The 11th Management Council

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  hbresidentx on Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:38 pm

nka wrote:Those holes were driled when Doris Cheong was the chairperson. She continued to be in the council after that. You should ask her why she did not follow up to ensure that they were all covered up.

I was against the drilling of those holes. So were some residents, esp, those at the top floors. The drilling created a lot of vibrations on the buildings which caused fine cracks to appear in units on the upper floors. The work was done without prior approval of the council or the BCA. By the time I called a meeting with the contractor to stop it, it was too late; the work was almost done.

Mr. Ng,
Its been explained in the latest Minute of Council Meeting. Those holes are drilled to enable the use of gondolas to paint the walls.

hbresidentx

Posts : 5
Join date : 2013-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  nka1 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:22 pm

Not that simple.

1. The developer have made holes for gondolas in many parts of the rooftops throughout the three blocks. Why were they ""missing in some areas? It could be done on purpose. The developer should have been consulted before the any more holes were drilled.

2. The contractor made several visits to make thorough surveys of our estate and its buildings before they made the quotation. The spec. of work did not mention any need to drill further holes. Later on, it said it had missed out the requirement of holes for certain part of the rooftops.

3. Painting could still be carried out by using scafolding instead of gondolas. It would have cost more to the contractor.

This is all in the past now. The important point is that contractors have their own interest in mind. Councilors should be careful with contractors recommendations. And no change to the buildings should be carried without BCA approval.

NB: I have changed my username fr "nka" to "nka1" because of some login problem with "nka".


Last edited by nka1 on Sat Jun 08, 2013 3:51 am; edited 2 times in total

nka1

Posts : 7
Join date : 2013-06-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  nka1 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:24 pm

singawala wrote:From the Minutes of the 2nd Council Meeting:

"CCTV inside Management Office

MA explained to the Council on the rationale of installing CCTV inside the Management Office which is to deter any physical or verbal abuse. "

Have someone been to the office to physically or verbally abuse the staff?

Anyway, I think this is a good move. It will also monitor the staff in the office, how often they are in the office and what do they do when they are in the office. Better still if the camera can zoom-in on their computer screens to monitor how they are using the computers. In the industry, I hear about condo managers using the office computer to play games, checking on the stock market, etc.

After what you have written, I think the M.A. will think twice before installing the camera. Most likely it will not be done.

nka1

Posts : 7
Join date : 2013-06-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  hbresidentx on Sat Jun 08, 2013 3:05 am

nka wrote:I know that. I have proposed various cost-cutting measures in this forum but taking out useful facilities like hot shower is not one of them.

From the latest Minutes of Council Meeting, it seems you and another resident from Blk 90 are the only two who objected against taking out the hot shower. All the other residents have accepted it.

hbresidentx

Posts : 5
Join date : 2013-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  nka1 on Sat Jun 08, 2013 3:52 am

hbresidentx wrote:
nka wrote:I know that. I have proposed various cost-cutting measures in this forum but taking out useful facilities like hot shower is not one of them.

From the latest Minutes of Council Meeting, it seems you and another resident from Blk 90 are the only two who objected against taking out the hot shower. All the other residents have accepted it.

Again, not that simple.

There are reasons for this.

1. Not all the residents use the swimming pool. Even for those who do, how many know that the hot water is being taken out permanently? They may think it is only taken out temporarily for repair.
2. The weather is hot at this time of the year. When it turns cold at the end of the year, the comfort of a hot shower will be missed after a swim in the cold pool.
3. Those who miss the hot shower now may prefer to leave it to others to deal with the matter. Most SPs deal with issues of the estate only once a year, during the AGM.

Only time will tell if more will object to it.


nka1

Posts : 7
Join date : 2013-06-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  concerned_resident on Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:46 pm

hbresidentx wrote:
nka wrote:I know that. I have proposed various cost-cutting measures in this forum but taking out useful facilities like hot shower is not one of them.

From the latest Minutes of Council Meeting, it seems you and another resident from Blk 90 are the only two who objected against taking out the hot shower. All the other residents have accepted it.

