We anticipate a detailed explanation for the 2.5x increase in the project's scope within less than three years, along with access to the original documentation. As the saying goes, it's essential to trust, but also to verify. It's been over one week at this point that we have requested the full CBI report and related documents.
Our support has reached critical mass across PH and studios alike!
We again ask for transparancy.
First and foremost, we would like to extend our gratitude to the 45+ unit owners who actively participated in the discussions and research. Despite our best efforts, we have reached an impasse. It has become clear that the board possesses the necessary authority to execute building repairs, irrespective of the outcome of the window addition vote. We acknowledge that challenging this decision based on informed consent may not yield the desired outcome due to insufficient unit owner support.
In light of this, we respectfully request that the board provide greater transparency moving forward. We ask that the following documents be uploaded to Buildinglink for all residents to access, review, and gain a better understanding of the associated expenses:
A detailed construction budget for the project. Reports from the Project Management and Engineering design firms, outlining all identified building issues.
Furthermore, we would like to address a potential discrepancy in the calculations presented in the "Project & Cost Information Update Packet.pdf" distributed on March 29th. In particular, on page 4 - Figure 4: Budget Summary, there appears to be an inconsistency in the numbers.
We find it concerning that the sole document provided with cost details contains such an error, and we believe that further clarification is essential. We kindly request the board to promptly address this issue and provide accurate and transparent information to the community.
The image below is sourced from a Q&A document provided by the board, dated September 9th, 2021.
On September 28th, 2021, a vote was held to add new windows to the larger façade project under Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 183A Section 10 paragraph 6. The board indeed has the authority to repair the building façade, but the window addition required a vote.
The analogy of agreeing to buy a house without knowing the price highlights the issue at hand.
Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 183A Section 10 paragraph 6 does not explicitly state whether a vote can be conducted for an item without disclosing the cost. However, it is crucial to consider the principles of transparency, informed consent, and fiduciary responsibility when interpreting the statute.
Trustees have a legal and ethical duty to act in the best interests of the unit owners, and they are generally expected to provide enough information for unit owners to make informed decisions. This includes revealing the cost or range of potential costs for any proposed project, particularly when it involves significant financial commitments.
Although the statute does not explicitly forbid a vote on an item without cost disclosure, conducting a vote without providing essential information, such as the cost, could jeopardize the vote's legitimacy and potentially expose trustees to legal challenges.
To ensure adherence to both the letter and spirit of the law, trustees should supply unit owners with comprehensive information about the proposed project, including cost estimates, before conducting a vote. This approach fosters transparency, informed consent, and responsible decision-making, ultimately benefiting the entire community.
On March 29, the total cost was finally disclosed, and the subsequent comments from the community speaks volumes.
Comment from a Boston luxury high rise developer after seeing the quote... "Sounds really high. In terms of process, hopefully they have kept all owners in the loop in terms of the scope of the project, timing, bids, etc – total transparency?"
It is indeed important to address potential issues before they become structural problems; however, the choice of words "could" rather than "will" suggests that there is still time to introduce transparency to this project. In light of this, it's prudent to pause and audit the project for several reasons:
In conclusion, pausing and auditing the project's scope is a responsible course of action that can provide valuable insights, improve transparency, and ensure that the project is financially viable.
If the actual cost of the project comes in below the GMP, the owner may not always benefit from the full amount of savings. Depending on the contract terms, some or all of the savings might be retained by the contractor or shared between the owner and contractor.
GMP contracts may result in reduced transparency because the contractor is responsible for managing the cost and scope of the project. This can make it difficult for the owner to monitor costs and ensure that they are receiving the best value for their investment.
To maintain their profit margin, contractors may be tempted to cut corners or use lower-quality materials if the project costs approach the GMP. This could lead to lower quality work or the need for additional repairs in the future.
If the project scope changes or unforeseen issues arise, the owner may still be responsible for additional costs through change orders. These costs can increase the overall project cost beyond the GMP.
GMP contracts rely on accurate cost estimates. If the initial estimates are incomplete or inaccurate, it can result in disputes between the owner and contractor over what costs should be covered by the GMP.
If a contractor is awarded a project based on a GMP, it may discourage other contractors from bidding on the project or providing alternative solutions.
Establish a subcommittee consisting of unit owners and external experts to conduct an independent audit of the existing restoration proposal. This will ensure unbiased evaluation and identify potential areas of improvement or cost savings.
Propose a phased restoration plan that distributes costs and work over a longer period. This approach could make the project more manageable, reduce disruption to residents, and lessen the immediate financial burden on unit owners.
Assess and prioritize repairs based on urgency and necessity. By focusing on critical repairs first, costs can be minimized, and less urgent tasks can be deferred. This strategy will enable owners to retain more funds for longer, benefitting from interest payments and allowing for better financial planning.
Encourage open communication between the board, project managers, and unit owners throughout the process. Keep owners informed of the project's progress, budget adjustments, and any changes to the timeline.