Community Feedback & Board Actions

Commitment To Owner Affordability

The Board recognizes that the proposed assessment represents a significant financial obligation for many homeowners. The Board remains committed to maximizing the amount of time available for owners to satisfy assessment obligations while ensuring sufficient funding is available to meet Association obligations and contractor mobilization requirements. Should project schedules extend beyond current assumptions, the Board may evaluate payment schedule adjustments where financially feasible.

Owner Feedback → Survey Results Review → Board Deliberation

Phase 2: Concurrent Action Tracks

Contractor Mobilization → Construction Commencement

[1] I'm mostly annoyed by the fact that we had to put money towards mostly cosmetic issues this year when the board knew we were about to have a massive special assessment coming up next year. The Cosmetic stuff was not that big a deal and probably didn't bother hardly anyone, yet we were required to complete it, paying significant extra money without knowing that a $30,000 special assessment was coming up. Especially after the large special assessment from the window flashing a year or two ago. Additionally, I've had significant water intrusion in my unit, so getting things repaired sooner rather than later that work with my night time sleep schedule and as efficiently as possible is important

[2] Keeping from doing another assessment for this project

[3] The cost and overall construction impact of tearing open every parapet and rooftop wall. Unforeseen costs could spike. Also, other homeowners and i are very concerned about the pushing of costs on homeowners for the pergolas or decks being moved if needed. for my personally i have a roof railing in the corner of the parapets that i will do everything in my power to make sure is included in the scope of work since it is a default safety feature and i wont be paying for it to be redone. In all, the potential additional unplanned costs outside the actual assessment amount definitely scares me

[4] Cost

[5] cost

[6] There's been no open discussion regarding the use of a Capital Loan to amortize the cost.

[7] The Board seems to think that they have jurisdiction over $30+ of everyone's money. The board moved directly to a discussion about how to pay for something instead of fully exploring how pervasive the problem is. This is something that should have started with everyone involved from the very beginning; instead, the community was brought in to decide how to best assess everyone $30k+.

[8] RE fixed our windows, one still leaked after and it was nearly impossible to get a response from them after we made our final payment. Left us slightly concerned about the quality and service.

[9] Continuous special assessments and overall costs to units in comparison to their value

[10] Delays due to unwarranted further review/deliberation

[11] Cost of the special assessment and impending future assessments to address continued defects. It’s very large for multiple years so close together

[12] That a 30k bill is being burdened onto individuals with no wrongdoing of theirs; Marketability of townhomes;

[13] Assessment and future assessment and property valuation

[14] Large expense without fully know if my unit requires additional repairs when I have already paid over $ 5,000 to repair these issues on my parapet wall and rooftop door.

[15] So much money in a short amount of time. But I do agree the repairs are needed. Anyway the funds could be divided out over 2 years?

[16] cost

[17] Paying $31K for damage I don't have is rough. I've owned many homes and you never fix a problem you don't have. If there were water damage in my house, I'd have signs of it. I could have electrical, plumbing or a dozen other issues going on in my house. If/when signs of damage show up, I'll address it. But I'm not replacing wiring because someone else's unit had an electrical problem. Nor I am excited about paying roof damage shown in someone else's unit, but not mine.

[18] The cost and if it’s truly necessary for every unit. I have had leaks in the past but they were not from issues with the parapets. Also concerned with the cost and complications associated with unit owners being fully responsible for having pergolas removed, stored and reinstalled. No

[19] The full cost & scope of this. We are concerned about additional costs or issues affecting our units and fear there will be more assessments despite paying ~7k a year in HOA fees.

[20] Reduce 25% contingent pricing which feels elevated. How do we get refunded / ensure the construction company is not padding the budget.

[21] Making sure everything is fixed properly

[22] Cost and quality of repair

[23] The uncertain cost of removing things from the deck and re-installing.

[24] My biggest concern is the size of the assessment and making sure the approximately $2 million project cost is being managed as efficiently as possible. An assessment of roughly $31,000–$34,000 per unit is a significant financial burden, especially over such a short payment period. I would like to see every effort made to control costs, avoid unnecessary scope increases, and provide owners with reasonable payment options. I am also concerned about every unit being assessed the same amount. I believe smaller units should pay less than larger units, and the assessment should also take into consideration the amount of work associated with each unit, similar to the previous project where units requiring less work paid less.