How many should object b4 d council will take notice? Just becos I don't protest does not mean I agree to it. I don't swim but I still think d hot shower shoulde be available to swimmers. There r some old ladies who swim regularly early in d morning. Can't d council spare some thoughts for them?

concerned_resident

Posts : 6
Join date : 2013-03-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  crystalclear on Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:35 am

Most likely, none of the old ladies is a mother of the anyone of the councilors who propose to take out the hot shower.

crystalclear

Posts : 20
Join date : 2013-03-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  crystalclear on Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:46 am

ronlimch256 wrote:

Those holes at the rooftop were drilled without BCA approval? Not surprising that this happened when Doris Cheong was the chairperson. I was told she had the cunning thinking that when things are done, they will be difficult to be undone and will be left alone.

Watch out for her. She is the type who will make use of the authority she has to benefit herself and her family. The reason she pushed for the ramps in the B1 carpark of Blk 90 was to make it easy for her mother who was on a wheelchair. She mentioned this herself in the AGM when the Resolution for the ramps was put forth.

crystalclear

Posts : 20
Join date : 2013-03-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  hbresidentx on Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:45 am

The construction of the ramps was passed in the AGM with the required majority. Case closed.

hbresidentx

Posts : 5
Join date : 2013-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  nka1 on Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:38 am

demolish wrote:Reading the latest Minutes, the store at B2 car park and the pavilion beside Blk 92 are to demolished. These structures have been around since the beginning of the condo. Does council have the right to demolish them?

I hv checked with BCA on this. Extract of its reply is as folows:

"Nevertheless, if the MCST wishes to remove a common property totally (e.g. demolish a pavilion and thereafter turf the area) and not converting a common property (e.g. convert a storeroom into a gym), Section 34(1) of BMSMA is more applicable in such scenario, which requires the MCST to pass a 90% resolution in a general meeting."

nka1

Posts : 7
Join date : 2013-06-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  cheetahhb12 on Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:20 am

aresident wrote:I am curious. Why use a plastic cone placed at the end of the barrier arm to prevent people from walking into the condo? It is not effective. I have seen people easily walk pass it to enter the condo.


hello. hv not posted for a while. i am curious about this too. why not just extend the length of the arm?

p/s: Admin, is something wrong? I cannot type outside the quoted passage!

cheetahhb12

Posts : 1
Join date : 2013-03-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  Admin on Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:24 am

cheetahhb12 wrote:
aresident wrote:I am curious. Why use a plastic cone placed at the end of the barrier arm to prevent people from walking into the condo? It is not effective. I have seen people easily walk pass it to enter the condo.


hello. hv not posted for a while. i am curious about this too. why not just extend the length of the arm?

p/s: Admin, is something wrong? I cannot type outside the quoted passage!

The solution is to click on the "Switch Editor Mode" icon, the last one in the second line of the icons. You can see that it works in this reply.

Admin
Admin

Posts : 16
Join date : 2012-09-26

View user profile http://hillbrookssgp.longluntan.net

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  awtaman123 on Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:12 am

cheetahhb12 wrote:
aresident wrote:I am curious. Why use a plastic cone placed at the end of the barrier arm to prevent people from walking into the condo? It is not effective. I have seen people easily walk pass it to enter the condo.


hello. hv not posted for a while. i am curious about this too. why not just extend the length of the arm?

p/s: Admin, is something wrong? I cannot type outside the quoted passage!


Hello, long time no see.
Agree, should have just extended the length of the arm. The cone has reduced the width of the driveway.

Another thing I am pissed about is the color of the small gate. It started off as bright yellow but was changed to light green. Why? The original yellow was more visible at night.

awtaman123

Posts : 3
Join date : 2013-03-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  hazydays on Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:11 am

Blame it on the haze. Like many others, I am home-bound becos of it. So I decide to take a look at this forum. Quite interesting things have been discussed.

Things like color of the gate and the use of cone are petty matters but still it will be better if they are done right.

I am more concerned about facilities. Facilities in a condo determine the sale price of its residential units and also the amount of maintenance fee to pay. I am concerned when I see facilities being taken out of use like the hot water shower in the changing room and being completely demolished like the pavilion beside block 92. The Management Council has to be careful about this.  As a subsidiary proprietor, I feel that such actions are unwise and unfair. This will bring the value of the property down. Don't forget, there are more and more condos with more and better facilities coming up all over Singapore. Just along Hillview Avenue, a few new ones are being built.
The actions are unfair when you consider the recent increment in maintenance fee. We SPs have to pay more maintenance fees while the facilities for use are being reduced.

