In Attendance

George Pauley, President; Carlos Vargas, 1st Vice President; Sandra Goldberg, Secretary; Laura Cossa, Treasurer; Steve Hanna, Property Supervisor; Tim Patricio, Interim Property Manager; Mavis Mather, Assistant Manager Business Operations; Michael Rupert, Assistant Manager of Security & Operations; Sara Kacheris, Administrative Assistant Resident Services

Absent

Phoebe Helm, 2ndVice President

Call to Order at 7:32 pm

Open Comments and Questions  (Individuals not identified; Board and Management responses in italics)

1 – When we have large packages delivered to the receiving room is there anyway we can get those packages delivered to our apartments? Tim Patricio stated that there was not presently the capacity of staff available to deliver packages to the units.  This is not listed in the job description of any of the current employees of the Association.

Could something be arranged? Sara Kacheris stated that if the management office received a call asking for this we would send maintenance to do it.  Maintenance does this service for people who cannot move things themselves as a work order.  If you are able bodied we would not send maintenance up to move things for you; but in certain situations we will try to accommodate everybody. 

2 – The receiving room could always refuse the package and then UPS or federal Express would have to deliver the package to your unit personally.  She could refuse the package and they would have to deliver to the unit personally and you would have to be home to receive it. Carlos Vargas asked that the office issue a memo explaining the process for this.

3 – I am confused about where the dumpsters are to throw things away.  Last night I saw a girl run around the building, she went to the doorman and tapped five peoples shoulders.  She didn’t know what to do with her hangers and boxes she was carrying. George Pauley asked if the question was for recycling or for regular large items.

She had large items that you could not throw down the chute.  There are no longer dumpsters in the garage to throw things in. George Pauley stated that the dumpster in the garage was never for trash it was for recycling. Michael Rupert stated that the recycling was moved 66 feet to the right of where they had been. If you come out of the elevators and look straight ahead they are right there in the premium parking section against the wall.  Everything in the garage is for recycling only; if you want to throw out garbage the regular dumpsters are located in back of the building on the loading dock.

George Pauley asked if you had to talk to the office to use the dumpsters. Michael Rupert confirmed that the dumpsters were locked. George Pauley stated that the garage looked much neater than it used to be. Michael Rupert stated that it was a suggestion from the garage committee. George Pauley thanked the garage committee.

I think that you need to inform the doorman because numerous people have been asking around.  I think that a lot of people don’t know what to do. George Pauley asked Betty Terry-Lundy to include this in the next newsletter.

4 – Are we recycling or aren’t we recycling? George Pauley stated that we were still recycling, what exactly happens when Waste Management takes it away, sometimes it does get recycled and sometimes it doesn’t.  Tim has stated that he will be looking into other waste companies for a future contractor that may be able to do a better job for us.  We would like people to continue to be in the habit of recycling.

5 – Based on the remarks made at the last Board meeting, I would like to bring some closure to what happened with the previous manager Christina.  The Board said that Christina was not forced out, but that cannot be true.  For one Carlos made a statement that if she had a vote of confidence she would have had three votes to stay on.  Number two; George Pauley made a statement that an agreement was signed with Christina.  Again if those two statements were made by Board people, than she would still be on with the building.  If she had a vote of confidence then she was forced out, and if she had signed an agreement with the Board than she would still be here.  I think that the Board lied to the owners and the Association. George Pauley stated that the Board had not lied about that, Carlos would explain what he meant by a vote of confidence because my understanding of what Carlos was saying was different than what you said.  Christina was not fired, she was not asked to leave, she was not harassed.  She asked to leave and had begun asking to leave before three of us were on this Board.  The only way that she could have been removed from her position was if three of the five Board members had voted to have her removed.  This vote never occurred, this vote was never discussed even.  It was never on the agenda to have her removed.

So she didn’t get a settlement from the building or from Draper and Kramer for leaving? George Pauley stated that Christina moved to another building, other than that the Board members are not allowed to talk about details.

Of course you are going to say that its easy.

6 – Why would Christina get a settlement and who paid for it and how much was it for? George Pauley stated that no one on this Board has said that she got a settlement.  There was an agreement between the Board and Christina about her leaving.

