Web view11/10/2014 · – Scott Adler. Mi. scellaneous Operating ... Elizabeth A....

PHEASANT LAKE TOWNHOMES ASSOCIATIONBOARD OF DIRECTORS

MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2014

I. Meeting called to order at 06;30 PM

II. Board Members Present:Tom Krippel PresidentJerry Spehar Vice President, SecretaryBeth Murphy TreasurerDeborah Gardner DirectorWilliam Dziallo Director

EPI Area Manager: Scott Adler

III. Guests: None

IV. Unit Owners Present: Judy Glazewski, Joseph Beissel, James Gardner, Kathi Petrie, Ray Greenhill, Jim Hansen, Bob Giltmeir, Sherleen Karchut, Rita Davis, John Sokol, Kathryn Lietz, Barry Burnett, Jennifer Stoner.

V. Homeowner’s forum: (Maximum time of 15 minutes) Kathy Petrie had a question about wood repair on her unit. Tom indicated that rotten wood replacement was on the agenda. She also had a question regarding snow removal. Scott said the procedure was a snow plow would clear the driveway leaving a 2’ path in front of the garage door and that would be cleared by workers with shovels. Joe Beissel wanted to contest a notice regarding a tree removal. Joe stated he did not remove a tree. He admitted to breaking a sprinkler line removing a tree root. Tom Krippel was notified and had the broken line repaired by Aces Irrigation. Beth stated that an EPI letter stated Joe had removed the tree and damaged the sprinkler line. Joe disputed that claim. Joe stated his exterior modification request form was to remove tree branches hitting his patio cover. Beth stated the bill for the tree removal was wrong. The board agreed that Joe would be billed only for the Aces Irrigation bill for repairing the broken sprinkler line. Ray Greenhill said the evergreen tree in front of his unit was damaged in the last storm and is leaning at about a 60-degree angle and is ugly. Ray requested the tree be removed, but was refused because the tree wasn’t dead. Ray said he would pay the cost of removing the tree. Tom stated the board would have to make that decision based on liability factors. Tom suggested Ray submit a modification request for the tree’s removal. It was agreed Ray should state who he hires to remove the tree and he will replace shrubbery in its place. Jim Hansen wanted to remind the board about the revised modification request forms he developed as a board member. Tom stated that those forms are in the Management Report book and will be part of the meeting discussions. Sherleen Karchut asked what happens to the funds saved by the volunteers. Beth stated the funds go into reserves. Sherleen had a question regarding the Palm Report and what the association was required to do with amounts where the association has come under budget. Beth stated when the budget is done, the Palm Report’s recommendation to consider previous amounts under budget IS considered for future assessments. Sherleen asked about how much extras money will be required for the roof repair project. Beth stated that was an unknown because of wood repairs costs are unknown. Beth explained the costs associated with the project. Rita Davis had a question regarding the vinyl siding to be used in the roofing project. Her concern is that that was voted down by the unit owners. Beth stated that with the information available at that time, our attorney said that it belonged on the ballot. Beth also stated that after the meeting new information became available about Tinley Park building code requiring house wrap (Tyvek) behind the siding (which has not been found when any repairs have been done in these areas). This requires the existing

