BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

Management Report

Monday March 27th, 2017 at 7:30PM

2nd Floor Party Room

OWNER FORUM – 7:30PM – 15 minutes, 2 minutes per person

The Board and Management will address questions and feedback from Unit Owners.

OPEN SESSION – Call to Order

The meeting chair, expected to be Board President Michael Parrie, will call the meeting to order. Please be courteous – no audience participation is permitted.  If applicable, speakers will be recognized by the Meeting Chair.

Roll Call – Confirm Quorum

The meeting chair will confirm a quorum of Board Members are present. Board Members and representatives from Management will be introduced.

Action Items – New Business

1.     Minutes – Board Meeting March 13, 2017

Attached to the report for Board Member review, are the proposed minutes from the Board Meeting held on Monday March 13, 2017, as submitted by Timothy Patricio, Property Manager.

A sample motion to approve the minutes for March 13th: “I move the Board of Directors approves the minutes from the Board Meeting held on Monday March 13, 2017.”

2.      Minutes – Special Meeting March 18, 2017

Attached to the report for Board Member review, are the proposed minutes from the Town Hall Meeting held on Saturday March 18, 2017, as submitted by Michael Parrie, Board President.

A sample motion to approve the minutes for March 18th: “I move the Board of Directors approves the minutes from the Special Meeting held on Saturday March 18, 2017, to discuss the proposed amendments to the Declaration and Bylaws and purchase of Unit 12c.”

3.     Minutes – Special Meeting March 22, 2017

Attached to the report for Board Member review, are the proposed minutes from the Town Hall Meeting held on Wednesday March 22, 2017, as submitted by Michael Parrie, Board President.

A sample motion to approve the minutes for March 22nd: “I move the Board of Directors approves the minutes from the Special Meeting held on Wednesday March 22, 2017, to discuss the proposed amendments to the Declaration and Bylaws and purchase of Unit 12c.”

4.     Fiber Network Build Out

The purpose of this item is to discuss the samples for the material being used in the hallways and units, and to consider giving permission for AT&T to use space for their Hub in the garage. Attached is a narrative they provided with pictures and descriptions of some of the material and equipment they plan to use.

AT&T has requested to build a 5×5 cage near the area where the motorcycles are parked. This would contain a ‘hub’ for their network rack, where the primary fiber line in the building will split off to each floors’ storage room. In the storage rooms, cabinets will hold the junctions to the main line where it splits off into the lines which will run through the hallways and to the units.

From there, the main lines continue upward to the next floor. From each storage room, two lines will enter the hallways – one to go one direction and one the other. These contain the individual strands for each unit. This fiber ‘invisiline’ product will run along the corner between the walls and ceiling.  Fiber lines will lead to each door, above which a small box about the size of a power outlet will be affixed. This box contains the junction where the individual fiber strand enters the unit. From there, a fiber line will run along the crack between the ceiling and the walls, up to and terminating at each units primary media wall location where it will be brought down behind the wall to the fiber line outlet.

The fiber line and the junction box can be painted.

Management has asked to have samples of the materials and hopefully pictures of what the garage Hub structure would look like, as well as a picture of what the fiber outlet in each unit will look like. There is ample space in the garage at the location noted.

A sample motion for approval: “I move the Board of Directors approves the samples for the fiber build out as presented by AT&T, accepts the installation plan as proposed by AT&T, and authorizes use of locations in the garage for a 5’x5’ structure containing the AT&T hub for the fiber lines entering the building and branching off to the floors, and storage rooms for the junction boxes.”

5.      Health Club Locker Rooms/Restrooms

As directed at the last Board Meeting, the RFP for the remodeling project was distributed. The deadline for returning proposals is Friday March 24th at 12pm. This was given to 5 contractors familiar with the building. One is the contractor who the Health Club Committee worked with; the proposal attached. Three others have indicated they are working on their proposal. The fifth has not responded to our inquiries.

The first bid, from Zadro General Contractors, is for $195,000. Assuming we receive at least 2 other bids or more by the deadline, we suggest the Board consider a resolution at a cost not to exceed the bid amount plus 10% for unknowns. In the present case with Zadro, that would be $195,000, plus $19,500. Because of the nature of the work being done, and the fact we will be opening walls that have not been opened in decades, we believe there is a possibility surprises may be found which we may need to address as the project progresses.

A sample motion for approval: “I move the Board of Directors approves the proposal for remodeling of the health club locker rooms and restrooms as proposed by ________________, at a cost not to exceed the proposed estimate of _______________, plus a provision of ________________, to address unknown conditions if and as they may arise.”

