obtain 20 percent ($68,613.16) reduction in the electrical bill. On August 20,2001, we entered into an agreement with Exelon as our energy provider which will further reduce our electrical bill. Finally, we were also able to launch our new website: www.bristolcondominiums.com
We have come a long way in the last 12 months. Serious challenges remain, however. We will conclude our demand that the Developer finish this property in accordance with the plans and specifications either through negotiations or litigation. From all aspects of the physical property, building operations, management, and fiscal health, we are a work in progress. We will continue, however, to confront the challenges and resolve issues so as to improve all aspects of our community and the quality of life we have a right to expect.
Respectfully submitted,
Ronald P, Laurent