Mandatory Dryer-Duct Cleaning?

(Updated 30 June 2021)

Our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Board of Directors requires all of us unit owners to have the clothes-dryer-exhaust duct that runs between our clothes dryer and the vent at the exterior of the building cleaned every year--with each unit owner expected to bear the cost!

I have argued to the Board that unit owners whose clothes dry in a reasonable time probably don't have ducts that need cleaning.  Also, since the dryer ducts in our building were never  cleaned end-to-end during the 15 years ending in 2019, how could our Directors now think the cleaning must be done every year?  The every-year requirement is particularly egregious for unit owners whose clothes dryers are rarely used.

Approximately 12 years ago, the Board voted to spend Association funds to clean lint from inside the first 10 or 15 feet of the clothes dryer exhaust duct (at the dryer end) in each of our 333 residential units.  For my unit, it seemed worse than a waste of money. Almost no lint was removed, and there was the risk of the cleaning apparatus breaking off in the duct, which would have created a problem where one didn't exist before.  Also, what was the point of cleaning no-more-than-half of the 30 feet of duct that runs between my dryer and the vent at the outside of the building?

While my non-lawyer reading of our Declaration suggests to me that the unit owner should bear the cost of cleaning the duct IF SUCH CLEANING IS ACTUALLY NEEDED, it appears to me that cleaning the lint off the vent at the exhaust-end of the dryer ducts OUTSIDE the building is an Association responsibility.  

Annual dryer-duct cleaning is required by Policy Resolution 17-18, which imposes annual in-unit maintenance inspections.  I spoke against certain aspects of the proposal several times, but the Board ignored my comments, seeming to be hellbent on forging ahead.

Extreme Code-of-Conduct Provision

One of our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Unit Owners Association policy resolutions contains a provision that I consider to be extreme and overreaching.  I told the Board of Directors of my concern about that provision before the Board adopted it, but they included it anyway.  Now that two of the four residential Directors are about to be replaced, I hope that unfortunate provision can be deleted.

The offending provision is paragraph C10 of Policy Resolution No. 10-14, "Code of Conduct for Condominium Leaders".  It prohibits members of our Board of Directors from speaking with any of us non-Board-member unit owners regarding certain topics.  Those forbidden-to-speak-on-the-issue topics are “Association matters that are currently, or that should properly be, before the entire Board.”

That prohibition flies in the face of the usual idea that an elected representative may—and SHOULD—talk with constituents about matters of interest that are or may come before a legislative body.

Also, might not that prohibition violate Section 55-79.75:1 of the Virginia Condominium Act, which requires that our Board of Directors establish a reasonable, effective, and free method, appropriate to the size and nature of our Condominium, for unit owners to communicate among ourselves and with our Board of Directors regarding any matter concerning our unit owners association?  In my opinion, our Board has never adequately complied with this requirement, and this prohibition appears to exacerbate that insufficient-communication problem.

That shameful paragraph C10 also includes this sentence: “If a discussion is unavoidable with said Unit Owner and an interaction does ensue, the Board member should attempt to get a second Board member or other witness to be included in or to overhear the discussion if at all possible.”  I ask, why would a conversation between a Director and a constituent be viewed as so threatening?

If all of this isn’t bad enough, here is the last sentence of paragraph C10: “Afterwards, the Board member should prepare a memorandum of the conversation and submit same to the Board for review at the next scheduled Board meeting, as well as send a letter to the homeowner memorializing the conversation.”  I ask, sarcastically, how much chilling of communication between Unit Owners and Board members was the Board trying to achieve, and why?

The Policy Resolution (link in second paragraph) also contains a sentence near the end that is of concern so long as the offending paragraph C10 remains in effect.  That sentence is: “Existing and future Condominium Leaders, including persons running for the Board of Directors, will be given a copy of the Code of Conduct and will be asked to sign that they have received it, have read it, and agree to abide by it.”  I would prefer a Director who would refuse to sign the Code of Conduct so long as it continues to include that offending paragraph C10.

There is one more sentence in that Policy Resolution that also is of concern until the offending paragraph C10 is removed.  That sentence is: “Materials describing the candidacy of persons running for the Board of Directors shall note any situations where the candidate has not signed this Code.”  That sounds to me like pressure to sign something that a Director candidate of the highest principles shouldn’t sign until it has been corrected.

