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.