Beside the value, Council has also to be careful on the legal side of things. If facilities are removed without proper authority, the MCST can be sued.

hazydays

Posts : 1
Join date : 2013-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  hazyhillbrooks on Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:21 am

I am also brought here by the haze too. What a fog!

Reading through the Minutes of Council Meeting, the decision-making by the council is also hazy, i.e. not very transparent. Decisions are supposedly passed by majority vote. That may not be as fair as it sounds. How many councilors made up that majority? Are they always the same councilors?  Who make a particular proposal? Such details will make the decision-making more transparent.

Does the MA provide any advice before a decision is made? If it is all left to the councilors, then the MA is redundant. MA does not come cheap. I would expect it to do more than just following orders of the council.

hazyhillbrooks

Posts : 2
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  hazyhillbrooks on Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:39 am

I have another point to make.

I notice several implementations to cut cost by reducing the consumption of electricity.  It is done at the expense of the SPs who have to endure a reduction in the use of availability of facilities. Have the right causes for high electricity been correctly identified? How about the possibility of consumption of the MCST electricity by outsiders? Nowadays there are so many mobile devices which have to be recharged. I suppose the service providers staffs are allowed to  recharge their mobile devices on-site. This can add up to a substantial amount of electricity over a period of time. It will be worse if they also do it for their family members and relatives and friends. What is there to stop them from doing that? We SPs may be subsidizing the electricity consumption of many outsiders! I suggest that no one should be allowed to use MCST electricity to recharge their mobile devices.

hazyhillbrooks

Posts : 2
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  aresident on Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:08 am

hbresidentx wrote:The construction of the ramps was passed in the AGM with the required majority. Case closed.

Not true. Whatever is done can be undone. All it takes is a Resolution in the AGM with enough supporting votes.

aresident

Posts : 6
Join date : 2013-03-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  aresident on Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:13 am

hazyhillbrooks wrote:I have another point to make.

I notice several implementations to cut cost by reducing the consumption of electricity.  It is done at the expense of the SPs who have to endure a reduction in the use of availability of facilities. Have the right causes for high electricity been correctly identified? How about the possibility of consumption of the MCST electricity by outsiders? Nowadays there are so many mobile devices which have to be recharged. I suppose the service providers staffs are allowed to  recharge their mobile devices on-site. This can add up to a substantial amount of electricity over a period of time. It will be worse if they also do it for their family members and relatives and friends. What is there to stop them from doing that? We SPs may be subsidizing the electricity consumption of many outsiders! I suggest that no one should be allowed to use MCST electricity to recharge their mobile devices.

As an owner, I wish to express my appreciation for this idea. If only our councilors can be that alert. We should stop such practice by the service providers. For all we know, some of them may be even doing it for a profit. They can collect those mobile devices from outsiders and recharge them for a fee. This is making profit at the expense of the MCST.

aresident

Posts : 6
Join date : 2013-03-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  crystalclear1 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:57 am

nka1 wrote:
demolish wrote:Reading the latest Minutes, the store at B2 car park and the pavilion beside Blk 92 are to demolished. These structures have been around since the beginning of the condo. Does council have the right to demolish them?

I hv checked with BCA on this. Extract of its reply is as folows:

"Nevertheless, if the MCST wishes to remove a common property totally (e.g. demolish a pavilion and thereafter turf the area) and not converting a common property (e.g. convert a storeroom into a gym), Section 34(1) of BMSMA is more applicable in such scenario, which requires the MCST to pass a 90% resolution in a general meeting."

This is a serious matter. I hope Management has not contravened the BMSMA.

crystalclear1

Posts : 3
Join date : 2013-07-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  crystalclear1 on Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:01 am

Last week, during the heavy thunderstorm, a big branch from one of our trees near Blk 92 fell down to the pavement just outside our front wall. The trees were pollarded about a year ago. How can this still happen? The pollarding was not properly done?

crystalclear1

Posts : 3
Join date : 2013-07-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  nka1 on Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:31 pm

crystalclear1 wrote:
nka1 wrote:
demolish wrote:Reading the latest Minutes, the store at B2 car park and the pavilion beside Blk 92 are to demolished. These structures have been around since the beginning of the condo. Does council have the right to demolish them?