Electrical Outlet at Condominium Parking Space

I am trying to get an ordinary 120-volt 15-ampere household electrical outlet at my parking space in our Market Street at Town Center Condominium.  While such an outlet could be used, for example, to plug in a vacuum cleaner to clean the carpet in my car, I want the outlet so that I can charge an electric car—which I will buy as soon as I have the electrical outlet at my parking space.

For most electric cars, you can get three or more miles of driving range for each hour you charge the car batteries using such an electrical outlet.  Since I drive only about 20 miles a day on average, that outlet would be more than adequate for my needs.

While I will ultimately need approval from the Fairfax County electrical building permit people and Dominion Virginia Power, I am focusing first on obtaining approval of the Board of Directors of our Condominium unit owners association (UOA).  As my next step in seeking that approval, I plan to speak briefly to the Directors at the next regular Board of Directors meeting, which is scheduled for 7 p.m. Thursday, September 22, 2016.  The remainder of this post is essentially what I plan to say to the Directors at that meeting.

I propose to rent, from the UOA, for $100 per year, an unused electric-meter base located in a UOA electric-meter room located a little over 100 feet away from my parking space, on the same level as my parking space.

I agree that the UOA can take back the meter base for its own use by giving me 60-days advance notice.

I agree to pay all expenses associated with the outlet (electrical building permit, electrical cable to run from the meter base to the 120-volt 15-ampere outlet at my parking space, the outlet receptacle, services of a master electrician to install the complete circuit, any costs associated with meter installation, charges for electricity consumed, etc.).

Board approval of this request will cost the UOA nothing.  Instead, the opposite is true:  Approval of this proposal will increase UOA income by $100 per year.

This simple approach delays the necessity of the UOA investing at least several thousand dollars to install a (200-ampere?) circuit breaker panel to provide a way for unit owners to get electricity to their parking spaces.  Even though the UOA investment in the electrical panel can be recouped through charges to users of circuits from the panel, it will probably be at least several years before there would be enough users of such a panel for the UOA to fully recoup its investment.  In addition, the delay before the UOA installs the panel provides time to (a) develop policy regarding use of the panel and (b) determine the best location to place the panel.

Parking for Overnight Guests of Residents

Like people anywhere, residents of Reston Town Center (RTC) might host relatives or other guests who stay in the resident’s home for a night or two up to a week or two.  While guests who have traveled here by automobile are visiting their RTC resident host, these guests need to park their vehicle somewhere.  I think that “parking that is designed for” RTC “residents” and “guests” must permit these guest vehicles to be parked in RTC free or at very low cost.

Except for the parking duration being less than a month, I think parking for these vehicles of overnight guests of residents should be handled much like I proposed in my post regarding parking of vehicles of RTC residents.  Parking for overnight guests of residents (now quoting from that post) “should NOT be on RTC streets; instead, it should be in designated areas (perhaps upper levels) of designated garages in RTC, and SHOULD be permitted continuously for 24 hours per day without moving the vehicle each day.  RTC street parking--and garage parking convenient to street level--should be kept available for short-term (hourly) parking, at least during the daytime.”

While it is clear that a pass would be required for this parking for overnight guests of RTC residents, I don’t have a firm idea how much—if anything—it should cost.  Free might be appropriate for up to one week or, at most, two weeks.  If there is to be a charge from day one, $2 per day sounds good to me.

In my next post, I’ll discuss parking for non-overnight social guests of RTC residents.

Paid Parking for Reston Town Center Residents

In my recent post regarding paid parking in our Reston Town Center (RTC), I cited the RTC Executive Director’s reference to “parking that is designed for our … residents….  I am disappointed to have to say that I don’t see where needs of RTC residents have been considered in formulating the RTC paid-parking plan.  In this post, I will begin to set forth parking needs of RTC residents that I believe the RTC parking plan should accommodate.  I limit the scope of this post to vehicles that are owned or leased by residents of RTC.  In future posts, I will discuss parking requirements for vehicles that belong to guests of RTC residents.

A post by Karen Goff 18 March 2016 in "reston now" includes this line regarding RTC paid parking:  “Public monthly — a pass can be purchased for $70 a month.”  I believe it is inappropriate for RTC parking—whether paid or not—to be made available to the general public if there aren’t enough parking spaces in the RTC to accommodate the four categories the RTC Executive Director email said the RTC parking “is designed for”:  RTC “employees, patrons, residents, and guests.”