of 9



siding to be removed. Beth explained the cost and logic involved in replacing aluminum siding with vinyl siding. Rita also wanted to know why Debbie “was kicked out of being vice president of the board”. Rita stated the association voted for her to the position of vice president. Jerry corrected Rita by stating the association did not vote Debbie as vice president. The association voted her onto the board; however, the board voted her to the position of vice president and the board can remove her from the position of vice president. Jennifer Stoner, (new owner) 8820 Bluebird, had a question about the ribbons on her bushes and the assessments. Beth answered her questions regarding assessments. Judy Galzewski, the association’s landscape committee coordinator, explained the ribbons designated bushes to be replaced as part of the bush replacement program. Tom stated he had just signed the contract. Barry Barnett had a question regarding the large evergreen uprooted in front of his unit. His concern is the condition of the area after the tree was removed. Barry indicated he notified EPI regarding his concerns. Judy Glazewski explained, to Barry, the process in place to restore the landscape and the fact that she had already explained the timing and the process that would be followed. Barry expressed his disapproval of the delay. Judy explained that there was a month delay due to her husband’s death and that she explained this to Barry already multiple times. Beth also stated that some sense of civility should be considered with respect to the volunteers; Jerry also indicated that the tone of voice used to address volunteers should also be considered. Barry also described a problem with his driveway. Tom explained the process for maintaining/repairing driveways. Beth explained some of the problems that the board has encountered that have caused delays in resolving certain matters. Tom also explained, to Joe Beissel, that there is only one contractor involved with the roofing project.

VI. Landscape Project Summary: None schedule

VII. Approval of the minutes: a) Jerry motioned to approve the minutes. b) Beth seconded the motion.c) The minutes were approved unanimously.

VIII. Treasurer’s Report – Beth Murphy (Time 28:36)1. Beth received the bank reconciliations from Scott at the board meeting.2. Com Ed’s auto pay posted, but there is the usual one-month lag.3. The accounts payable shows a bill for $1,775 for a deposit for a reserve study by Reserve

Advisors; however, the board hasn’t even discussed any reserve study bids. Scott agreed that the amount needs to be backed out. Beth noted that this was put into General Repairs and Maintenance, but when we do approve a reserve study, the cost should be put in A/C 5085, Legal and Audit, since that is where the amount was budgeted.

4. Beth noted that the November ACH batch for assessments would be processed on November 17, 2014 since November 15th is a Saturday.

5. Beth noted that she provided to all board members and EPI the breakdown between roof and regular assessments as of 10/31/14 for both the delinquencies and the prepaid assessments.

6. Beth reported that the regular and roof assessment income amounts reported are correct through 10/31/14.

7. Beth noted that she did receive the 10/31/14 financial statements via email the Friday before the board meeting.

8. Beth noted that the monthly transfer of roof reserves from the checking account to the roof money market account for $19,044 was made in October.

9. Beth reported that the Oct. 1, 2014 Waste Management auto pay was posted to the Pheasant Lake ledgers, but the usual one-month lag results in income to date being overstated by $920.

of 9



10. Beth noted that the reversal of the 2013 write-off of a delinquent receivable is making income to date overstated by $7,643.

11. Beth noted for EPI that the current owner needs to be reflected for the unit owners provided on the written Treasurer Report provided to EPI where there has been a change in unit owners recently.

12. Beth’s entry requested in October to transfer tree costs to the Mulch Reserves was recorded by EPI in the ledgers.

13. Legal expenses now have a normal account balance due to incurring legal fees by the association to offset the non-normal credit balance in the account.

14. Beth put forth a motion to approve the 2015 budget as published in the newsletter. Jerry seconded the motion. Both Jerry and Tom voted yes, but Deborah said she had some questions.

Deborah put some information in writing for the board, but did not provide this information in advance to any board member. Beth indicated that Deborah could have provided information via email in advance before the board meeting.

Deborah then said that she wanted to make a statement that an attorney opinion was requested that the whole board did not know about; she felt the whole board should have been consulted because there was money involved. The opinion was obtained without informing the whole board relative to the vinyl siding. Deborah objects to that and had questions on it.

Beth noted that the board approved Beth to do the work to follow up on the roofing project. Deborah still did not believe that Beth was authorized to do anything that cost money.

Scott then noted that he suggested that the attorney come to a board meeting due to this issue and the report from the attorney due to the Palm court ruling. However, the decision about having the attorney come to a board meeting was up to the board.

