In the June condo news report received from the board, it was stated that the board is tendering for a new lighting system in the parkade. Once again, residents must be included in any such descretionary expenses. This, along with the parkade resurfacingn as proposed by the board must not proceed any further until these matters have been reviewed at a general meeting.

It is very important that residents be clearly aware of projects which are a priority and must be addressed as soon as possible. These include the following:

1. Installation of residential humidification which was inappropriately removed and not replaced during installation of the heating system. The heating system project was placed before unit owners for a vote. The proposal included humidification and unit owners understood that this was in fact included in proposed project cost estimate. The project, did however, did not receive the required support of unit owners but the board proceeded anyway. Further, the humidifier was in turn, removed but never replaced.

The engineer advised a general meeting that he was instructed to not replace the residential humidification in order to reduce the cost of the new heating system project. Residents have as a result, suffered greatly from a lack of humidification during our long winters. These very low humidity levels have also contributed to higher energy costs. Installation of the residential humidifier is clearly a priority and must be installed before the coming winter season.

2. Repair and maintenance to balconies is a priority as well. This includes painting and repair of facing above the front windows as well as the side walls. This issue has been raised by residents many times over the past few years. Any required maintenance or repair must be completed during this summer season.

3. The Vector proposal for repair to the surface of the parkade is a priority and certainly must be completed before a new lighting system is considered.

4. Repairs including caulking to north side windows must be completed as soon as possible as there is leakage into the bedrooms of residents. Insufficient drainage relating to the roof and side walls of the building must be addressed as well. The drains installed in the walls around the base of the entire building appear to not be working. This must be corrected this summer season.

5. Security monitors must be inspected and repairs or replacement conducted where required.

6. There are several front windows requiring replacement. This must also be completed during this summer season.

7. The fourth floor front patios must be thoroughly inspected and appropriate sealant and flashing installed in order to prevent damage around the perimeter of these patios which has proven to cause leakage to the floor below. This again, must be completed during this summer season.

In mid June, a proposal for addressing the leakage issue from the parkade roof was received from Vector Construction Ltd. This company is a national company and is very well respected in the concrete services industry. Their review of our concrete surface area led them to a recommendation that crack filling and concrete repair of damaged areas be conducted. They determined that the surface area was basically sound and there was no need for a total replacement as has been suggested by others. Further, if the board acted promptly, the project could probably be completed yet this year.

Two board members attended a meeting to review the proposal but appear to be bound by their decision, at a board meeting earlier this year, to proceed with a total replacement rather than consider any alternative solutions. The cost of this total replacement has been suggested to be approximately $650,000 plus engineering fees and GST. The total cost of the Vector proposal is less than $50,000. Why incur unnecessary  average costs on behalf of each resident well in excess of $13,000 for a total replacement versus the Vector proposal which would on average cost each resident less than $1,000?  

The Vector proposal provides that with minimal annual care, we could extend the useful life of the surface by up to ten years before any significant capital repair would be required. Appropriate annual maintenance is recommended just as it would be following a total replacement.

A careful cost analysis of these options is very important. The Vector proposal, which includes product and  workmanship guarantees, may very well cost less in total than just the engineering fees for the replacement option. This option should first be tried, rather than undertake a huge replacement project that may in fact prove to be totally unnecessary. By implementing the Vector proposal, we would have an opportunity to observe the effectiveness of the sealing program.

Should replacement of any particular area be found necessary in future years, this could be done as needed in conjunction with the annual maintenance program as proposed by Vector. There is no need to make a simple declaration that the surface has failed and that it must be totally replaced.

Time is of the essence. Should the board act immediately, there is a possibility that Vector could proceed with the project yet this summer season. It is important that unit owners request the immediate attention of the board to this matter.

In response to the recent concern of some residents over the display of wireless internet networks within the building or nearby proximity appearing on their computer screen, Please be advised that this display on your screen, is NOT AN INVITATION to join any of these networks. This is simply a duly reported list of “wireless” networks  currently used within the building or nearby proximity, and provided by any local internet service.

Should you wish to not be informed of these local networks, you may simply delete this display of networks by using your own computer settings. If you require  further assistance, please contact your internet service provider.

In yet another unduly influenced measure to reduce residential services, the board has advised recently and at the last general meeting, that as some residents are able to use their televisions in place of a monitor, the Corporation will not service, maintain or replace residential security monitors. Obviously, this suggestion is unreasonable in that it is neither possible nor practical for many residents.This is of course, a most disrespectful inconvenience to residents.

Once again, the Handbook (updated in 2012) as provided to each resident, clearly advises residents of the building`s security system which includes the montiors as a necessary component to this system. This system has proven to provide vital security to the building since its inception. The following is an excerpt from the handbook of the building:

b)   SECURITY

For the residential section, an electric door lock at the lobby is connected to each unit by telephone and viewed on a 9” monitor located in each unit.

For security purposes, ensure you know the person entering via your monitor. At the door, do not allow entry to any one you do not know without their having contacted a resident.

c)   ENTRY SYSTEM

The front entry door lock is operated from your telephone. A visitor dials your number as listed on the directory in the vestibule. If your phone is not in use, the call will ring as two short rings. Answering your phone allows you to make contact with the visitor.

To unlock the door, press ‘6’.

Voice contact with people in the lobby is only possible if they dial your listed number. If you are not home and have an answering machine, they can leave a message.

If your phone is in use when a visitor dials up, a short beep will be heard on your phone. Dial ‘3’ to retain the phone caller and answer the visitor. Dial ‘6’ to open the door. After the door tone stops, resume your telephone call.

To refuse entry, do not press ‘6’ after answering the phone. Simply hang up.

Always use your monitor to check calls from the lobby. DO NOT OPEN THE DOOR WITHOUT MAKING VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE CALLER.

For security purposes, ensure you know the person entering via your monitor. At the door, do not allow entry to any one you do not know without their having contacted a resident.

This security system, is included in the registered plan, and has clearly been relied upon and considered by residents as an essential service since the inception of the building. The registered plan of the building, clearly illustrates this inclusion within the security infrastructure of the building. Any such suggestion of change to the registered plan requires a special resolution.

To simply remove the monitor as part of this security system infrastructure, because NON RESIDENTS have suggested it as a cost saving measure, is simply not acceptable to residents.

The board is hereby requested to respect and in turn address the interests and entitlements of residents as per the bylaws, regulations and the registered plan of the Corporation.The undue influence of non residents in such matters and their obvious bias, will not be tolerated by residents.

Residents are certainly questioning the residential members of our board who apparently are yet once again, prepared to simply follow along with this most inappropriate suggestion of non residents for the removal of a most vital and long established security service to their fellow residents.

It is time for a clear demonstration by board members to respect these entitlements of residents. All residents, must be assured that they have in fact purchased a unit subject to established  services as per the registered plan of the Corporation.

Immediate repair or replacement of any faulty component of our security system including monitors, is hereby requested of the board. Security will remain in jeopardy until this has been completed.