Lobby Construction related discussion   August 2015

Andrew Surdovel,the General Manager of the Condominium, posted the follow information:

“As you all know, Signed Lobby Contact is stored on this website. Recently, discussion between two BOD members occurred and now is being exposed to all of you. See the documents attached here.
Responses, if any, will be forwarded to Management Office.”

The Contract for Lobby Construction may be seen here. The page contains links to additional pages with more detail.

Contents of this Post:

1. Note of Linda Satz, Secretary of the Board of Directors disclosing recently appointed Eugenia Volcheck, Treasurer of the Board of Directors, email
2. E-mail message of Eugenia Volcheck with questions on the Lobby Renovation Contract
3. Comments by Cecilio Augusto Berndsen on Eugenia’s email
4. Comments by Zina Bluband on Eugenia’s email
5. Comment by Scott Bennet on Eugenia’s email
6. Comments by Dominic Faccini on Engenia’s email

_____________________________________          1

_____________________________________        2

________________________________________   3

Dear Linda

I am afraid Eugenia Volcheck sent that email without the proper consideration of the facts.

1. A fax sent in January? If the Scope of Work was ready mid-May how come the contractor could prepare a proposal in January? Does that make sense?
2. Date unspecified: Once we get the permits the schedule starts to run. How do we get the permits without the proper plans? It seems that the only question is: Have the permits request been filed? Once the City of Hollywood issues the permits, we can start observing the schedule.
3. Massive destruction and mold remediation: The mold remediation is one process. They removed what is essential to control the mold. Construction demolition is the preparation for the reconstruction of the lobby. It seems Eugenia is mixing up two distinct phases under the responsibility of two distinct vendors: (1) Mold (2) Reconstruction
4. Demolition: It has been explained in the Construction Committee that the work in the lobby has been only preparation, not reconstruction. The preparation or, as Eugenia prefers, demolition does not require a permit. The construction depends on the City of Hollywood permits.
5. Contract signed by the Great President John Youssef on 20 of July. Was he or was not he the president of the Board when he signed the contract. Maybe the question should be:  “Why did he need 5 days to sign?” May be because he likes to read what he signs.
6. Mold remediation. Initial estimate 70K ended up being 41K. It is good to know that mold control requires specialized personnel (not personal) specialized machinery and immediate action when related to health consequences caused by the presence of mold. Construction, on the other hand, besides dependent of a bid process requires two important developments; (1) Scope of Work completed by May 2015, (2) City Permits – not yet granted.
7. Several clauses of the contract state that the Exhibit A is integral part of the Contract. There it is specified the grand total

In her email of Eugenia Volcheck, complains about documents already publicized in the Website and in the unofficial blog aquariusuno.com, confuses mold remediation with construction, and offends the General Manager. So many mistakes make me wonder of her condition to discharge the fiduciary functions as Director of the Board.

Another matter of concern is the arduous, but unfruitful, work Eugenia has been carrying on during more than one year to find irregularities in Board of Directors activities since 2007

Of course to look for malfeasance since 2007 is a long stretch of 8 years. But nothing found as far as we know? I think that the fact that Eugenia and Sofia have applied themselves for so long and have nothing to show is amazing.

On the other hand, without looking at the books, I can point one serious problem: Capital monies being applied to current Administrative and maintenance issues over the years. Too bad Eugenia and Sofia did not catch those facts.

Fair warning: Civil and Criminal consequences may happen if this occurs again. The community is aware and not ready to again accept errors from the past.

I thank you again, Linda, for bringing to light this message from Eugenia. I believe this email of Eugenia must be withdrawal and with apologies to Andrew Surdovel must be presented.

Best Regards

Cecilio Augusto Berndsen, Apt. 1005 N

ceciliob@gmail.com

This message was courtesy copied to the Board of Directors and to the General Manager

_______________________________________  4

As I read the message on “signed lobby contract” posted by Eugenia Aulov-Volchek on the Aquarius Web site today, it occurred to me that such a detailed oriented person like Eugenia would not write this message had she known the facts associated with the contract at issue.

And the facts are as follows:

1. There was no need for Eugenia to add contract’s costs for the total.  She could go to the Aquarius web site, open the document containing scope of work for the contractor, it is bid #3. The construction and beautification committees provided conceptual frame for the scope of work. It was used by the Designer in creating a component specific scope of work for the construction bids. As a matter of fact, the contractors bid #3 (that became an integral part of the signed contract) is on Aquarius  Web site for more than a month. It contains full scope of work, cost breakdown for each material component comprising the lobby project and includes the total cost of $226,942. 

2. Eugenia’s second statement in reference to item 4 is incorrect.

• There are specifications contained within scope of work referred to previously.
• It is quite obvious that there is no need for the construction loan on Aquarius part, since the lobby renovation project is financed by the special assessment. How the contractor is financing this job if any financing is necessary, is not our business.
• The contract specifically states that all permits will be applied for.  As a member of a board she should know if the permits are applied for and not to use the common contract terms for unfounded accusations.

3. The scheduled completion date is clearly stated as 130 days from the start of construction upon permit approval.  Everyone knows that the contractor cannot predict how long the permit approval will take. Is it possible for the board members to direct their energy on making sure that the permits are applied for?

4. In regard to the demolition and the mold remediation:

• I regret that in addressing the necessity of the mold remediation, Eugenia has not conducted the review of documents related to this issue and available on the Web site.
• The issue of mold remediation has nothing to do with the current contractor on the lobby renovation. The elevated mold levels are the matter of a public health. The mold remediation was conducted in accordance with the testing, lab results and recommendations of the OSMA, Inc in March of 2015. The OSMA’s report is available on the Aquarius Web site for many months. The OSMA’ report specifically states:”Visual observations and laboratory results exhibited elevated indoor fungal conditions. Due to these findings, it is recommended that a professional mold remediation company be employed to return the premises back to a normal building condition in an expedient It is advised to follow the protocol provided in this report”. There was no lobby demolition other than one that was necessary for the mold remediation.

I implore the board members to review all facts and information (available in the management office and on the Web site) before making unsupported accusations and baseless assumptions that are unnecessary during these very trying times for the Aquarius owners.

I do not understand why is there an upfront presumption that everything done before current board “got on the horse” is incorrect, a lie, or a deception.  I do not know any open minded people who suspect everyone in everything.  It would be more productive if all this negative energy on critique, looking for mistakes, and accusations was directed toward what seems to be a common goal for everyone- completion of two years renovation.

Regards,

Zina Bluband,    902 N

This message was sent to the Board of Directors

_______________________________________    5

LOOKS LIKE EUGENIA DID NOT REVIEW EXHIBIT A TO CONTRACT.

Scott Bennet,     302 S

_______________________________________  6

To whom it may concern:

I see a contract signed !!! whether its the first day or last day of a board member has no bearing .

But what i am wondering about is this:

I believe that the first priority of our new treasure is to collect the almost 1/2 million dollars of unpaid maintenance fees and penalties and interest associated with the unpaid monies.

How much has been collected?

Dominic Faccini,   1006 S

.o0o.