Residents must again be provided with yet another stunning revelation that should be of grave concern to them. This involves the major RESERVE FUND/CAPITAL EXPENDITURE DECLARED by the Board of Directors, that being the elevators. This comes with no surprise to many residents, but others should be finding this DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURE BY THE BOARD, to be very alarming following a review of the facts. Board members should be the first ones to recognize the very damning evidence that now faces them and their conduct in this most questionable debacle. Residents have been advised at past Annual General Meetings by Tom McClocklin Sr., that in his opinion, the elevators should be replaced. A sequence of relevant events should be examined very closely:

July 9, 2013: The elevators are inspected by the Provincial Inspector. As is done on an annual basis, the inspector provided a report instructing the Corporation of what measures are required by the building to ensure adherence to any code requirements and ensure that the elevators are in optimal condition. Based on the inspection report provided, the building is directed to replace the steel components in the pits and clean several component areas. NO INSTRUCTION FOR REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF MECANICAL COMPONENTS OR ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS WERE ADVISED AS NONE WERE NECESSARY.

• March 1, 2014: The condo newsletter, states “ongoing study using consultants and building experts on our two major building requirements (elevators and parkade) continues.” It is further stated, “your board plans to hold an information meeting, probably in mid year”. 
• March 31, 2014: The board minutes state “Bob Kowalishin moved to accept the Otis tender to replace the mechanical system and controls of the two elevators at a cost of $304,000 plus taxes, to be shared 50/50 between residential and commercial unit owners”. Tom McClockin, CA, seconded. Carried. 
• May 18, 2014: The condo newsletter, states in reference to the BOARD APPROVED replacement of the elevators, “the savings in energy costs and maintenance are significant”. 
• July 7, 2014: Management distributes notice of an ELEVATOR CASH CALL, with the first installment due by July 31^st, the second installment by September 30^th, and a third installment due in early spring, “when the actual work starts in the building”.

A review of industry fees for the required work following the July 9, 2013 inspection, can very easily be determined and in fact this cost has recently been confirmed but remains concealed by the Board. Within days of this inspection, a request by the Board was made for a quotation to conduct all necessary work to ensure that both elevators were in optimum condition. All of the required work to ensure adherence to code requirements was quoted at a total cost of less than $40,000 for both elevators. Completion of this work would place both elevators in optimal condition.

 This is of course very damning evidence in that the Board has stated that the elevators no longer meet the required Code and the $300,000 plus expenditure was absolutely necessary. NO SUCH NOTICE WAS EVER RECEIVED THAT THE ELEVATORS DID NOT MEET THE REQUIRED CODE! Of course the inspection report stated something dramatically different. The Board has refused all requests to date to provide to residents a copy of this provincial inspection report.

Further, the Board has concealed the quotation obtained for services required in order to comply with the recommendations required in the inspection reports. IT CAN THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED, THAT THE $300,000 PLUS EXPENDITURE DECLARED BY THE BOARD IS TOTALLY UNNECCESSARY AND RESIDENTS HAVE CLEARLY BEEN MISINFORMED.

Contrary to a “planned information meeting” regarding the elevators “probably in mid year” as the Board advised, such meeting only took place following the many demands of residents. When this meeting finally did take place, the Board allowed discussion of the parkade project but refused to permit any questions or discussion of the elevator project which had already been DECLARED AND APPROVED by the Board. Many questions, no answers. We now of course know why.

As is the case with the DECLARATION BY THE BOARD for replacement of the parkade topping, residents have not been provided with any opportunity to participate in the review and approval process of the elevator project DECLARED by the Board. This is of course in contravention of both the Bylaws of the Corporation and the Condominium Property Act. As noted above, the Board accepted the “Otis tender”. Who was invited to tender and what were their tenders? Was a quotation obtained by the Board to simply address the requirements of the 2013 inspection report? What were the particulars of any such quotations?