Deborah claimed that the attorney’s opinion was obtained regarding the aluminum versus the vinyl siding, but that the issue was due to the ice/water shield, which was viewed as being the improvement in question. Beth noted that the attorney did say that any improvement that costs less than $10,000 did not require owner approval. Beth noted that the roofer informed Beth that the ice/water shield cost would be less than $10,000 behind the vertical walls that abut the roofs. Beth also noted Tyvek (which would also cost less than $10,000) was found to be required per Tinley Park code, and since it is required per Tinley Park code and is currently not installed behind the vertical walls, then owner approval is not required. Beth then noted that Deborah stated at a prior meeting that the Village of Tinley Park would require Pheasant Lake to replace all siding, not just the siding that abuts the vertical walls. Deborah claimed she did not say that would definitely be required by Tinley Park, but both Jerry and Beth pointed out to her that she did claim that Tinley Park would required all siding to be replaced.

Then Deborah stated that she wanted a breakdown of the $75,000 related to the vinyl siding work. She said she wanted this information because she wasn’t involved with this attorney’s opinion. She said she did not know the costs, and then said she didn’t know the cost of the attorney’s opinion.

Then Deborah claimed that she is concerned about the roofs and whether more of an increase is needed to cover all of the bills because there are unknowns. Deborah then talked about the numbers that she compiled (copy of what was given out by Deborah is attached to the end of

of 9



these minutes). Deborah pointed out that she left out of her calculations and the written document (given to the board at the November 10, 2014 meeting) the $12 per month per owner collected for the roofs from the regular $165 assessment, and claimed that was about another $13,000. Deborah noted that her numbers show that there is not enough in the roof assessments to cover the roofing project costs. Deborah then said that Beth is a lot better with numbers and can just check Deborah’s numbers. Deborah continued to recite the numbers on her written report. Deborah indicated that we had a lot of extra expenses due to storms this past year and feels that we are cutting it too close with the roofing project. Deborah said she is very concerned.

Beth noted that we will be using a significant amount of the unassigned reserves to successfully complete the roofing project. Beth noted that even with the worst-case scenario in terms of the cost of the contract extras, there would still be adequate funds remaining in reserves. Beth also noted that Deborah’s data provided did not properly consider the prepaids. Beth noted that when she prepared her analyses for the discussion at the October 2014 board meeting, she computed data as of 9/30/14. Beth added up all of the balances in the bank accounts and backed out the prepaid assessments, and then added in the remaining assessments to be collected for roofs for the rest of 2014 and for the rest of 2015 for $195 plus $12 per month per owner; Beth noted that she did not even attempt to predict uncollectible amounts pertaining to the remaining 2014 and 2015 assessments. Beth then noted that she compared those funds with the total roofing project costs in the worst-case scenario, and Beth indicated that there were adequate funds and would be funds remaining.

Deborah then said she did not understand the prepaids; Beth explained that all assessments come into the Pheasant Lake checking account; each month, the full amount of the roof assessments are transferred out of the checking account into the roof reserve account, regardless of whether or not the full amount was paid by all owners. Beth repeated again to Deborah that if the owners’ prepaid assessments are included in the bank accounts, then the full amount of the roof assessments for all 92 owners going forward cannot be added to the current bank balances to compute expected available funds; that approach would be counting those prepaid assessments twice. Beth tried multiple times to explain how the prepaid assessments are handled, but Deborah did not understand the process and the accounting for the prepaid assessments. Beth noted that the amount of accounting it would take each month to figure out the variable amount of cash that is actually received for roof assessments from unit owners each is not necessary; without question, the cash received is tracked by owners and is in association bank accounts. However, having different amounts transferred from checking to the roof bank accounts each month would be confusing and likely lead to errors. Beth asked again what was the point that Deborah was trying to make. Deborah again reverted to her opinion on the prepaids, and Beth asked President Tom how long this discussion had to continue.

