Management Minutes March 18, 2025

Management Meeting, March 18, 2025
In attendance: Ben, Cheryl, Kerry, Michael, Joe, Robin 

Agenda 
Unit 1/2 & 15/17 investigation & repair 

-    Robin raises concerns about lack of clarity in previous minutes regarding decision to hire Coleman for repairs and management through “large spend process.” 

-    Joe echoes these concerns and questions whether we should pay residents to do work for the community, and the necessity for three quotes for large spend. 

-    Ben summarizes January meeting with Coleman, mentions that this was not necessarily a project with specific scope, but an investigatory process regarding uncertain causes. 

-    Cheryl states that consensus about Coleman also related to his knowledge of our buildings because of previous repairs on his unit. 

-    Kerry also mentions that Vinnie provided a referral for Coleman’s work, and the reasonableness of hourly rate. 

-    Jorge recalls that management also felt confident in quality work because of his previous work, but cautions that management didn’t consider the possibility that others could do the same work. Also recalls a previous quote for Kellie’s unit but doesn’t know of anyone else who does this kind of work. 

-    Cheryl was uncertain of management’s conclusions in previous meeting about whether initial investigation was the approved scope, or if the work as quoted was approved. Also cautions that we won’t be able to know the scope until further investigation.

-    Ben recalls in last meeting that warranty was also a question, which is complicated by the difficulty of diagnosing cost. 

-    Robin brings attention to the process in place, “large spend process,” but also remembers difficulty of getting vendors to show up to provide quotes for previous large spends. 

-    Ben mentions that in previous meeting management decided to raise bottom limit to $1000. 

-    Robin brings further attention to the process as a protection for management and vendor alike, to assure the community things are being done “above board.” Suggests that initial investigation could be done, then quotes could be requested from other contractors. 

-    Ben reminds that management designed the large spend process, and that management can agree to make exceptions to the process where appropriate. Roof Doctor’s recent work is one such exception. Large spend process exception was granted in this case. Questions have been raised, and we haven’t moved forward because of that. We could move forward to get multiple quotes. 

-    Robin suggests at least one more bid to convince the community and avoid accusations of favoritism. 

-    Joe recalls that some vendors will no longer work with Wasatch Commons because of the number of quotes requested, effectively wasting their time. 

-    Cheryl mentions that another benefit of large spend process is “second opinion” on issues and gather intelligence. Second opinion could bolster the decisions made by management. Suggests that scope be split into demolition first, then assessment and repair project that should have multiple quotes following the large spend process. States that initial urgency in January was related to the long history of the problem in unit #1, but opinion has changed after conversations with community members. 

-    Kerry asks if there is a limit on how much we will pay contractors to provide quotes. 

-    Ben assumes other contractors will have an hourly rate to provide quotes, and that we will pay them up to a few hours for the assessment and quote. Agrees that additional quotes would be great for reputational reasons for all parties involved. 

-    Cheryl suggests $500 limit for quotes.

ACTION: Management (plus Robin and Joe) reached consensus on the following steps: 

o    Cheryl will make contact with contractors to coordinate timing of visits to survey the project and provide recommendations 
o    Then have Coleman do demolition to Unit #2 to open up drywall 
o    Then have Coleman and at least one other contractor provide feedback on the recommended fixes and quotes 
o    Then management will review recommendations and quotes and decide on a path forward 

Clarification of Unit repair responsibilities

-    Ben summarizes the CC&Rs on “common elements” and unit owner interior responsibilities. Concludes that there would be some split in responsibility in the case of Unit #2 repair. Because we have to open up the walls to assess a common element, we have to put it back. 

-    Cheryl asks if demolition on Unit #2, replacement of drywall would therefore be covered by community. Also wonders whether this comes out of maintenance budget. 

-    Jorge mentions that because this isn’t part of our reserve analysis, we need to take this cost out of operating budget, not reserves. 

-    Ben suggests that amendment to CC&Rs could include a carveout for roof failure, for example, if we decide to amend as a community. 

-    Nota bene: record of repairs on unit #2 traces back several years and several attempts, by vendors including Ron Case, who did warranty work. 

ACTION: Management reached consensus on the following:

o    Demolition to permit inspection is one project that will be done by Coleman and billed 
o    Replacement of the drywall damaged to permit inspection will be covered by community included in the subsequent project 

Minute taking 

-    Conclusion is that being explicit about next steps and about decisions in minutes is essential and needs to be spelled out. This is everyone’s responsibility collectively, not just minute-taker. 

Patio repair responsibility 

-    Ben states that CC&Rs specify that patio spaces are “limited common area” unlike foundations and other common elements. Wonders if repair of Chelsea’s front porch corner could be included in concrete project.

-    Plat map/site plan clarifies that front porch areas are a Limited Common Area.

-    Robin asks if Limited Common Area designation means it is unit owner’s responsibility if structural issues happen there.

-    CC&Rs (Condo Declaration, Article 5 Subsection E) say that Limited Common Areas are reserved for the use of specific units, but doesn’t specify responsibility for anything above the slab. Management’s interpretation is that slabs are therefore unit owner, but everything else (columns, roofs, et cetera) is not. No carveout for the cause of damage. 

-    Management in agreement that this should be clarified in an ACM for everyone’s benefit. 

-    Management will consider this and continue to evaluate in future meeting(s). 

Roof Dr payment 

-    Invoice will be paid 

-    Cheryl asks if this payment is coming out of maintenance budget, and if so, suggests that maintenance may need larger budget in the future.

MJ Structural payment 

-    Invoice has already been paid, on November 20, 2024, paid with card.

Planned reserve expenditures for 2025

-    Crack sealing of parking lots (paid out of reserves), maintenance to coordinate 

o    Maintaining parking lots will be a lot cheaper in the long term than replacing the parking paving entirely

-    Get going on the stucco project (paid out of reserves), maintenance to coordinate 

-    Replacement of two furnaces in CH, potentially with heat pumps to provide cooling, which could be powered by the solar array. 

Bookkeeping Report 

-    Joe asks whether we will start to bill for lack of Pay or Play reporting this year or not. System needs to be put in place for it because of inclusion of recouped money in budget. 

-    Joe also states to management that this is the last year he will do Wasatch Commons taxes. 

-    Ben suggests we also need a system for CH room usage.