1) Minutes: Minutes of the November, 9, 2006 board meeting were approved.

2) Violation appeal: A unit owner had requested and been scheduled for a 4^th appeal of two January 2005 rules violations/fines. The unit owner did not appear.

3) Roof replacement update:

a) Contract with S&S Roofing signed on 12/22/05. The contract for roof replacement was approved by the building's attorney and signed by the board president on 12/12/05. The contract was forwarded to S&S, who signed and returned the contract on 12/22/05.

The initial AIA-type contract-draft provided by S&S in August/September was discarded in December 2005 after S&S Roofing proved unable to provide critical portions of the contract for the building’s attorney to review. The final approved contract agreement was an engineering-type contract-draft originally offered by Becht Engineering in May 2005. The engineering-type contract-draft had been declined by Greenberg and Ogman in favor of allowing S&S to write their own architectural-AIA type contract. Once the AIA design contract was discarded in late November and the engineering-type draft was agreed upon in consultation with Becht Engineering, the final contract was determined to be appropriate and complete by the building’s attorney Michael Swaaley and was approved.

b) There was a discussion of construction start dates. Concerns about winter weather and T-Mobile’s participation in the project in scheduling the moving of their equipment from the roof surface and bulkhead wall were discussed. S&S had previously indicated to Becht Engineering that the project could not be scheduled until there had been a pre-construction meeting on the roof with T-Mobile. Irwin indicated that S&S has not returned his recent calls. The Board anticipates that the project will begin in late March or early April, and according to S&S will take 2-3 weeks to complete.

c) Exhaust fan system: Irwin indicated that he was not up-to-date on the matter, but will contact Becht Engineering and schedule the joint Becht Engineering / Chutemaster inspection. It was reviewed that the contract for ventilation system analysis with Becht had been approved on November 1, 2005 with modifications completed November 15, 2005. As part of the analysis, video support work would be necessary and Jennifer Ogman had arranged with this work with Chutemaster after receiving the Board approval. It was agreed that this complete analysis, any necessary repairs to the system, and fan replacement work should be completed prior to work beginning on the roof replacement if possible to avoid the risk of damage to a new roof. Winter weather should have no impact on full completion of the ventilation system project.

d) Summarizing next steps with roof:

• pre-construction meeting with all parties (S&S, JAL, Becht, T-Mobile, masonry contractor);
• completion of the Becht and Chutemaster HVAC shaftway evaluation;
• bids, contract, and board approval for HVAC work;
• Swaaley review of contract for HVAC work;
• Board president signs all approved contracts after final legal review,
• completion of HVAC repair work (hopefully in advance of roof project),
• roof project begins and is completed as payments are made according to schedule.

4) Riser valves and water service line replacement update:

a) Plumbing work completed in December. RSK had been asked by Irwin Chopak to hold up on the laundry room and recycling area sprinkler head additions on account of concerns with their bid. Irwin reported that RSK went ahead with the work anyhow and he recommends that the Board renegotiate with RSK to match a less expensive bid he had received. The board voted in agreement.

b) Lobby ceiling replacement revision/approval: On November 27^th, Rich Re requested an email vote for the revised ceiling replacement. Multiple bids were received by Irwin Chopak. Bellini, Boynton, Cannon, Keshecki, Mattera, and Re voted in favor of the Parker bid at $6,728. Votes were not received from Biren, Greenberg, and Lamoglia. The vote was concluded on 11/28/06 with an approved estimate to include skim coating and painting of the central lobby ceiling, repair and/or replacement of all ceiling lighting fixtures, installation and finishing of sheet rock ceiling and suspended ceiling.

The contractor who had removed the old ceiling was paid for removal work performed and while the replacement work to be performed by this contractor was cancelled. Payment was reduced from $3,800 for the full job to $1,900.

c) Discussion of lobby ceiling current status: As of this evening’s meeting, the new suspended ceiling panels are not fitting correctly (bowing up at the sides because they are too tight along the walls), the cross members are not attached properly where they meet the wall-edge frames, the ceiling light fixtures are not aligned with each other and being recessed fixtures cannot run in the exact center of the hallway on account of pipes close above, and although a requirement of the project the new ceiling panels cannot be easily removed by plumbers for regular access to the riser valves or panel replacements by the super as needed. A board member questioned why the north hallway (towards laundry room and unit L-C) had been done as suspended ceiling, since the concentration of valves only existed on the south hallway (towards L-H) and the north hallway was separated by a doorway so there were no issues of aesthetic balance between the two ends. Concerns were also raised with the central lobby area with painting that looks patchy. The board agreed that the current paint job is unsatisfactory and incomplete.