But I believe $70 per month is about right for RTC residents who haven’t secured sufficient long-term parking in their own building or development.  In our Market Street at Town Center Condominium, an indoor parking space requires an investment of about $13,000.  In addition, our unit owners association also collects $13 each month for expenses associated with each parking space.  Many of our unit owners spend enough money to have enough parking spaces in our Condominium to meet the usual long-term parking space requirements for their unit.  If a unit owner hasn’t acquired sufficient parking in our Condominium, I don’t think that any resident of that unit should expect to have free parking available elsewhere in the RTC.

This monthly parking for RTC residents (for $70 per month?) should NOT be on RTC streets;  instead, it should be in designated areas (perhaps upper levels) of designated garages in RTC, and SHOULD be permitted continuously for 24 hours per day without moving the vehicle each day.  RTC street parking--and garage parking convenient to street level--should be kept available for short-term (hourly) parking, at least during the daytime.

Paid Parking

Many of us in our Reston Town Center (RTC) have received information suggesting that paid parking will be implemented in RTC this coming summer of 2016.  I want to do all that I can to insure that RTC employees, patrons, residents, and guests continue to have free (or, at worst, very-low-cost) parking available.

A recent email from the Executive Director of the RTC Association included these sentences:  “With Wiehle being the westernmost Metro terminus, there has been a predictable increase in demand for free daytime parking near that station.  Town Center has naturally been a target for that demand, and that is putting pressure on parking that is designed for our employees, patrons, residents, and guests.”

I added the yellow highlighting because I believe the identification of those four categories suggests my below proposal is reasonable.

Prohibited or pay high fees:

          Vehicles with no connection to RTC, such as parking here solely to use buses or Metro to DC, Dulles, etc., or to meet car pools, etc.

Free (preferred), or low fees (such as $2 per day after first 3 or 4 hours free).  (For these (below) categories, overnight and continuous parking should be permitted in the RTC garages that currently allow public parking at least part of each day.):

          Work in RTC (“employees”)

          Customers of RTC businesses (“patrons”)

          Live in RTC (“residents”)

          Visiting RTC residents or businesses (“guests”)

If you wish to comment to me, you can reach me at rasmussen305@gmail.com.  And/or, if you are the owner of a unit in our Market Street at Town Center Condominium, I  encourage you to join my forum and comment there regarding this or any of my posts.

Condo Association 2016 Assessments

Update added 23 November 2015:  Our Community Manager has corrected the problem.  Here is the response I received from her this morning:  "Thanks for catching that on the letter, we had actually found the mistake and thought we had corrected the copy.  CMC will get the owners of 414 and 420 the corrected amount."


Update added 20 November 2015:

I was surprised and disappointed by the obvious mistake contained in the official letter I received this afternoon setting forth the "Approved 2016 Monthly Assessment[s]."  For the two units (414 and 420) in our Condominium that have a par value of 0.38%, the letter incorrectly showed the 2016 monthly assessment to be $499.43.  (The amount shown below ($473.26) is the correct monthly amount for 2016, but NOT for 2015, as the letter mistakenly shows.)

The official letter to which I am referring is dated November 17, 2015, and was sent by Associa Community Management Corporation on behalf of our Board of Directors.

I will send an email to our Community Manager tonight informing her of the problem.



Here are the Market Street at Town  Center Condominium monthly assessments I calculate for 2016.

Par Value (%) of Unit          Monthly Assessment ($)

     0.21                                      261.54

     0.26                                      323.81

     0.32                                      398.54

     0.34                                      423.45

     0.38                                      473.26

     0.40                                      498.17

     0.47                                      585.35

     0.49                                      610.26

     0.54                                      672.53

Each assessment amount shown above doesn't include the $13-per-month assessment for each parking space assigned to your unit.

Computation of the above amounts begins with the $1,474,492.08 "Residential Assessments" shown in the "Market Street at Town Center 2016 Budget - Final."  I multiplied that number by a par value percentage from the left column above, then divided by 98.66, and then divided by 12 to get the monthly assessment.

The 98.66 is the total of the par value percentages for our 333 residential units, and is applicable because the $1,474,492.08 doesn't include "Commercial Assessments."  (Our one commercial unit (GRACE) has a par value of 1.34%, resulting in the sum of the par values for all of the 334 units in our Condominium equaling 100%.)

While we all have access to the budget that shows the $1,474,492.08 "Residential Assessments," I haven't seen the official Unit Owners Association monthly assessment amounts, so they could vary from the amounts I provided above by a penny or so in either direction, depending on what rounding convention may have been used.

If you have any questions regarding this or any of my posts, feel free to email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com.  Or/and, better yet, register for my forum at  http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/  and comment there.