THIS IS A report on the tenting and fumigation project that took place during the last week of December (2025).
Below the jump, this post discusses three main aspects: the biggest challenges, what went well, and room for improvement.
CHALLENGES
Securing the cooperation of our neighbors
The owner of the attached building (202 Main Street), located on the corner to the northwest of our sanctuary building, was greatly troubled by the prospect of leaving his spaces vacant with a fumigation sign on the door—which seemed to him like an invitation to break in.
In response to his concern, when we signed an agreement with him, it stipulated that we provide a live security guard throughout the tenting process. (Research had shown me that this was the least expensive way to provide monitoring coverage for a period of 40 hours.) It also included the following provisions, where “X” stands for our neighbor’s name:
Mishkon agrees to reimburse X for repair or replacement of damaged property, up to the $10,000 deductible on his property insurance policy, in the event that vandalism or theft occurs.… (Mishkon shall not be responsible for any other damage to the property that may occur, particularly if due to force majeure, such as an earthquake.) For transparency’s sake, X will allow Mishkon to make in advance of fumigation a private video record of his premises’ condition, as a baseline for any damage claim.… Documented damage claims must be submitted by 1/8/26.
Mishkon accepts responsibility for (1) any damage or contamination inside X’s building caused by gas leakage…; and (2) direct property damage to his building and fixtures.… Documented damage claims must be submitted by 1/8/26.
X agrees to timely provide signed copies of…documents that the termite companies have asked him to sign in advance of the fumigation.…
X agrees to vacate his building while Quality Pest Services deems it potentially hazardous due to the release of fumigant…and to ensure that food and beverages on the premises have been properly prepared.
X agrees to timely make available…any and all areas on his premises that the [fumigation] representative deems essential to access.…
(I had found a prospective donor who agreed to cover the cost of damage to our neighbor—who did so in the belief that the presence of a security guard, and the physical arrangements, made the risk of such damage negligible.)
Although the fumigator, after making 3 advance planning visits, came up with a way to exclude the corner building from the tent proper, our shared wall did prove to be semi-permeable. That is, fumigant was detected on the ground-floor level of the corner building during the fumigation process. This finding confirmed that its residents indeed needed to vacate.
With regard to the overall timing, we happened to benefit from our neighbor’s misfortune: his two ground-floor commercial spaces were vacant, and so our fumigation did not force any businesses there to close (and thus need to be reimbursed). Meanwhile, his second-floor tenant was out of town during the tenting period, and therefore hardly perturbed by it (although we needed to reassure her about protecting her property). The owner himself was willing to vacate at no cost to Mishkon. This combination of factors was rare and unlikely to be repeated again—and a big driver of my insistence that the fumigation be done there and then.
Meanwhile, from the owner of the property to the south, we had them sign a release for the tenting crew to access the parking lot. In return, we arranged for the fumigator’s liability insurance certificate to list our neighbor as an additional insured.
We kept them well informed about timing and impacts, especially on tenant access to their parking spaces along the wall and off of Main Street.
All of our neighbors were gracious about how we inconvenienced them. They were understanding about how important this project was. The fumigation could not have been done without their cooperation.
Absence of staff
Doing the fumigation during the December preschool break, while the office was closed, meant that all Mishkon staff would be out of town and unavailable to assist in person. However, they planned carefully with me in advance, especially about security arrangements. During the operation itself, our director of operations graciously provided support from afar via text messaging.
Food prep
Foodstuffs were located on the premises in a wide variety of placed, having been left there by various parties over a period of years. Nobody had a comprehensive awareness of what was where. Some of it was easy to overlook at first glance.
Plants
• The shrubs along Hampton Drive needed to be carefully trimmed in back, so that the tent could be placed between them and the wall. (This arrangement increase the chances that they would survive the fumigation.)
• Some planters proved to be too fragile to be moved off of the premises.
• Returning the removed plants afterward was delayed due to a week of rain.
• Some (but not all) of the plants that were left in the play yard died and needed to be cleaned out.
Security
The fumigation company identified in advance several windows in the school building that had to be left open 3". So we arranged for wooden pieces to be placed in the window tracks, to keep them from being opened further. And we needed to arrange for the alarm company to temporarily bypass those zones (i.e., windows) before arming the system.
Equipment impacts
Immediately after the fumigation, when the Gas Company technicians came to restore gas service, they found that the school building’s water heater was no longer in safe operating condition.
Perhaps the tent covering and uncovering process on the roof had disturbed the heater’s rusty exhaust vent enough to cause flaking that then damaged the burner below. Yet arguably both the advanced age and the improper installation of the heater (of which I was not previously aware) were contributing factors if not the cause themselves.
At any rate, the challenge was to immediately replace and repair the equipment as needed, before the resumption of the preschool. Fortunately, we had two intervening weekdays in which to get work done—and we did so, as reported elsewhere on this blog.
WHAT WENT WELL
• The online checklist and status grid proved to be enormously helpful.
• Leaders, staff, and volunteer members were truly inspired by the project and willingly helped when called upon. There was evident pride in the fact that we were taking care of the place, even when doing so required real effort.
(Credit is due especially to the intrepid volunteers who took responsibility for foodstuffs and plants: Tom Sorter and Cande Friedman, respectively, along with their supportive spouses, Phyllis Sorter and Lee Friedman. And thanks also to Paul Levine for providing a prompt, last-minute legal review of the custom written agreement with our neighbor.)
• Although engaging a security guard had been prompted by our neighbor’s insistence, it was prudent for us, as well, since the guard also made rounds at the perimeter of our property. It turned out that the tent’s necessary placement had not only left two of our pedestrian gates in a relatively insecure condition, but also had required us to turn off a motion-sensor and cover up some cameras. Hence without a guard, it would have been fairly easy for someone to steal or vandalize Mishkon’s property—without setting off our alarm system and without leaving a video trace.
• Within an hour after the tent was taken down, our roofer came to check for damage from the tenting. They combined the visit with the six-month warranty check-up for the sanctuary building’s silicone roof. Only a couple of very minor repairs where identified.
• All but one of the shrubs along Hampton Drive survived.
• As the tent was removed, the screw holes made in the stucco walls (where the tent had been secured so as to avoid covering our neighbor’s attached building) were promptly filled and sealed with high-quality silicone caulk. This meant that repainting was needed only on the façade (for cosmetic reasons), and we could forgo repainting in the Ruben Alley. And the use of textured caulk made the painted spots practically invisible.
ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT
I should have followed up in writing with the fish vendor, regarding his agreement to come and pick up the fish, and with a reminder call. One phone conversation was not enough to make it happen.
Honestly, looking back now—9 weeks after the operation—I cannot think of serious problems that could have been avoided. Although I was certainly tired afterward from the intensity and the labor, I am left feeling blessed and grateful that things worked out so smoothly. We lucked out!
No comments:
Post a Comment