Tom noted that Beth tried to explain things as best as she could and that it was time to vote on the budget. Deborah then claimed that the board already voted on the budget. Beth noted that the vote at the October 2014 board meeting was the vote to put the draft budget into the November 2014 newsletter that goes to homeowners. A formal board vote to approve the 2015 budget was required at the November 10, 2014 board meeting. Tom, Jerry and Beth voted yes to approve the 2015 budget published in the November 2014 newsletter, and William and Deborah voted against it.

of 9



Then Deborah continued again that she still wanted a breakdown of the $75,000 for the attorney’s opinion. Beth noted that the $75,000 and the attorney’s opinion are two different things. Deborah wanted to know the cost to get the attorney’s opinion regarding the siding; Scott noted that he needed to look at the invoice associated with the $281.25 charge on the ledgers for attorney fees since he believed that included the opinion regarding the siding and part of the Palm review costs. Deborah wanted a breakdown of the $75,000, but 3 of the board members did not vote to approve getting that information. Beth noted that Deborah never requested that information as part of the detail requested in the roofing specs during the many, many months when the roofing specs were being revised. Beth asked what Deborah would be doing with the information, and she said she just wanted to see the information because it’s $75,000.

Deborah then claimed she thinks that doing the siding work associated with the $75,000 was a good idea. However, Beth noted that Deborah voted against that improvement as a board member. Deborah then claimed that Beth would not know how Deborah voted. Beth again stated that Deborah voted against the improvement when the board’s opinion was documented in the information provided to each owner about the improvements prior to the annual meeting. Then Deborah said yes … and then she said the association could not afford to spend the $75,000.

Tom then indicated that we needed to move on to a new topic, but asked Scott about getting the breakdown in cost related to the $75,000. Beth noted that the breakdown should provide the cost of the ice/water shield related to the vertical walls, the cost of the Tyvek related to the vertical walls, and then the rest of the cost. Deborah confirmed that was the information that she would like to see.

IX. Management Report – Scott AdlerMiscellaneous Operating –A) Roof Replacement Project:

1. Scott stated we have the attorney’s opinion regarding the roof project improvements.2. He discussed the three proposals that came thru from Lang Home Exteriors, Aurora

Roofing and APEK roofing that were broken out by cost per building, cost per square, oversize gutter replacement cost, vinyl siding replacement cost and soffit and fascia replacement. Beth had a follow-up on the Lang bid. In the written proposal the oversize downspouts was included in the base bid. Beth asked the overall cost, to make sure it wouldn’t require approval; it was $2,700.00. That means the gutter cost was $2,700.00 less. Beth described the difference between the Lang and Aurora’s and APEK’s base bids. She also explained the vinyl siding cost differences in the bids. She also explained the breakdown of extras’ costs. Beth noted that Lang is including the gable vents in their bid for the siding work on the vertical walls. Beth noted that the wood replacement costs for Aurora were much higher than Lang’s. She was also concerned that APEK left out the labor warranty and other things, whereas Lang and Aurora’s labor warranty was quoted as 10 years each. One of the highest items on the Lang bid is skylights and they never quoted on sun-tunnel cost. She thinks that cost can be negotiated, but it’s the homeowner’s cost. Bill had a question about the skylights being an owner’s expense. Beth explained that question had been resolved by the prior board. She feels the skylight cost is an issue worth discussing with the contractor. Beth motioned we approve Lang. Jerry seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.

B) Rotted Wood Replacement: 1. Scott asked if only the locations bid should be taken care or should we take care of only

the critical ones. He quoted quotes from Lang Home Exteriors at $1,720 and SMS at

of 9



$1,565. Scott explained the scope of the repairs. Beth noted that she did not see the repairs for the 8915/8917 Mallard on the SMS bid; Scott said it was not on the list but it should be since Scott told SMS and Lang about it. Lang only referenced a Schedule B. Scott read the list of units on Schedule B which includes 8915/8917 Mallard but at the rear of the unit, not the front. Scott confirmed that the $1,545 bid from SMS included the work at the front of 8915/17 Mallard. Under that assumption, Beth motioned approval of SMS. Jerry seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.