We should know if there was a settlement because it’s our money.

7 – Personnel issues cannot be discussed, its part of the Illinois Condo Act and every previous Board member in here knows that. George Pauley stated that it is the law and we are not allowed to discuss salaries in open session, we don’t discuss performance reviews, we don’t discuss if someone is fired.

8 – We don’t want a Board up there that is going to cost this building money. George Pauley stated that this Board is not costing the building money.  Carlos would you like to explain your statement?

Carlos Vargas stated that in retrospective he found that Christina didn’t know what to do and was listening to a lot of people telling her rumors that were not true.  When I talked to Christina I told her that the only thing that she could do now and the only option in his opinion was for her to get a vote of confidence.  I even emailed Laura from Europe and asked if she had asked for a vote.  When you act stupidly you pay the price.  She expressed her opinion that she wanted to leave and that was the end of the story.

George Pauley stated that as Don started out this with a statement that he wanted to put this to rest, I think that this needs to be put to rest.  I don’t know how we could more clearly state that Christina requested and asked to leave.  There was never a vote on the Board on that.

9 – Why don’t we have a fifth Board member?  If Phoebe doesn’t want to be on the Board why doesn’t she resign or why don’t we get another Board member. Carlos Vargas stated that there was a time previously when he was on the Board that he did not come to the last 6 months that he had he did not go to the meetings because of a disagreement.  I had the guts to tell management to relieve me of all the correspondence and tell the Board that he would not attend the meetings.  I would finish out my term as a Board member but I would be an inactive Board member.  We are going into the 6th month without Ms. Helm being an active Board member.  It is insulting for anybody, including you as part of the Association because you elected her, for her not to be here today; and not having the courtesy to even send an email saying that she would not be here for the 6th time.

So how do we fix this? Carlos Vargas stated that he intended to ask her to quit the Board and let somebody else who wants to cooperate and help us be on the Board.  I’m not going to do this because it is you guys who elected her, you guys are the ones being insulted by her not me not anymore.

How do we fix this? Carlos Vargas stated that there was no way to fix it without 66-2/3% vote of the Association.  There is no way that we are going to go to the expense of this.  The other thing is that she decides to quit.  If for whatever reason she cannot work with us but she hasn’t had the courtesy to even respond to emails.  The last thing that I want to say is that she doesn’t even have the courtesy to introduce herself to Tim.

10 – Two points if I may, first of all I wanted to ask in general, when a homeowner asked about Christina’s departure there were a couple of hands up, there was an undercurrent that there was a conspiracy to drive Christina out, I wanted to have a frank discussion what is it that people are suggesting.  I know that there have been a couple of managers over the years that have been more comfortable working with some people over others, is somebody suggesting that there was a conspiracy that people ran for the Board to drive Christina out?  What is it that people are saying?  Number two, having worked with Phoebe on the store committee, its inconsistent to me that Phoebe is just blowing this off and not taking it seriously.  Has anybody been in communication with her to find out why she is not in attendance rather than us just drawing conclusions that she is disrespecting us? George Pauley stated that the Board did communicate with her on a regular basis through email but we do not get a response.  She is included on emails that the rest of us are but there have been very few responses over the course of the last 6 months.

But we know that she is okay and not in a tsunami or something? George Pauley stated that she was here 3 or 4 weeks ago.

Carlos Vargas stated that when there was the switch of the meeting from the Board meeting to the Finance committee meeting she was here that night.  I saw her and she said hi how are you, I thought that she would be at the finance committee meeting but she wasn’t.  The point is that she could just send an email saying that she is not going to be here. George Pauley stated that the Board knows that she was here just a few weeks ago, she is alive and well.  She does have a job in California but she does get into Chicago and into the building but I don’t know how regularly.  The first part of the question was is there a conspiracy?

No, I’m not asking if there is one I am asking if there is a suggestion from the floor or elsewhere in the building that there was some type of consorted effort. Carlos Vargas stated that before the election we got together and the first thing that I said was that my agenda was not to throw out D&K or Christina, and the Board was in consensus.  Whoever thinks there was a conspiracy, they are full of baloney.