6.     Security System Rehab

A complete state of the art overhaul of our Security System was budgeted for this year. This includes a full replacement of all of our present cameras and wiring with a completely digital and IP friendly network. As “future proof” as possible. An RFP was devised for this, in which we also proposed a provision for 5 new cameras to be included.

This project includes an upgrade of the fob network with a new server and software which is integrated with the camera network. The existing fob data is transferable, so new fobs and fob readers will not be necessary. There may be some time periods during the installation where the network is down. (We will of course distribute notices and alerts for this as necessary.)

In addition, with our RFP (attached for Board review) we asked for a device to electronically protect our keybox. Together with a new camera and an electronic locking solution, we will drastically improve the security of the keys being held in the office.

The locations for new cameras include the office, weight room, cardio room, laundry room and lobby. Each vendor bidding has indicated their proposals are as expandable as needed. If the Board wishes to consider other locations, now is certainly the most efficient time.

Altogether, 5 vendors were invited to bid. One was disqualified due to poor references. The remaining four are ready for consideration, and attached to the report for Board review. Estimates are as follows:

Chicago Building Services – $90,718

Applied Network Concepts – $100, 876 (incumbent service provider)

ASI Alarm Systems – $112,370

VinTech Security Systems – $103,800

The budget for this project is $105,000.

Chicago Building Services, Applied Network and VinTech substantially complied with our RFP provisions. All three have strong references. ASI missed several opportunities to substantially comply with our requests for revised proposals with the correct # of devices and references. Though, we believe the Honeywell brand ASI represents is just about as beyond reproach as you can get. We do believe their estimate is fair enough for comparison sake with the other bids.

Finally, Chicago Building Services, Applied Network and ASI arranged on site demonstrations of their equipment and walked us through the software they are proposing. We are happy with what we observed with the quality of the equipment and the capabilities of the software our team will be using to manage fobs and recorded surveillance. However, we were most impressed with the presentation by Chicago Building Services.

Because of the nature of this work, we suggest the Board accept a proposal with an added provision of 10% to address unknown conditions. With almost a mile of wiring all together and scores of ancillary devices, we are concerned we may need to authorize some additional work in conjunction with what is already proposed.

Following our research and meeting with each of these contractors, we see no reason not to proceed with the lowest bidder. In fact, following their presentation, we are very excited to get this project started and begin working with them.

A sample motion for approval: “I move the Board of Directors approves the proposal for overhauling our security system as proposed by Chicago Building Service, at a cost not to exceed the proposed estimate of $90,718, plus a provision of $9100, to address unknown conditions if and as they may arise.”

7.     Garage Overhead Doors

An RFP was distributed to 4 vendors for replacement of the 6 overhead fire doors in the garage, the overhead and double fire doors on the dock, and the garbage lift overhead fire doors.

Replacement of the Garage Fire Doors was budgeted this year, because the rolling fire doors in several locations have been routinely failing inspection. We believe a city inspector could cite the doors – or at least most of them in their present state. But more importantly, it is a safety concern. Our maintenance service provider Door Systems won’t tag them, which should be done annually. They advised they could fail all together in the event of an incident.

Door systems and three other vendors bid on this project – attached are the present proposals. All the vendors have deficiencies as it relates to our RFP, which we are actively working to resolve in time for the meeting. Door System’s was previously used for budgeting purposes, as our incumbent service provider, and they need to revise their bid to reconcile it with the RFP.

When the three other vendors performed a walk through with us, they expressed similar concerns and two bidders even noted failures while they were in the process of inspecting for the purpose of bidding. Each of them have a variety of problems with their response to the RFP – such as lack of references, certificate of insurance, warranty information and technical specifications, and inclusion of the dock area fire doors and frame. We are presently gathering the additional information needed.

The budget for this project was $50,000. We will be over this estimate. The primary reason is, on top of the garage fire doors, when we devised the RFP, we decided it was wise to consider replacing the garbage lift and dock rolling doors as well. These doors are in a similar state, but we had not considered them in past projections.

The bids are attached to the report for Board review, and estimates are as follows:

Door Systems – $63,000 – Incumbent service provider. ($46,846+, they are revising the bid to be consistent with RFP – $63K is a preliminary estimate based on what’s missing in their bid.)

DSI Door Service – $49,517.98 (They are revising their bid to include the dock fire doors and frame, probably around $8000, also we need to confirm the rating and warranties of the doors they proposed. Very good recommendations.)