C) 18212 Mockingbird Tree Removal -1. Scott reviewed the proposals from Homer Tree care for $425, Smitty’s Tree Service for

$455 and Kramer Tree Service for $598. Tom motioned we approve Homer Tree Care. Jerry seconded the motion. Beth suggested that other tree maintenance should be done in conjunction with this item. Scott explained that it would not save money. The motion was approved unanimously.

D) Bush/Landscape Removal and Replacement: 1. Scott stated this item had been previously been discussed.

E) Landscape Maintenance: 1. Scott reviewed that Landscape Maintenance Specifications had been sent out in 2012.

The contract expired with Landworks October 31st. The bids will be going out for 2015. Scott asked if the board has any changes for these specifications. Beth stated she thought there were bids earlier this year and that the contract would go thru November 30th, instead of October 31st, and that it was an 8 month bid, instead of 7 months. Tom suggested we stay with a seven month contract because of possible larger fees. Beth agreed. The board agreed the specifications should go out as they are now.

F) Entry Bush Damage: 1. Scott reviewed the Landworks bid to remove the bush for $150 and replace it with three

Japanese Garden Junipers (same type of bush) for $330. Tom stated he observed that the bush had been pressed down and appeared to be have taken root and didn’t look too bad. Tom suggested that the board hold off a decision until spring. The board agreed.

G) Lake: 1. Scott stated there are two proposals and there are additional proposals out, but

contractors have not submitted them. Clark quoted $4,400 and Ken’s Pond and Lake at $2,580. Ken’s has been maintaining the lake for the past several years. Tom stated he has talked with Ken and is satisfied with his work. Beth motioned to approve Ken’s Pond and Lake. Tom seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.

H) Palm Review of Declaration:1. Scott stated he has the attorney’s review of the declaration, in light of the Palm Decision

that came through earlier this year. Scott asked the board if there is any discussion, as the review is rather lengthy. Beth asked if this means we should poll home owners, via a form sent to owners, about getting written correspondence via e-mail. Scott acknowledged that the attorney mentioned electronic notice to homeowners and that was in a law that got passed and goes into effect January 2015. Jerry had a concern about the reference to meeting that seems ambiguous. Jerry and Beth agreed that the board’s current procedures agree with the attorneys Palm Review recommendations. Beth stated that our notification procedure regarding mailing the budget also agrees with the Palm Review recommendations. Debbie had a question about 12 home owners not receiving the newsletters. Beth stated all homeowners had the last newsletter mailed to them because it had the budget in it. Beth also stated that regular newsletter delivery is another subject. She said there was a poll, of homeowners, asking them how they

of 9



wanted the newsletter delivered. It was indicated if there was no response, that unit owner would not get the newsletter in the mail, but it would be available on-line. There are some owners on the hard-copy list. Some homeowners did provide e-mail addresses. Beth asked if the board should poll the owners, again, via a form. Tom suggested we might have to, based on the Palm Review. Scott emphasized this was for official association business (e.g.: annual meeting notices, budget notices, special meetings requiring owner vote) and summarized what can be included: including using electronic notification. Scott emphasized that the owner can op-in or op-out of getting the notices via email. Jerry expressed a concern about owner’s personal information being available to other unit owners. Scott stated this is part of the law. Jerry suggested that the form, to be sent to owners, should let the owner determine what type of personal info should be available. Typo errors, in the document, and suggested edits were highlighted. Some of the nuisances of receiving owner responses were discussed. Scott stated EPI needs board approval to send the notice to home owners. Jerry motioned that a letter be sent to owners. Tom seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Beth stated she feels there will be confusion and would like newsletters to be excluded from this process. She suggested that a list be sent stating the information to be sent and in what format: electronic, e-mail, hard-copy or on-line. Jerry made a statement to the attending owners to clarify the meeting procedure. He stated that association business must be discussed in an open board meeting – period. Other nuances in the review were discussed. Beth brought up the email voting between meetings; the Palm Decision did not address this issue. The Not-for-Profit Act and our declaration allow us to vote between meetings via emails, as long as the board agrees on decisions without any reservations. Thus, the board will continue to follow that practice.