I hv checked with BCA on this. Extract of its reply is as folows:

"Nevertheless, if the MCST wishes to remove a common property totally (e.g. demolish a pavilion and thereafter turf the area) and not converting a common property (e.g. convert a storeroom into a gym), Section 34(1) of BMSMA is more applicable in such scenario, which requires the MCST to pass a 90% resolution in a general meeting."

This is a serious matter. I hope Management has not contravened the BMSMA.


From the latest Minutes of Council Meeting. Amendment made to Minutes of previous meeting:
Item 7.1.5 should read: "MA presented the summary of the quotations for dismantling the pavilion and to flatten the base. Council had decided to award to M/s Greenery Recycle Trading at a cost of $400. Reasons for removal were the safety and water pondings issues; decision to replace or not shall be deliberated at the next Annual General Meeting."

Whatever the reasons, they should have seek AGM approval before removal. Instead they have it removed first and then wants AGM to decide on the replacement.

nka1

Posts : 7
Join date : 2013-06-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  nka1 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:38 pm

Latest developments:

1. I heard after the store, which served as a resting place for on-site service providers staffs was removed, one day the cleaners down tooled and refused to work because they felted they were not being treated as human beings.

2. The guards are not allowed to use stand fans. Instead a swivel fan is installed at the top of the wall of the guardhouse. The guards are complaining that this is not enough, esp. in the morning when the sun shines into the guardhouse.

nka1

Posts : 7
Join date : 2013-06-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  crystalclear on Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:41 am

This forum has been rather inactive for a while. I suppose we all have many other things to keep us busy, like I do. Still I have found it important to bring out some issues for discussion.

Yes, we should treat the service providers staff like human. A place to rest is not too much to ask for.
The day shift security supervisor was removed. I heard he spoke out against the fan. His guards find the guardhouse too hot in the daytime with only one wall mounted fan. I hope he is not removed because of that.

I was going to comment on several items in the last Minutes of Meeting before it was taken down. Briefly I remember the following items.

After the latest increase in maintenance fee, the account will still be in deficit.

$3000 to get a doc from Strata Title Board.

Renovation on gym flooring.

Close case with BCA on the pavilion case.

Comments and questions.
Is this council spending our money wisely? If not, no amount of maintenance fee will be enough.

Why does the MCST have to spend $3000 to get a document from STB?

If I remember correctly, in the last  AGM, there was a resolution to upgrade the equipment in the gyms and replace the mat and wooden flooring. It was defeated. Why is the work going ahead?

The only thing we know about the pavilion is that it has been demolished without AGM consent. When Mr. Ng enquired with BCA, the reply was that it required a resolution with 90% approval. What directive or order has the MCST received from BCA on this? This should be revealed to the SP's before council talk about closing the case with BCA,

crystalclear

Posts : 20
Join date : 2013-03-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  howdy123 on Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:23 am

In the evening, when the spot light shines on the front gate, both the cut-out gate and the main gate appear as the same color. Can something be done about this?

Paying $3000 just to get a doc from STB? Is this done with the advice of the Managing Agent? Is the MCST going to court to settle the case? This should be decided by a AGM. Not only is the cost a concern but the reputation of the condo will be at stake. This was another leakage case which was solved by draining the water away via a conduit. Why not do it for this case? You cannot be too sure about the source of the leak. The one at B1 just outside Lobby 3 was attributed to the SP's unit above it and was supposed to have been fixed. It is leaking again.

howdy123
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  aresident on Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:10 pm

Did anyone else hear a loud argument coming fr Blk 88 yesterday? I was at the pool deck and could hear it clearly. It seemed that one resident was disturbed by d barking of a dog in d unit above his n confronted d owner. Another case of irresponsible pet owner.

I agree. We should b careful about taking d case of d water leakage to court. One cannot b too sure about the source of d leak.

aresident

Posts : 6
Join date : 2013-03-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The 11th Management Council

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum