Good evening Ms. Wright,
Thank you for your detailed response and for providing the May 19, 2023, Falcon Structural Assessment and Executive Summary.
Your clarification is helpful, particularly your statement that:
“it would not be accurate to characterize the entire current construction project as being required solely because of recertification.”
That distinction is important and is the reason we originally asked about the use of the word “required.”
Having now reviewed the 2023 Falcon report in relation to the later Façade Project Manual, I believe it would be helpful to owners to distinguish among:
1. work required by applicable law or recertification requirements;
2. work Falcon identified as required to correct deficiencies;
3. work Falcon recommended but did not identify as required; and
4. additional or expanded work incorporated into the current project.
For example, the 2023 Falcon report describes the Porte Cochere skylights as having a few cracked panels and recommends that the skylight system be replaced partially, with an estimated cost of approximately $2,720–$3,680. The later project manual, however, calls for removal and replacement of the entire skylight system.
That work has now begun and is causing considerable inconvenience to the community. Given the substantial difference between the 2023 recommendation and the work now being undertaken, I believe owners are entitled to understand what additional engineering evaluation or Board determination led to the decision to expand the scope from partial replacement to complete replacement.
I would also like to add an important point concerning the Board’s justification for undertaking the skylight replacement. When the project was presented to owners, the Board pointed to the similar skylight work being undertaken at neighboring Tower 400 as a basis for the project. However, that comparison did not appear to include the significant difference in the condition and performance of the two skylight systems.
My understanding is that Tower 400’s skylights are in sufficiently poor condition that, when it rains, residents and visitors entering and exiting the building get soaked, whereas our Tower 500 skylights have not presented that problem and have been functioning well. If the condition of Tower 400’s skylights was relied upon as a justification for replacing ours, I believe that distinction is important for owners to know.
This makes it even more important, in my view, to understand what engineering evaluation or other objective determination supported expanding Falcon’s 2023 recommendation for partial replacement of a few cracked panels into the complete replacement now being undertaken.
Similarly, the 2023 report identifies certain window/door sealant and frame-painting work as Recommended Work, rather than Required Work. These examples illustrate why the distinction between required, recommended, and additional work is important when owners are being asked to fund a multimillion-dollar project.
I am sure you agree that owners should understand the basis for the scope of work being undertaken and the distinction between work that is required and work that has been elected as part of the broader restoration project.
I would also like to note that I am still awaiting a response to a separate question I raised with you on March 13 regarding the accounting treatment of the roof project.
Specifically, I asked why the $232,638 Best Roofing payment was recorded under GL #900104 (Special Projects), while the final $124,272.72 payment and other Best Roofing payments associated with the same SIRS roof project were recorded under GL #305655 (Contract Liability – CY SIRS Expenses).
Your March 13 response explained that “Once the SIRS account was established, the General Ledger code used became GL #900104 (SIRS)” but it did not address the specific discrepancy in the GL coding that I had asked about.
I would appreciate a response to that question as well.
I raise this because I believe that when owners ask specific questions about the Association’s records, the most useful response is one that addresses the specific question asked.
Thank you again for the clarification and for providing the additional documents.
Best regards,
Matthew Roth
Unit 2105