Irwin will review with contractors and report back to the board with a comprehensive plan addressing all concerns. The board agreed that the completed project must provide a professional appearance, offer plumbers regular functional access to all valves 60 valves, and allow for easy replacement of ceiling panels by the building super as they become damaged or worn. At the moment, it was agreed that none of these requirements have been satisfied.

5) Update on other capital repairs:

a) Revised/improved bid estimates for other capital repairs: Irwin Chopak has obtained additional estimates for the fire escape restoration/painting, repair of cracked entrance area tile, garage and parking lot painting. Estimated savings totaled approximately six thousand dollars. No action was taken on approving bids at this time.

b) Awning and frame replacement: For the benefit of the building’s new JAL manager, the board reviewed awning framer replacement and the November meeting’s decision to delay replacement to the FY2006 budget year. Boynton and Cannon had been authorized to work with management to review replacement options and present their final selection to the full-board for final approval. It was noted that Access-a-Ride has already made payment to Highview for the full replacement of the awning and frame in response to the damage caused by their van. Irwin will meet with Boynton and Cannon to discuss options. It was noted that the top corner lights on the awning are no longer serviceable according to Walsh Electric and will require replacement at the same time. Lights under the awning are approximately 5 years old.

c) Carpeting estimates: Due to a bleach stain on the first floor and a polyurethane spill on the third floor, the Board anticipated replacing the building’s hall carpeting through the regular maintenance budget at two floors per year. It was agreed at this meeting that Boynton and Cannon will work with Chopak to research replacement carpeting options.

6) Financial report:

a) Common charge increase: On November 21, 2005, a special meeting was held to determine if a common charge increase would be necessary for the new budget year. The meeting was attended by Victor Bellini, Robert Boynton, Marjorie Cannon, Tamara Keshecki, Al Lamoglia, Frank Mattera, and Rich Re. Miriam Biren and Stefanie Greenberg were absent. As outgoing Treasurer, Rich Re presented three budget options for FY2006 based on common charge increases of 0%, 3%, and 6%. As Rich Re's figures indicated, a 6% increase would most closely approximate an allowance for the anticipated increase energy costs for heat and hot water.

The 6% increase was approved by six board members Victor Bellini, Robert Boynton, Marjorie Cannon, Al Lamoglia, Frank Mattera, and Rich Re. Tamara Keshecki voted for 4% increase. Stefanie Greenberg voted by email on November 22nd for the 6% increase.

b) Landscaping bill: Highview has recently received a bill from Gary Landscaping for the last two full years of lawn maintenance totaling approximately $26,000. Irwin Chopak indicated that since it was a contract that specified when the payments were to be made by Highview, Gary Landscaping was not required to send a monthly statement. The board questioned the situation, why JAL had not made payments as specified by the contract, and why the Board’s outside auditor Alfred Johnson had not caught this situation in reviewing all active Highview contracts.

A board member cited his repeated request of the board that the budgeting system in use by JAL for Highview should fully encumber funds in the budget at the point that projects and contracts are first approved.

Irwin will investigate and report back to the board.

c) Capital repairs: No expenditures-to-date report was available at this meeting for the Capital Repairs being supported by the building loan.

d) FY2005 Audit: The board determined that an accounting firm for the fiscal year 2005 audit has not been engaged. Irwin was asked to review situation, noting that the annual meeting requires that the completed audit be sent to all unit owners at least 10 days in advance of the meeting.

e) Completed audit for annual meeting: As soon as the FY2005 audit is completed, a combined FY2004 and FY2005 annual meeting will be scheduled. Possible dates to be reviewed once engagement letter is signed with auditor. However since auditor was not engaged in the fall, date that the audit can begin is uncertain. Treasurer will need to discuss with Alfred Johnson.

Board member then questioned continuing with Johnson. Chopak suggested considering less expensive auditor he has worked with in the past. Board member indicated that degree of sampling performed by auditor is what typically controls audit cost, but felt that the auditor previous to Alfred Johnson (Desantis and Shall) had performed significantly more sampling and offered more significant feedback to the board than Johnson. It was noted that John Lipuma had indicated to the board that Johnson had not sampled at the JAL office at all.

On account of the lateness in beginning the FY2005 audit, board members felt that it was too late to change auditors for FY2005.

7) Legal issues:

a) Lease rule violations: Two units remain in violation of lease rules and subject to legal action.

b) Delinquent common charges: The delinquent common charge accounts of two unit owners are with Michael Swaaley for legal action. The building’s legal costs in these actions become the responsibility of the delinquent unit owners.

c) The Board discussed board membership responsibilities and suggested resignation guidelines:

i) Discussion of attendance: In recent months, board members have waited for as long as an hour before achieving the quorum of five board members necessary to call a meetving to order and conduct business. On one occasion three members spent an hour waiting in the lobby with a JAL representative before a fourth member showed, but were still unable to achieve a quorum and disbanded without conducting the meeting.

ii) Encouraging board members to offer notice if unable to attend: In order to avoid wasting board members time and the uncertainly this creates in conducting the business of the corporation, the email RSVP was resurrected several months ago to either assure a quorum or provide the adequate notice to cancel and reschedule meetings without significant disruption. The board secretary has been sending an email reminder with requested RSVP. However only a minority of board members have responded in each case. It was noted that most board members were able to comply with this RSVP process by email in past years – to the common benefit of the board and all unit owners in assuring timely discussion of all business before the board. It was noted that this problem with email response has gone beyond attendance plans at board meetings, extending to email votes between board meetings which in order to provide a record of proceedings are the only authorized method agreed upon for the board to conduct business and formal voting between board meetings.

iii) Replacing inactive board members. The board discussed the additional burden inactive board members place on the active participating ones. Bylaws Article II, Section 5 (Removal of Members of the Board of Managers) states: "At any regular or special meeting of unit owners, any one or more of the members of the Board of Managers, other than a member designated by the Sponsor, may be removed with or without cause by a majority of the unit owners and a successor may then and there or thereafter be elected to fill the vacancy thus created. Any member of the Board of Managers whose removal has been proposed by the unit owners shall be given an opportunity to be heard at the meeting."

iv) Board action: Although a forced removal requires a unit owner meeting per bylaws, the board needs to achieve a quorum in order to legally conduct business. In order to support the board’s legal responsibility to unit owners, the board voted to establish a written guideline to be used in requesting the resignation of inactive board members. Richard Re recommended the guideline of "missing four meetings over the course of a calendar year". Boynton recommended "three consecutive unexcused absences". Re and Boynton agreed develop a common guideline and present an exact wording for the board to approve at the next board meeting. So voted by the board members present. This guideline does not have legal standing, but will provide a basis for supporting voluntary resignations.

8) Repairs and maintenance:

a) Maintenance Committee: As directed by the board, Anna Civitano and Marjorie Cannon have been maintaining a weekly report of building maintenance items and Civitano has been walking with JAL’s building manager on his regular weekly inspection of the building. Utilizing the spreadsheet report compiled by Boynton and Bellini, Civitano is transitioning to the computerized report. It was agreed that the Committee will submit a report to Irwin Chopak by email, with a copy going to the board secretary for archives and board meeting discussions. With the progress Irwin Chopak is hopefully making in getting the building back on track, it was recommended that Civitano and Cannon will submit one inspection per month, to be completed and submitted the week before the board’s regular monthly meetings. This report will provide up-to-date and comprehensive information for board meeting discussion. The board so voted.

b) Garage Exhaust Timer: The new timer for the garage door’s exhaust fan was installed in December and noted to be operating properly. However as of this evening the fan is not operating. The repairman will be called in tomorrow to investigate.

c) The front entrance door was discussed. It has not been locking for several days. Irwin indicated that the super had not told him of the problem. It was agreed that according to the critical nature of building security, the repair should have been made within hours not days. This led to a discussion of the communication policy between JAL management and the building super. Unit owners should file all repair and maintenance requests directly with JAL and Irwin, ideally through the Highview2.com website’s repair request system.

d) Painting & smoke detector battery replacement: Per the Maintenance Committee’s report, at least twenty doors have still not been painted. There was no update on which units have had their smoke detector battery replacements completed.

e) Elevator’s mechanical systems: There was discussion of the elevator’s overall condition and the nature of repairs in the last year. Irwin recommended an independent analysis and report. Irwin will provide bids.

f) There was discussion of the Verizon terminal box. Irwin believes that Verizon may be willing to replace the box with an updated system. This might allow for extra services requiring fiber optic lines.

g) Per discussion about the Maintenance Committee, all other regular repairs and maintenance issues were tabled for review of the weekly reports and next month’s review of progress at the board meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.

Robert Boynton, Secretary