[25] I am writing to share my feedback and propose an alternative approach regarding the proposed $33,000 special assessment for the rooftop railing reconstruction. While I recognize the Board’s duty to maintain structural integrity and protect our community’s master insurance policy, I believe we should explore lower-cost alternatives that address code requirements and insurance risks without requiring a full, costly rebuild. Specifically, I would like the Board to consider the following points: Grandfathered Code Compliance: If repairs can be executed under the 2006 building code standards rather than triggering a full structural overhaul, we could significantly reduce the financial burden on homeowners. Risk Transfer & Contractor Guarantees: To address potential insurability concerns regarding the master policy, the HOA could transfer risk to licensed roofing and railing contractors. By securing comprehensive maintenance contracts that include annual professional inspections, guaranteed response times for repairs, and warranties on the primary waterproofing and structural elements, we shift liability away from the HOA. Owner Sign-Offs & Waivers: If secondary risk exposure remains an issue for the carrier, we could evaluate owner liability waivers or specialized maintenance riders to satisfy underwriter requirements. Additionally, I respectfully ask the Board to remove references to "builder defect" from the official assessment documentation and meeting minutes. Attributing the issue to builder defect may complicate insurance claims, invite unwarranted scrutiny, or mischaracterize the core issue. The degradation appears closely tied to deferred routine maintenance and the wear of the exterior water-barrier defense over time, rather than an original design or construction flaw. Before committing to a $33,000 assessment per owner, I respectfully request that the Board consult our insurance broker and a qualified structural engineer to determine whether this risk-mitigation strategy meets underwriting standards. Thank you for your time, leadership, and consideration of cost-effective alternatives for our community.

[26] I have already spent tens of thousands a few years ago fixing a roof leak. Specifically my doorway was completely re done and now it looks like it’s a part of the scope of this project. Can I have my door head, jam, trim siding etc assessed by the engineer or whoever is appropriate to confirm I do not need this work and hopefully that portion of the cost can be removed from my unit? Looking for someone to contact me via email with a response on how quickly that can be done and assessed.

[27] An assessment of the roof work I have already had completed in 2021. Also ideally a payment plan that is as long as possible. The Option 2 is only a couple of hundred dollars higher in total than the Hybrid, but yet the monthly payment differences are over $500 a month higher. It’s an unusually high burden on the community on top of an HOA fee rhat has also gone up considerable in the last several years.

[1] Probably nothing

[2] I’m comfortable with the boards decision

[3] Certainty regarding the inclusion of parapet railings pergolas etc. i know pergolas attached to walls will have to be moved which thankfully doesn’t impact me but it does other homeowners

[4] Will not be comfortable with any decision other than to get rid of the assessment. Reconstruction Experts have taken us to the cleaners and are doing it again. Where are the other bids? Why wasn't this addressed in 2018 when the HOA first knew about it? Homeowners could have addressed it then. Why haven't all units been tested for defects? Assessments like this should be prorated by unit size. I have the smallest unit in the complex, I shouldn't have to pay the same amount as people who have giant corner units, etc.

[5] Additional review of cost of repairs (necessary) and open conversation regarding pros and cons of a Capital Loan.

[6] Will they be removing all/part of our deck? Is removing/replacing the deck a significant portion of our cost?

[7] The board has already provided full and complete info. Nothing else is needed.

[8] Continued meetings, cost breakdowns from RE, any possible cost saving measures evaluated (do all buildings need equal work)

[9] Transparency; explaining the issue in layman terms rather than engineering jargon; rather than sending emails with links or PDFs, send an email that specifically states the issue within the body of the text clearly and concisely; I dont want to learn about an assessment or repair necessary in page 3 of a PDF. I want it in the subject line of the email. Operating in a manner that is cohesive to all unitholders (ie the last repair requirements were buried in a PDF in an email; unitholders were solely responsible for finding their own contractors to complete the job) why would you not provide contractors for homeowners to choose for cost efficiencies?; Gaining trust of homeowners by operating in a manner that feels like you are working alongside us, not on a different team. Explaining in layman terms and DIRECT as to the cost burden that HOA is taking on out of their pocket. Would be happy to provide more

[10] You have exhausted the possible solutions and you are attempting to save owners money

[11] Inspection of my work already completed

[12] I am fine with the boards decision but the assessment is very high. Would be nice to have had a years notice or to let residents pay over 2 years. I knew the repairs were needed but was thinking the fees would have been around $18-20k vs $31-33k.

[13] Proof there repairs are needed in my unit. And charges applied by Unit like we did with the windows.

[14] Another third party bid for the work and a bid or estimate from a contractor that could handle the work associated with the pergolas.

[15] That we selected the best construction experts and that they are not adding unnecessary cost/scope. We would also like the HOA and RE's opinion on how our homeowners' insurance can help alleviate some of this financial burden, given that these are actual construction defects in the roof caused by the builder.

[16] Broadly supportive of the project but would like to start in 2027 (March onwards vs December) to allow to save funds.

[17] Provide the homeowners with as much information and resources as possible to get through the construction.

[18] The cost & repairs have been deeply vetted

[19] Want to have more clarity on what exactly needs to be removed and how much it will cost. I'd like to be able to synergize costs (i.e. equipment rental) by having homeowners able to contract directly with RE.

[20] I would like a clearer understanding of whether this Phase 3 project is expected to resolve the major known building-envelope issues, or whether significant additional work and future assessments are still likely. It would also be helpful to have more clarity on the remaining known defect items that are not currently included in Phase 3, including grading, remaining garage reflashing, and second-floor balconies, along with their estimated costs and whether the Board anticipates those items could require another future special assessment. I would also like more detail on how the 20% contingency amount was determined and what happens to any unused contingency funds.