I have some complaints regarding rules for our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Fitness Center.
An early Board of Directors made a seemingly ill-advised rule prohibiting use of cell phones in the Fitness Center. What is the logic of that cell phone use prohibition in light of the lack of an explicit prohibition against turning the sound volume of the three TVs to almost painfully loud levels? You can view that rule number 6 and the other Board rules for use of the Fitness Center on the door of the Fitness Center and at the following link:
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/GuidlelinesFitnessMarch_07.pdf
In addition to those Board rules, management posted a sign inside the Fitness Center a few months ago requesting users to “put away all equipment after each use” and “not drop weights on the floor.” [This sign was removed in mid-July 2009--a good thing, in my opinion! Sincerely, Paul Rasmussen, unit 305] I don’t think those admonitions are [were] useful. Further, I don’t think management had authority to post that sign or to make those “rules”.
As explained in my post at the below link, our Bylaws require “prior written approval of the Board of Directors” to post or display signs in our Common Elements. Our former Association Presidents claim that the Association contract with the Managing Agent delegated that sign-approval authority to our On-Site Manager, but I’d have to see the specific language in the contract to be convinced.
http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/2008/12/unapproved-signs.html
In any event, I don’t think our Board should delegate its sign-approval authority to such a sweeping extent. Perhaps it would be appropriate for our On-Site Manager to have authority to approve informational signs, such as fire alarm times or meeting dates, or reminding residents of rules already approved by the Board. But only our Board may make and amend “rules” pertaining to the use of our Common Elements. It appears to me that posting that sign in the Fitness Center was effectively the On-Site Manager making new rules, which only our Board has authority to do. Please see my posts at the two links below for more explanation of the Board’s exclusive power to make and amend the Rules and Regulations for our Condominium.
http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/2008/01/governing-documents-our-bylaws.html
http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/2008/01/governing-documents-our-rules-and.html
If you have thoughts about this matter, please email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and post a comment in my forum at the below link. (You will have to be registered with that forum and logged-in there in order to post your comment there.)
http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Same Thermostat Settings for All Corridors?
A Market Street at Town Center Condominium unit owner suggested that different thermostat settings might be appropriate for different corridors. I don’t see why that should be so.
Why wouldn’t the minimum acceptable temperature be the same regardless of which corridor it is? If 72 degrees Fahrenheit is the lowest acceptable temperature for Terrace-level (UL) corridors, why wouldn’t 72 also be the lowest acceptable temperature for 1st-floor corridors?
And why wouldn’t the maximum acceptable temperature be the same regardless of which corridor it is? If 74 were the highest acceptable temperature for 3rd-floor corridors, why wouldn’t 74 also be the highest acceptable temperature for Terrace-level corridors? (This question is moot when the weather is too cold to run air conditioning due to risk of damaging the air conditioning equipment.)
It appears there are 18 thermostats that control our corridor temperatures--four in each of the upper four corridors and two in the Terrace-level corridor. In cold months such as December and January, why shouldn’t all 18 of those thermostats be set in the “Heat” mode at a rather low temperature such as, say, 66? If they were set that way, heating would occur only in corridor zones in which the actual temperature fell below 66. A thermostat set to 66 in the “Heat” mode won’t turn on the heat if the corridor happens to be at an actual temperature of, say, 75. If unit owner consensus is that 66 is too low for the minimum, I am fine with a higher minimum. But I haven’t seen any argument that makes me fine with different minimums for different corridors.
If there are good reasons for different minimum temperatures in different corridors, I would like to hear them. How about emailing me those reasons at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and posting those reasons in my forum at the following link?
http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Why wouldn’t the minimum acceptable temperature be the same regardless of which corridor it is? If 72 degrees Fahrenheit is the lowest acceptable temperature for Terrace-level (UL) corridors, why wouldn’t 72 also be the lowest acceptable temperature for 1st-floor corridors?
And why wouldn’t the maximum acceptable temperature be the same regardless of which corridor it is? If 74 were the highest acceptable temperature for 3rd-floor corridors, why wouldn’t 74 also be the highest acceptable temperature for Terrace-level corridors? (This question is moot when the weather is too cold to run air conditioning due to risk of damaging the air conditioning equipment.)
It appears there are 18 thermostats that control our corridor temperatures--four in each of the upper four corridors and two in the Terrace-level corridor. In cold months such as December and January, why shouldn’t all 18 of those thermostats be set in the “Heat” mode at a rather low temperature such as, say, 66? If they were set that way, heating would occur only in corridor zones in which the actual temperature fell below 66. A thermostat set to 66 in the “Heat” mode won’t turn on the heat if the corridor happens to be at an actual temperature of, say, 75. If unit owner consensus is that 66 is too low for the minimum, I am fine with a higher minimum. But I haven’t seen any argument that makes me fine with different minimums for different corridors.
If there are good reasons for different minimum temperatures in different corridors, I would like to hear them. How about emailing me those reasons at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and posting those reasons in my forum at the following link?
http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Friday, December 12, 2008
Unapproved Signs
With the possible exception of some institutional lenders, NO ONE may post signs in our common elements without prior written Board approval. The mailroom, Fitness Center, windows, glass doors and elevators are examples of areas included in this prohibition.
