Dear *|FNAME|*, A slate of incumbent candidates (the “Slate”) sent a rebuttal to our earlier messages, which we’ve posted [HERE]. We appreciate an opportunity to respond to their points. The Slate purports to have quite a collection of glowing achievements, so there’s a lot of material to choose from. Let’s see if a few of these claims can pass a simple smell test. Long story short, THEY DON'T. Regards,
Steve | | | | - Dues Delta: Below is a chart of the dues “delta” vs. Inflation, which the Slate blessed. RealManage outperformed FirstService when you take out increases for a $7M Reserve addition in 2017 to fund unit window replacements in 4 phases (recommended by the reservist) along with hiring a new lead maintenance tech. The board voted to remove that item in 2020, when the maintenance lead also resigned. (A big PG&E rate hike caused the jump 2007.)
| | - No Bids: They say "Multiple bids are generally discussed." What does that mean? I have copies of all the big contracts over the past year; they are only one-sided quotes and proposals. Nothing with bid specifications. The minutes misuse “bid” and “quote” interchangeably; quotes are used when price is not the primary concern and are rarely comparable (apples-to-apples). By consistently voting for favored vendors without competitive bidding and accepting change orders as business as usual, I think FirstService partners are gaining an unfair advantage at owner’s expense. You can see Gateview’s official Bidding Policy (approved at the July 23, 2020 meeting) [HERE]. The Slate and FirstService continue to ignore it.
| - No FirstService Accountability: They say, "FirstService Residential (FSR) has a team of professionals to help the Board understand and navigate many of today’s complex issues." I was a director when FirstService was hired. They were selected because they claimed to provide the services and expertise Gateview needs most: extensive high rise experience; training for staff and directors; asset inspections; preventative maintenance programs with documentation; and building assessments, which you can see [HERE]. They have not delivered any of that, and their manager (Milan Kuruc) even devised his own reserve “Triage List” of zero-remaining life items to ignore, rather than address, which ballooned deferred maintenance across the property.
| | - No Owner Oversight: They say, "All Owners have access to HOA data - financials, budgets, contracts, etc." Owners do not have access to most financials, budgets, contracts, etc., on the FirstService Connect Portal. FirstService charges $10 for EACH Monthly Financial Statement, and those are missing sections 'G', 'H', 'I', 'J', the bank statements, the UBS statements, and the certificate of deposit statements. Management told me owners aren't entitled to inspect reports and contracts discussed in executive session. Owners can't request or inspect invoices and contracts formed under the manager’s $5,000/day discretionary budget because they're not disclosed.
| | - No Fiduciary Duty: Their claim: “Length of Board meetings is not a factor in fiduciary responsibilities” sounds a lot like wishful thinking to me. When directors conduct no due diligence, as evidenced by uninformed or shallow comments at meetings, it's not fulfilling their fiduciary obligation to owners. Why didn't the Slate ever talk about director training? Why did they ignore deferred maintenance, normal funding methods, and all meaningful cost controls? The words “save”, “cost control”, and “competitive bids” don't appear once in 2024 minutes. Can we attribute this to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, explained [HERE]?
| | | - Improper Upgrades: They say "This Board worked with management to establish a regular maintenance schedule to help extend the life of building components, yielding a substantial improvement since the 2020 pandemic." In 2020, there were eight (8) zero-life components. In 2025, there are sixty-nine (69) zero-life components; how can that improve maintenance? The board used Reserve funds to pay for capital improvements, without owner consent. This is a poor practice which even FirstService condemns [HERE]. The Slate secretly funded their own pet projects by not discussing expensive non-existent items they quietly added to reserves, such as the Electric Car Charger Retrofit ($325K) and new garage gates ($150K).
| - No Hot Water Solution: They claim "Anti-scald pressure balancing valves have been identified and proven to solve temperature fluctuation issues in showers." Scalding hot water first appeared after the new micro-boilers were raised from 120 to 130 degrees without telling residents, needlessly imperiling resident safety. You can see the enormous impact that has had on scalding danger [HERE]. Changing shower valves won’t fix temperature fluctuations in sinks and other appliances. The problem is with our hot water delivery system, not shower valves. An email I sent to the board and manager in 2015 cited the company who installed the new booster pump, explaining the complexity of tuning system components and why adjusting Pressure Reducing (PR) valves isn't likely to solve the problem, and could make it worse [HERE].
| | - Poor Exterior Lighting: They claim "Exterior lighting upgraded along the building perimeter for added safety and visibility." Do they walk outside at night? The hillside path is not uniformly lit and several sections remain far below the original (legal and safe) light level. Also, sections of the west and south Plaza paths are pitch black at night along fire egress paths. Instead of addressing either of these safety deficiencies, new non-essential landscaping was installed in both areas last year.
| | - No Due Diligence: The Slate says "Board Directors individually and diligently study every agenda item before meetings." How did that work out? According to minutes, there were 44 recorded votes in 2024. Ms. Harris and Ms. Shah each abstained once; Ms. Dunton opposed once; and all other votes for all 4 incumbent candidates were unanimous. Essentially, they all voted with the majority 100% of the time. That never happened before in Gateview history, and the word "saving" doesn't appear once in their election email. If reelected, it seems likely the Slate will make no effort in the coming year to save money or stop raising dues to fund pet projects.
| - Resident Safety Ignored: They say "Aging fire pumps replaced with efficient pumps to maintain fire sprinkler water pressure, a critical component during fire mitigation." Pumps that were not properly maintained or inspected according to the vendor who replaced them. What about more important fire trucks and evacuation? Mandatory elevator lobby evacuation signs were approved over 2 years ago, but are still nowhere in sight. Driveway fire lanes are frequently blocked by move-in and move-out vehicles because of a broken freight elevator, which has been down for months.
| | If you can't complete small jobs efficiently, how do you handle the big ones? | | - Deferred Maintenance: Their claim; "This Board worked with management to establish a regular maintenance schedule." Well, almost. The latest G2 exit gate failure last week is a good example of missing the mark. Improper lubrication caused the gate to fail.
A few bucks could've saved many thousands. When things fail catastrophically, the consequences can be nothing, to a fatality. Timely maintenance is always less expensive, i.e. a better value, than premature replacement.
| | - Donating Land to Albany: This nutty idea doesn’t warrant a comment, except that no Slate candidate mentioned renting our unused hillside land to Albany, with terms in Gateview’s favor. FirstService partners all offer one-sided quotes in their own favor, which the Slate unanimously approves without hesitation. It’s odd they can’t imagine employing the same strategy for members they were elected to serve.
| | That should be enough evidence to convince voters that whatever incumbent candidates have accomplished over the past couple of years, they are not “telling it like it is.” They’re trying to sugar-coat their unanimous voting record on non-essential pet projects and one-sided quotes, rather than getting the most bang for your buck and taking deferred maintenance seriously. Gateview is too big and old for just 2 maintenance workers. Rather than spending hundreds of thousands on non-essential and poorly funded upgrades, the Slate could've focused on hiring another 100% hands-on maintenance tech. They could also have demanded that FirstService deliver a professional maintenance matrix as promised. Hindsight may be 20/20, but past performance is the best predictor of future performance; if you want to protect your property values... Please Don't Forget to Vote! | | |
|
|