11 – I just wanted to thank the people who did the newsletter I thought that its was great. George Pauley stated that the newsletter was done the committee that consists of Betty Terry Lundy who is the editor, Vince DiFruscio, Mrs. Shaw, Bob Pierce, Lorraine Meyers, and Mike Maglione who are all committee members.  I wish that you could have seen the copies on the emails that are in color but I do think that they should be commended for an excellent job.

12 – Firstly I wanted to welcome Tim; he will be a good addition to the building.  I feel that Tim has done a very good job and I do not miss Christina even though I didn’t know her.  Next, the newsletter was great but I didn’t receive it, but I don’t know why.  The one thing lacking in this building that would really open it up is a website.  Why doesn’t this building have a website that shows, not only how the building looks, but also what’s in the building.  We have a great commissary downstairs; we have doctors, and a health club.  Why isn’t there a website being maintained, it would cost about $20.00 a month and I don’t think that would be outrageous.

Tim Patricio stated that one of the things that George and Carlos wanted me to look at was a website.  This has been on my list and we have been working on some options for putting together a website. I have already taken three of the URL’s possible for the building, if you do want to do a website come to me and I will help.  I also have the capability to do a website.

George Pauley asked if he was volunteering to do this? I would be willing to do this but I would need help with the text, it would need to be approved by the Board.  I will talk to Tim about this later as he becomes acclimated to the people of the building.

George Pauley stated that he would suggest that you find some time to set up a meeting with Tim and see if you can do some work to make his job on this website issue a little easier.  I don’t know if other people have those skills but if there are other people they might be interested in helping also.

13 – Tomorrow night is scheduled to be the last meeting to work on the budget and one of the issues we will be looking at then will be the reserves and capitol improvements.  Just to get myself ready for the meeting I would like to hear from the each Board member what they feel is the minimum level for our reserves, if you could each respond I think that it would be helpful for our decision tomorrow night.  Sandra Goldberg stated that she had not made a decision yet. George Pauley asked if Becky got the packet yet for the reserve discussion?

I did get it but I would like to know just theoretically what would be a minimum level for reserves for a building this size. George Pauley stated that there was a difference between what would be theoretically and what I would like to see.  This will not happen because we do not have the money and it will need to be balanced against large assessment increases.  So I would like to see more in the reserves than we currently have, I was happier when it was at $2 million instead of ½ a million down from that.  We have some very hard work to do tomorrow night because we are facing some very big expenses.

Carlos Vargas stated that he is comfortable somewhere around 1 million dollars, the reason that I am saying that is when I ran in the Board we had $750,000 and my goal at that time was to get the reserves to $1million.  Keeping in proportions I understand the timing 20 years later I am for about $1million 200 if we can control the money and I believe we have the team to do it.

Sandra Goldberg stated that she had not come to a conclusion yet and will not comment.

Laura Cossa stated that it was so hard to pick a number, I agree with $2million but I am not too concerned about over budgeting as I am about over spending.  I feel that we need to cut the costs wherever we can.

14 – I respect the fact that the Board cannot discuss what it is or how much Christina received.  I do know that people who do business sign a contract, was this in her contract that when she left she was entitled to a settlement?  Why and how do we ever find out how much she was given? George Pauley stated that the question was about if Christina had a contract with us, which she did not, she is an employee of D&K and of Park Tower since she was assigned here.  I think that is about all we can answer on that question.

Well then why can’t we know, why does it have to be a big secret about how much she received since we do have to pay for it? George Pauley stated that as discussed earlier it is simply the law.

What was the law that she received a settlement? George Pauley stated that we cannot discuss personnel issues of any kind there are a lot of personnel issues.

Well if you can’t who can we discuss this with? George Pauley stated that there really wasn’t anyone this could be discussed with.

Then money can be awarded to someone and we don’t know. George Pauley stated that there were assumptions that could be made and rumors could go on with speculation.

I just wanted to know if she received a lump sum or not, did she get $10 did she get $50 or what. George Pauley stated that the Board could not comment on it.