The specific requirement is “…no signs of any character shall be…posted or displayed…in...Common Elements without the prior written approval of the Board of Directors.” Those words are in our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Bylaws at article XI, section 1, paragraph (i) on page 53. You can view our Bylaws by clicking on this link:
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF
The Board probably shouldn’t approve taping of signs to painted walls in the common elements because of potential for some types of tape to pull the paint off the wall surface when the tape is removed.
Sometimes there will be a legitimate need to post a sign before it is feasible to obtain Board approval. For example, it needs to be “legal” for committee chairpersons to post signs regarding revised committee meeting dates and times or places. Or our On-Site Manager may need to inform residents of fire alarm testing that she learns of only a few days before it is to take place. The Board can accommodate such unforeseeable urgent needs by passing a resolution that effectively gives blanket prior written approval for certain people (probably by position rather than by name) to post signs of a certain nature regarding certain subject matter at certain places in our common elements without further approval from the Board.
What the Board shouldn’t do is allow the bylaw to be ignored. Allowing the bylaw to be ignored suggests that our bylaws and rules and regulations don’t necessarily have to be followed.
If you have thoughts on this matter, please email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and post them on my forum at http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/
The specific requirement is “…no signs of any character shall be…posted or displayed…in...Common Elements without the prior written approval of the Board of Directors.” Those words are in our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Bylaws at article XI, section 1, paragraph (i) on page 53. You can view our Bylaws by clicking on this link:
http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF
The Board probably shouldn’t approve taping of signs to painted walls in the common elements because of potential for some types of tape to pull the paint off the wall surface when the tape is removed.
Sometimes there will be a legitimate need to post a sign before it is feasible to obtain Board approval. For example, it needs to be “legal” for committee chairpersons to post signs regarding revised committee meeting dates and times or places. Or our On-Site Manager may need to inform residents of fire alarm testing that she learns of only a few days before it is to take place. The Board can accommodate such unforeseeable urgent needs by passing a resolution that effectively gives blanket prior written approval for certain people (probably by position rather than by name) to post signs of a certain nature regarding certain subject matter at certain places in our common elements without further approval from the Board.
What the Board shouldn’t do is allow the bylaw to be ignored. Allowing the bylaw to be ignored suggests that our bylaws and rules and regulations don’t necessarily have to be followed.
If you have thoughts on this matter, please email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or/and post them on my forum at http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Thermostat Setting Principles
I recommend that our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Association set our common element thermostats in accordance with the following principles.
Don’t set in “Cool” mode if air temperature around the “outside” part of the air conditioning system could drop below 55 degrees Fahrenheit.
Thermostats should normally be either in the “Heat” mode or the “Cool” mode, not in the “Off” mode.
Specified settings should be different for different common elements (corridors vs. Community Room vs. Fitness Center, etc.).
Setting in “Cool” mode must be at least two degrees higher than the setting in the “Heat” mode. Larger differences between “Cool” and “Heat” temperature settings reduce energy costs, but may be less comfortable.
Since Unit Owners pay the Association energy costs, the temperature settings should reflect the balance between cost saving and comfort that our Unit Owners prefer. Reflecting Unit Owner preferences, our Board should specify the temperature settings for both modes (“Heat” and “Cool”) for the thermostats in the various common element areas. Our Board should be open to future fine-tuning of the specified temperature settings if necessary to better reflect Unit Owner consensus.
No one should be authorized to change common element thermostat settings except to bring the settings into compliance with Board specifications, or to change the mode and associated temperature setting as the outdoor temperature changes with the seasons.
To better understand why I propose the foregoing principles, please see the posts at these two links:
http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/2008/11/corridor-temperatures.html
http://marketstreet.proboards83.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=generalcommquestionsandcomment&thread=84&page=1
If you don’t understand or disagree with any of the principles I proposed above, I urge you to comment or ask your questions in an email to me at rasmusssen305@gmail.com or/and in a post on my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Don’t set in “Cool” mode if air temperature around the “outside” part of the air conditioning system could drop below 55 degrees Fahrenheit.
Thermostats should normally be either in the “Heat” mode or the “Cool” mode, not in the “Off” mode.
Specified settings should be different for different common elements (corridors vs. Community Room vs. Fitness Center, etc.).
Setting in “Cool” mode must be at least two degrees higher than the setting in the “Heat” mode. Larger differences between “Cool” and “Heat” temperature settings reduce energy costs, but may be less comfortable.
Since Unit Owners pay the Association energy costs, the temperature settings should reflect the balance between cost saving and comfort that our Unit Owners prefer. Reflecting Unit Owner preferences, our Board should specify the temperature settings for both modes (“Heat” and “Cool”) for the thermostats in the various common element areas. Our Board should be open to future fine-tuning of the specified temperature settings if necessary to better reflect Unit Owner consensus.
No one should be authorized to change common element thermostat settings except to bring the settings into compliance with Board specifications, or to change the mode and associated temperature setting as the outdoor temperature changes with the seasons.
To better understand why I propose the foregoing principles, please see the posts at these two links:
http://mstc-uoa.blogspot.com/2008/11/corridor-temperatures.html
http://marketstreet.proboards83.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=generalcommquestionsandcomment&thread=84&page=1
If you don’t understand or disagree with any of the principles I proposed above, I urge you to comment or ask your questions in an email to me at rasmusssen305@gmail.com or/and in a post on my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