Beth brought up the subject of delegation of authority to EPI management. Scott stated that all authority stays with the board and the management cannot make association decisions without board approval. Beth also was interested in the authority of the president and treasurer. What authority does the president have in giving directives to management. The president does what the board directs him to do. Beth was authorized, by the board, to take control with regard to the roofing project information and analysis. Beth summed it up by stating “no board member can act on their own without board approval”. Beth was concerned that this would change the association’s agreement with EPI that puts a dollar amount on what can be spent without board approval. The current amount is $150.00. Scott suggested the attorney be contacted on this issue.

I) Reserve Study:1. Scott stated Criterium Collins declined to submit a proposal. There is still one bid

outstanding. 2. The Reserve Advisor bid is $3,550 plus optional $355/year (Budgetary software)3. The Waldman Engineering bid is $3,690 plus optional $440 (Editable Excel Tables)4. Beth asked Scott his impression of the two bidding companies. Scott stated they were

both very comparable. Scott explained the function of the two companies with regard to reserve studies. Beth discussed her impression of the two companies, based on the material they provided. Scott explained the details of what the companies provide. Jerry motioned we approve Waldman Engineering. Tom seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.

J) Public Act 098-0735 (Electronic Notices): of 9



1. Scott stated this subject had already been discussed.

Exterior Modification Requests: A) Exterior Modification Forms that were submitted by James Hansen will be discussed at a

later meeting.

Rule Violations and Appeals:A) The Scherer violation letter was regarding unapproved tree removal and landscape

restoration. Jerry stated Scherer is using the Chicago Tribune article as her legal authority. He also states the Chicago Tribune is not the legal decision maker for the association. Beth stated the owner clearly put the tree up and did not submit an Exterior Modification Request to remove it. The owner is appealing, and the owner was not fined. The owner is requesting re-imbursement for the cost of the tree removal and landscape restoration. Beth also added that the contractor used by the association for tree service inspected the tree and said it did not need to be removed. Landworks also looked at the tree and said that they did not see any need for the tree to be removed. Jerry moved to deny the request for re-imbursement. Tom seconded the motion. The motion was approved. Beth added that a letter will be sent to the owner.

B) Barry Barnett received a violation letter regarding dog waste found on the lawn area. The owner states they regularly pick up the waste. Scott stated they have not been fined in the past. Jerry motioned to drop the violation. Tom seconded the motion. There was a discussion regarding the rules. The motion was approved.

Miscellaneous Correspondence: A) Zima requests a barrier be installed, on the south side of the unit, to prevent snow drifts in

front of the garage. This is requested for safety considerations for a senior. There was a discussion on how to implement a process to ensure the drifts will not form. No positive solution was found during a discussion. Tom motioned to reject the request for a snow barrier. Jerry seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.

B) Sands requests reimbursement for replacement of a chimney crown in 2004. The owner is asking for a reimbursement of $550. Bill asked if it was replaced with the same stainless steel that she had. Scott confirmed that it was. There was a discussion about who is responsible for the chimneys. Tom motioned we get a legal opinion. Debbie seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.

X. New Business –1. Tom discussed the status of the 183rd street entrance lights. Tom and Jerry have not been

able to solve the problem with lights burning out. Tom motioned we get an electrician to resolve the problem. Jerry seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.

XI. Old Business - 1. None discussed

XII. Meeting Adjourned: 08:33PM1. Jerry motioned to adjourn the board meeting.2. Tom seconded and the meeting was adjourned to executive session

of 9



Handout Prepared by Deborah Gardner & Given to Board Members at the Nov. 10, 2014 Board Meeting:

1.

of 9

Web view11/10/2014 · – Scott Adler. Mi. scellaneous Operating ... Elizabeth A....

Documents

Transcript of Web view11/10/2014 · – Scott Adler. Mi. scellaneous Operating ... Elizabeth A....