You can’t comment on it and we are the residents here and we pay the assessments but we mustn’t know. George Pauley stated that if you don’t agree with that you should talk to your state legislators and change the law.

15 – I believe that this Board has discussed much more regarding this matter than I have than I have ever heard any Board discuss of personnel.  Normally it would have ended in the last meeting with the statement that on the advice of our attorney and the condominium law we can’t discuss any of this and now lets go out and drink.

16 – You know if the Board keeps on harassing the employees we will get hit with a law suit settlement, they need to leave the employees alone to do their jobs.  That is why we have to pay. George Pauley stated that Don was making an assumption.

I just want to let the people know that If the Board is harassing employees there will be a lawsuit. Laura Cossa stated that this is a valid point and a valid fear, we have three employees plus Tim who is new, can you guys say if you are okay in your position or if you feel comfortable?  Do you have anything to say about improvements in communication, don’t be afraid this is the place to say something.

Who are you talking to, the employees of the building? Laura Cossa stated that she was asking the members of management that were present.

Why would they say anything?  The boss is sitting there and the Board president is sitting there, they are fearing for their jobs.

17 – Did Christina get a copy of the newsletter thanking her? George Pauley stated that he would like Draper and Kramer to forward the current newsletter to Christina with the thank you to her in it.

Motions from Closed Session

A. No action.  B.  No action.  C1.  Upon due motion by Carlos Vargas and seconded by Sandra Goldberg, the Board voted unanimously to approve insurance fines.  C2.  Upon due motion by Sandra Goldberg and seconded by Carlos Vargas, the Board voted unanimously to approve a $100.00 fine and an additional $500.00 fine if the unit is not in compliance by January 15, 2008.  D.  Upon due motion by Sandra Goldberg and seconded by Carlos Vargas the Board voted unanimously to approve the pool attendant salaries as discussed.

Minutes October 15, 2007 Board Meeting

Upon due motion by Sandra Goldberg and seconded by Carlos Vargas, the Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes from the Board of Directors Meeting held on October 15, 2007 with corrections as submitted by the secretary to management.

Minutes November 19, 2007 Board Meeting

Upon due motion by Sandra Goldberg and seconded by Carlos Vargas, the Board voted unanimously to table the November 19, 2007 Board minutes because the secretary received them late and could not review them.

Unit 511 Lease

Upon due motion by Sandra Goldberg and seconded by Carlos Vargas, the Board voted unanimously to ratify the approval of the lease for unit 511 with a term of December 1, 2007 through November 30, 2008 at $1,500 per month and December 1, 2008 through November 30, 2009 at $1,575 per month.

Replaced Heat Timer

Upon due motion by Sandra Goldberg and seconded by Carlos Vargas, the Board voted unanimously to ratify the approval of Mega-Therm to supply and install the new version of the heat timer control at a cost of $1,550 per boiler.

Amending Approved Garage Audit

Upon due motion by Carlos Vargas and seconded by Sandra Goldberg, the Board voted unanimously to remove this item from the agenda.

Creation of Garage Spaces

Upon due motion by Carlos Vargas and seconded by Sandra Goldberg, the Board voted unanimously to table the creation of additional garage spaces.

Owner Comments Regarding Creation of Garage Spaces

A homeowner from the Garage Committee said what had happened was that Michael Rupert, Carlos Vargas and he spent a lot of time wandering about the garage. Carlos had this issue about finding extra spaces. Well one of the really important things we did was we found a couple of spaces that were not properly leased.  The other thing we were able to do is there are some spaces that we can correct that are not going to cause a hazard. They are not going to cause a problem. We just found some other places where we can add a space here or there and at this time we want to ease into this. Rather than doing all of the ones we think we have found, we like to do just three spaces. One example of this is we have a couple of doors down on 2P. We want to put a car in front of the door just like in a tandem. Whoever is parking there would leave their key with the garage management so if it was necessary for an electrician to get into one of these electrical cabinets, one of the hikers could come down and move that owner’s car.  The darn door is hardly ever open once or twice a year if that. So they would just move that car out of the way, do whatever repairs need to be done in the electrical closet and then put the car back.  This is all very straight forward. We just found a couple of spots.  We can increase our garage income.