Overhead Door Solutions – $69,006 (They provided the most thorough response to the RFP.)

Industrial Door Company – $81,539 (Did not provide warranty information, references or COI.)

Based on our efforts to date, and research into this project, we see no reason why we should not suggest the low bidder be chosen. We do not have a problem choosing a vendor other than the incumbent service provider. However, because they did not include the dock door and frame replacement, we suggest the Board add a provision to include it.

A sample motion for approval: “I move the Board of Directors approves the proposal for replacement of the garage fire doors as proposed by DSI Door Service, at a cost not to exceed the proposed estimate of $49,517.98, plus a provision of up to $8000, to replace the dock area fire door and frame.”

8.     Main Air Handler Overhaul

We budgeted as a part of seasonal operating costs for the repair of the drain pans serving our main air handler due to leaking over the last year. This air handler serves to provide fresh air, AC and Heat to the hallways. The drain pans in question catch and drain condensation from the coils during cooling season. The pans have leaked into the Unit below mostly during AC season. When investigating this to get estimates to have this repair done before AC season, a myriad of other problems were discovered.

The heating/cooling coils, which need to be removed as a part of the process to repair the pans, are severely deteriorated and the vibration isolators are almost completely worn down and serving no purpose. The engineers report they are extremely concerned the coils would not survive the process. Since part of the labor involved with replacing the drain pans would be removing these parts, now is the most efficient and cost effective moment to do this work.

And, the dominos kept falling from there. The dampers and fan motor are original. Our team is very concerned they could fail in the near future and we would lose this opportunity to access them when now would be the best time to do so, as with the coils. Furthermore, when we take all this apart, it also makes sense to replace the blower shaft and bearings, which are old and very noisy.

The bad news – as stated, this much of an overhaul was not considered in our budgeting. $96,000 was budgeted for HVAC Capital Repairs, but nothing specifically for the main air handler. And we only figured about $8,000 for the drain pan in our Operating Budget, as a non-reserve item. The lowest bid for this overhaul is $102,600.

HOWEVER, the good news, HVAC capital repairs are considered in years to come through our Reserve Study and 10 year projection. In fact, it is on our outlook for the 2018/2019 fiscal year. So although the expense was not expected this year, it was addressed in coming years as a part of the current rate of Reserve Contribution budgeted. So, it impacts us this year as an expense but is flushed out in the near future and should not affect what is recommended for future budgeted contributions.

Also, rebuilding this equipment, mostly original to the building, can help with energy efficiency and air quality, AND will reduce noise from the mechanical room into units below. With new coils, the air handler will heat and cool the air entering for the hallways more cleanly and efficiently. This should result in noticeable energy savings, though it would be difficult to quantify exactly. The air handler is constantly running, and except between about 52 and 62 degrees outside, the air is always being heated or cooled.

Replacing the vibration isolators and bearings will result in a significant reduction in noise.

Regardless, the drain pans are leaking, and before we get into the summer, we need to replace them to avoid further damage and inconvenience to residents below this location.

The bids are attached to the report for Board review, and estimates are as follows:

Oak Brook Mechanical – $102,600

WJ O’Neil Chicago – $111,975

AMS Mechanical – $157,231

A sample motion for approval: “I move the Board of Directors approves the proposal by Oak Brook Mechanical Services, Inc., to perform repairs to the penthouse level make-up air handler for the hallways, as proposed at a total estimate of $102,600.”

9.     Social Committee Membership

We received a request from the Social Committee for the Board to consider appointing Unit Owner Bob Shamo, Unit 4606, as a member of the Committee.

A sample motion for approval: “I move the Board of Directors appoints Unit Owner Bob Shamo as a member of the Social Commission.”

10.      Construction Requests

Attached to the report for Board Member review are remodeling packets for the following Unit Owner construction projects:

601 – Kitchen Remodel

1011 – Hardwood Flooring

1904 – Hardwood Flooring

5103 – Kitchen and Bath Remodel

5301 – Laminate Flooring

A sample motion follows: “I move the Board of Directors approves the remodeling plans of units 601, 1011, 1904, 5103, and 5301, as submitted by the unit owner, following the recommendations of the chief engineer as outlined in their written specifications and in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and remodeling guidelines of the Park Tower Condo Association.”

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the Board will consider adjourning the meeting.

A sample motion follows: “I move the Board of Directors adjourns the March 27, 2017 Board Meeting at _ _ PM.”

OWNER FORUM – 15 minutes, 2 minutes per person

Next Meeting Dates Monday April 10th and April 24th