In a report to unit owners in April of 2009, a recommendation was presented to unit owners for the installation of a new hot water heating system versus new steam boilers. It was stated that the installation would result in annual operating cost savings of $35,800. With these substantial savings, it was projected that a recovery of the investment or “payback” would take 7.35 years.

Unfortunately, the board adopted this recommendation, and proceeded without an appropriate resolution of unit owners. This installation did in fact proceed without any respect or recognition of the proposal previously approved by unit owners which did in fact receive the necessary support as is required by the bylaws.

As we now know, this “alternative proposal” did in fact NOT result in promised annual savings of $35,800. In fact an ANNUAL INCREASE of approximately $17,000 in energy costs has been incurred in each of the last two calender years, 2011, and 2012.

There will obviously be no opportunity for the promised “payback” or recovery of this investment. In fact, Spadina Towers has incurred an accumulated increase in energy costs since the installation of the new hot water heating system of approximately $50,000 .

It should be of interest to residents that in April of 2012, this unfortunate decision was challenged in a court of law. The court wrongfully accepted this misleading position of the board of directors, that the corporation saved $42,000 in total net energy costs in the first year following installation of the new hot water heating system. Even with a submission of all monthly energy cost receipts supporting the ACTUAL and most dramatic cost INCREASES, the court proceeded without review of this factual evidence and accepted  the purported savings endorsed by Mr. Goldstein. In fact, the court dismissed the case with a judgement accepting this false and misleading information provided by the Spadina Condominium Corporation and its board of directors.

It is hoped that residents will recognize this injustice and support a request for a detailed analysis of energy costs from the board including receipts substantiating this declared saving of $42,000. Hopefully, some of our astute, responsible and principled residents are prepared to support this request.

Had this project proceeded as originally approved, not only would residents have two thirds of their cash contribution still in their bank account, but they would of course be realizing substantial savings in operating costs. There would certainly have been no need for such a large cash contribution, a depleted reserve fund, and an increase in condominium fees.

There are very obvious lessons to be learned from this most unfortunate fiasco. The board must only be permitted to proceed with such projects after demonstrating that they have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the matter and of course, must obtain the required support of unit owners as is stated in the bylaws of the Corporation.

Further, the board must be held accountable for the serious impact of the unneccessary cost burden placed upon unit owners. An audited financial report is an obvious starting point.