Carlos Vargas said we were talking about three spaces and now one is in question. Carlos said he was still looking for a couple of other spaces.

Michael Rupert stated that he thought the Board should table this issue until the garage committee could get together and discuss it further because he had concerns about two of the spaces.

George Pauley asked Michael Rupert which parking spots he was concerned about.

Michael Rupert stated 138 and the one in front of the door that the homeowner was speaking about.

Sandra Goldberg said that she did not know if it was spot A, B, or C but  whichever spot that is close to the handicapped ramp. Could we impose upon Lorraine to go to 2P and see if she would have adequate room to maneuver because they want to put a jeep in the spot next to the handicapped ramp.

Loraine Meyers stated that she does not use that ramp because it is too dangerous.

George Pauley said we were going to table it for more discussion but Tim was working on getting proposals. He already has started on that to get those ramps corrected so they are usable. George said he did not know if the ramp on 1P looked any better to get to the mall elevators that on 2P.  We are going to try to correct that. In that case, this parking spot C would not have any impact on the handicapped accessibility.

Proposed Flooring Change

Upon due motion by Laura Cossa and seconded by Sandra Goldberg, the Board voted to approve allowing unit owners the option to use any other hard surface underlayment that has an FIIC rating of at least 54 which is the cork rating.

Owner Comments Regarding Proposed Flooring Change

A Homeowner stated that the problem with the rule change is that we are changing something that is very basic and has been in the building since the time of the conversion and are now throwing the response and expense on the unit owners. George Pauley stated that this motion was only to say that up until now we have required that the only underlayment that an owner can use is cork, which has a sound rating of 54.  We are now saying that they can use cork, or any of the newer materials that have been developed since that with an equivalent or greater rating.

A Homeowner stated that he understood this but that part of his objection is that part of this new rule talks about the compliance of the rule.  The two are tied together. He stated that he was not saying that he would be in favor of any of these other underlayments if as an owner who has lived in his unit for 27 years, he gets somebody who wants to change their construction all of a sudden his unit is not habitable and the onus is up to me to prove it. George Pauley stated he wanted to look at this in two sections. 1. Whether we will approve other underlayments that meet the current standard that we established at 54. George said he I would like to look at a second motion to discuss the suggestion of who would have to pay for a study if we have an upstairs neighbor who is complaining about noise from a hard surface floor . Those are the two sections of what Laura Cossa has written here. The expense is considerable to do a sound study for just one unit owner. George asked time if the cost would be around $5000.

Tim Patricio stated that cost would be $5000 or more.

George Pauley stated that what was being proposed was that it would be the responsibility of the unit owner if they were found not to be in compliance. If they were in compliance it would be the responsibility of the unit who was complaining about the noise, probably the downstairs neighbor. The second amendment will be the enforcement of the rule but that the current motion only says that if a resident puts in a new floor the association will allow them to use some of the synthetic materials that have now been developed that actually are better than cork, but under no circumstances can the rating be less than what cork would be.  The second portion of the rule change will be voted on after this one.

A Homeowner stated that he wanted to make sure that the part of the rule under discussion will still have the 80% floor covering requirement. George Pauley stated that 80% carpeting remains in the Declaration and that the Board is not able to change that requirement.  The Board can change the actual material that is used but cannot change the 80% coverage.

A Homeowner stated that he was curious in terms of the materials, I moved in during the middle of May and we did construction.  On the one hand it was easy, as someone who was just moving in, to see that what had to be done was the cork underlayment.  I didn’t know what this 54 rating was or see any information about that.  I am thinking that if someone is going to do this work, how accessible is this information to know what the ratings are?Laura Cossa stated that she went to Lumber liquidators to check the underlayment and every type of underlayment had the FIIC code on it.  If you check when you buy the underlayment it is written right there.  I have not seen any with 54 because the number is very low.  Everything that is new is about 58 to 60 and in one case 62

George Pauley stated that the hope was that by allowing materials other than cork, that the Association will end up with better sound installation properties.  Cork is a little bit outdated but is still frequently used.  Up until now the rule has been that it must be cork whether or not you come in and say that this new product is far superior, our rules do not allow the use of a superior product.  This change in the rule will not allow anything less than the current standard.

A Homeowner stated that when she looked online at units that are listed for sale in the building, a lot of time units are shown with wood flooring and little or no covered surface.  I think that even though there is some responsibility on the part of someone buying into the building to find out what the situation is this is misleading.  A lot of the people who move in spend a lot of money to put that kind of flooring down no matter what packages they have been given have seen those kind of pictures.  I don’t know if we have any say so, obviously we cannot control pictures that realtors post but maybe we should be more aware maybe handing out a packet to people just moving in that clarifies this.  I don’t think that people can visualize what 80% means when those pictures are so misleading.  Also I want to know if you have a situation where people are not covering their wood floors how long is that allowed to go on?  Once a complaint has been made and substantiated, how long is it going to be tolerated before definitive action is taken?  I don’t mean just a fine because a fine doesn’t do the person living downstairs a whole lot of good.  How long before there is a demand that it is done and what power do we have? George Pauley stated that you could guess by one of the things that we discussed in closed session regarding one unit, we have decided to fine more than the Rules and Regulations Committee had suggested.  We decided to move it up to a 30 day deadline instead of 90 days.  I think that it is really partially what the Rules and Regulations Committee recommends to the Board.  The Board makes a decision to do what the Rules and Regulations Committee recommends or they can change that.  In this particular instance we decided to change that recommendation to make it stronger and quicker.  I think that is a good point in terms of holding the Board accountable because it is the Board that is accountable for enforcing or following up on the rules.  We did change the rules several years ago so that a maximum fine is now up to $1,000.  I would ask for the new residents orientation member to comment on this.

A Homeowner stated that as a host of the new resident orientation he does tell residents of the flooring rules.  In regards to changing the recommendation that the Rules and Regulations made, without anybody from the Board being down there to know what is actually happening and why we would make a suggestion.  This particular party will be out of the country which was part of the reason for our recommendation. George Pauley stated that the Board took this into consideration, but that we they also took into consideration what the person on the lower floor has been hearing and has put up with not being able to sleep for quite a period of time.

A Homeowner stated that she doesn’t have an issue with the cork, but in addition to the cork there is the plywood.  Many current flooring does not require plywood.  It is not nailed it is entirely glued, so the plywood is not necessary.  The subflooring seems to need to be upgraded to meet the current technology.  This certain type of flooring that only requires the underlayment and then the wood flooring directly without the plywood at all. George Pauley stated that the plywood is again in the requirements are part of the sound factor and is not there as a structural requirement and is not there as part of the wood flooring.  This is there as part of our rules on sound deadening.

A Homeowner stated that if what is used is a new material, that alone will provide a 54 rating for the sound proofing without the plywood can it be done this way? George Pauley stated no.  This gets approved by Chuck Brown, our engineer.  What is required currently is the cork base of 54 plus the plywood and the rest of the sandwhich of materials.

Jane Wang-Wesley stated that there is a conflict here because you just said that any new material that is a 54 or higher is acceptable. George Pauley stated that it is acceptable substituted for the cork requirement only, the plywood and the rest of the rule stays the same.

Jane Wang-Wesley commented that she was a general contractor and she does a lot of underlayment for high-rises throughout Chicago.  When people hear that we are doing a particular type of floor such as engineered flooring, or floating floor, when they hear that it requires plywood the wood people laugh.  This is like a big joke, a floating floor absolutely does not require plywood.  Everyone has to do what the building requires but this is ridiculous. George Pauley stated that because of the way that this building was constructed, and there are very few residential high-rises in Chicago with curtain wall construction that is much more frequently used in office buildings, the design of this building with the concrete that is more dense and the amount of rebar is much higher than what you find in most high-rises plus the issue of the curtain wall and the gap between the slab and the curtain wall, this all increases noise transition.  The Board had decided previously to allow hard surface floorings when for a long time this was not even allowed.  If people do install hard floors it is still in our Declaration that 80% of them must be carpeted.  Even with all the things that we currently have we still have noise problems.  It is not a recommendation coming from the Board for people to put in hard wood floors because we still have noise problems with people putting in ceramic, laminates, and engineered flooring.  If people want to do this we are setting standards to try to protect the neighbors as much as possible.

A Homeowner stated that perhaps the thing to do is to increase the FIIC number from 54 to something higher.  It is not necessary the particular material that is required but the total number. Sandra Goldberg asked what rating this homeowner would recommend.

A Homeowner stated that she was not saying what particular number but that it was more logical to increase the number of the reading rather than stipulate the material. George Pauley stated that this was what they were doing tonight with the cork piece.  If people wanted to look at other pieces of the total composition of the flooring sandwich that is being used for sound deadening that they could take it to the next step.

A Homeowner stated that he wanted to backup what was being said.  As an interior designer and someone who has been involved in acoustics for some time, especially the joint between the cement floor and the curtain wall was a big area where sound can be transferred from one unit to another.  The folks above me followed all the recommendations and did everything right and I hear every footstep from them and their baby.  I know when everyone gets up and I know when they go to the bathroom and when they make breakfast.  Just as an example I brought up for Laura one of these new materials that we are talking about and this new material is 30 years old, I have been selling it for 30 years.  This is how behind the times we are by requiring cork.  The issue this young lady brings up is correct.  If we could get a total sound number that would meet our sandwich requirements than certainly we could take a look at it, but I have to tell you that acoustics is a very complex subject and it is going to require a serious look.  Possibly we will have to require an acoustical engineer, I would hate to spend our money but before we make it a tool we would have to get an acoustical engineer to say yes this idea is correct. George Pauley stated that they the question becomes is this a good use of our money because that is a very expensive project.  The bottom line is the building was not designed for it and we don’t encourage it.

Laura Cossa stated that in her research she has seen the FIIC without the plywood and has not seen any FIIC number from experience with the plywood sandwich.  It is just the slab of concrete and then the underlayment.  The question is how much do we save from an acoustical point of view, by putting in the plywood.  Do we have any idea?

A Homeowner stated that its an insulator and the idea is that when you are walking on a floating floor product, how much transfer is there going to be from the floating floor through the cement.  What happens is when you have one layer it is easy to transfer; the issue with the sandwich is you are trying to build up a number of layers.  Each layer absorbs a few more decibels of sound all the way through.  The point is this is a technical subject.  What we need to do is take a look at what acoustical engineers have already done for us, this work has already been done. Laura Cossa stated that studies are done in this case and it is and it’s not worth it to spend money.

Proposed Flooring Change

The vote was called to approve allowing unit owners the option to use any other hard surface underlayment that has an FIIC rating of at least 54 which is the cork rating. George Pauley voted in favor; Carlos Vargas, Sandra Goldberg, and Laura Cossa opposed; the motion failed.

Proposed Floor Testing Change

Upon due motion by Laura Cossa and seconded by Carlos Vargas, the Board voted to table this motion.  Sandra Goldberg stated that she did not want to table this motion. She wanted to eliminate it.  Sandra stated that she thought it was not a good idea to have the upstairs neighbor pay for the testing. She said she thought the onus should just be on the homeowner who put the hardwood floors in. They would have to provide proof that they followed the rules and the flooring underlayment was the current rating. If not, the homeowner who put the hardwood floors in would be responsible for correcting the situation. Sandra stated that she felt it was not necessary for any homeowner to do any acoustical testing.  The motion was amended by Laura Cossa and seconded by Sandra Goldberg to not change the procedures for noise complaints but to leave the procedures are they are currently.  The amended motion passed unanimously.

Construction Requests

Upon due motion by Carlos Vargas and seconded by Sandra Goldberg, the Board voted to approve the remodeling of units: 1914, 3103, and 4303 as submitted by the owners, 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.  The motion was amended to not approve the construction for a unit that was not in compliance with the mandatory insurance rule.  The amended motion was approved unanimously.

Treasurer’s Report (Laura Cossa)

According to the September 30, 2007 Financial Statements the total operating funds were $114,652.50.   The MAX SAFE account at Barrington Bank totaled $296,497.27.   The total replacement reserves fund was $1,354,000.  The total of all cash and investments was $1,641,000.  No CD’s are expiring soon.

Board Report (George Pauley)

Tim Patricio, Sara Kacheris, Michael Rupert, and Mavis Mather have been doing a great job.  Mavis has helped us a lot with the budget, Michael has done a great job with getting the garage audit completed, we finally know where all the spaces are and who parks in them.  Sara is our one armed person who came into work right after breaking her arm.  She is a very dedicated employee.  The major focus has been the Budget and Finance Committee meetings.  We do have another one coming up this week.  They are open to the residents to attend in the party room.  This one is looking into the reserve studies.  The Budget and Finance Committee has put in a lot of time into this.  We are working diligently to try to keep our assessments as much in control as possible.  It is a very difficult task that we are faced with.  The reserve study says that we have to spend a lot of money to keep things in shape and to keep the building up to the standards maintenance wise, that we all expect.  I hope that people can attend this meeting tomorrow at 6:30PM.  The budget is our major focus at this time.

Management Report (Tim Patricio)

I wanted to comment on a couple of things that came up at the last Board meeting.  There was a question about the FCC ruling regarding the cable contracts.  This ruling dealt with exclusivity which doesn’t really mean anything in Illinois because you already have this protection in Illinois.  What it means is that RCN could not bar another provider from coming in and providing you with cable service.  If you wanted to order from Comcast, RCN could not stop you from having Comcast wiring the building to provide the customer with service.  Really its only relevant here with service providers like AT&T and others who can provide you with something that is not really cable because I don’t see anyone putting in new wiring for service.  This does not throw out our bulk contract.  They do not have a clause in the contract that provides that we cant allow another service provider to provide you with programming. It just means that there is no clause saying that a new service provider cannot provide you with programming.

There was a question about changes to the exterior inspection façade ordinance.  I did confirm with two engineering firms that as proposed now this would not affect this building.  You would still have the same critical exam schedule, which is currently every 12 years.  Every two years you would still have to perform an ongoing inspection based on the same structure.  The changes in the façade ordinance really only impact masonry style buildings, brick and mortar or stucco types of buildings.

We are working on specifications for the inspections for the window caulking and doing this in conjunction with the ongoing inspection due next year.  Also Chuck and I have been working on handicapped accessibility in the garage.  We did meet with the contractor who managed the garage project to talk about some changes that have been suggested at the time.  They do have some drawings and specifications that we can use to approach other contractors.  We will be providing to the Board at some point over the next month some suggested specifications to improve that accessibility.  As well we have put a figure into some of our planning documents to the Finance Committee for their consideration.  A dollar value based on this discussion with the engineer.  We are putting this into the budget to make this improvement.

In November there were 42 chargeable work orders completed for a charge back total of $2,000 for the month and 130 non-chargable work orders.  Health club memberships increased by 21 for a bit more income about $1,100 more than the month prior.  There were two sales and six leases and 19 late fees charged over the month.  For the year we have had 55 Studio leases averaging $804; 68 1-Bedrooms leases for an average of $1,031; 10 2-Bedroom leases averaging $1,587; 133 total leases averaging $1,141.  So far 5 studios sold for an average of $123,000; 15 1-Bedrooms sold averaging $192,000 and 10 2- Bedrooms sold for an average of $344,000.

Garage Report (Michael Rupert)

I don’t have anything new to report but I would like to thank the Garage Committee for their patience while we try to come up with new spaces.

ASCO Report (Lorraine Meyers)

There is no report today because of Hanukah.  I can’t do the ASCO report in January but I do not have a substitute for the Planning and Zoning committee.  Bob Pierce was my alternate but I don’t know whether anyone was put down for my alternate.  I cannot make these meetings in January or February.

Adjournment

Upon due motion by Sandra Goldberg and seconded by Carlos Vargas the meeting adjourned at 10:20 pm.

George Pauley, President

Sandra Goldberg, Secretary