The Board states that “the savings in energy costs and maintenance are significant”. The fact is, elevator energy costs are typically no more than 5% of building electrical costs which would suggest a cost of $6000 per year. A 10% energy saving (if in fact achieved) would be approximately $600 per year, hardly enough to justify a $300,000 plus expenditure. Fees for a maintenance service contract will always be required so considering a reasonable estimate of energy and maintenance cost reductions, they certainly do no justify this major expenditure. As was the case with the new heating system, “significant” energy cost reductions were promised yet it was proven that a “significant” INCREASE in these costs was actually realized.

It appears that a number of directors on our Board have once again been unduly influenced into the making of a most irresponsible decision, that being to unnecessarily spend well over $300,000 on the elevators. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent unnecessarily and well beyond estimates provided by the Board when the heating system was installed. This careless and unnecessary spending of residents money cannot be permitted. Should the commercial owner wish to spend this money on the elevators, let them spend their own money on the commercial elevator at their sole expense. Allow common sense to prevail and ensure that at least spending of resident funds is managed in a responsible manner.

For a Condominium Corporation that did not even have a Reserve Fund Budget for this past fiscal year, it is rather frightening to see the Board of Directors approve Reserve Fund projects without resident review and participation, and yet may very well cost some $1.5 TO $2. MILLION DOLLARS!  Immediate attention must be given to responsible budgeting and funding of the Reserve Fund. Priority projects must be completed as soon as possible. At this point, the facts suggest that neither the elevators or the parkade topping are priorities. The practice of major projects being declared by the Board and in turn announcing cash calls out of the blue demonstrates very questionable financial management. This cannot be permitted by residents.

Residents must demand immediate and responsible attention to the Corporation’s finances and ensure that their participation is respected as is required by our Bylaws and the Condominium Act. What is required immediately is, once and for all, establishment of a reasonable and responsible Reserve Fund Budget so that residents have some idea of just where they stand as to not only the near but long term obligations they may face.  Information provided by the Board to date on the parkade and elevator projects has been very minimal with much information being concealed from residents.

It is recommended that a vote for approval of the Reserve Fund Budget to be presented at the Annual General Meeting, be deferred until such time as residents have been provided with sufficient information to allow them to make an informed decision on any of the proposed expenditures and of course, those already DECLARED BY THE BOARD.

STARTLING REVELATIONS HAVE RECENTLY SURFACED REGARDING THE PARKADE PROJECT.

1. A report regarding the parkade was provided to the Board in November of 2011 by Kenyon Engineering. Based upon this report, the Board approved on their own, a replacement project of approximately $650,000 plus taxes and engineering fees. Unit owners were advised at the 2013 AGM, that that a copy of this report was available for circulation. That was not to be.The Board has rejected all requests from residents for a copy of the Kenyon report.
2. After claiming to have received a subsequent report and recommendation from Ben Robb, the Board has continued to reject any requests by residents for a copy of the report received from Ben Robb who has recommended to the Board, a total replacement of the topping over the parkade.
3. At previous meetings, Ben Robb responded to questions and advised that there was no evidence of structural damage to the parkade.
4. At an information meeting held on July 17, 2014, Ben Robb reversed his position and advised the meeting that there was in fact structural damage. He submitted that it was because of this structural damage that he was recommending a total replacement of the surface to the parkade. Yet no structural engineering report has been provided by Mr. Robb.

SOME VERY INTERESTING FACTS HAVE BEEN REVEALED WHERE RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN CLEARLY MISINFORMED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

1. The Kenyon report of 2011, contained no evidence or suggestion of structural damage.
2. The Board has rejected all requests for a copy of the report and recommendation from Ben Robb, the second engineer involved. Most recently, management advised that no such report was ever obtained from Ben Robb.
3. Clearly the Board had made a final decision based upon the Kenyon report which included NO EVIDENCE of structural damage. This decision was made even though a later meeting with Ben Robb was held where no evidence or suggestion of structural damage was reported. It was only at the July 17, 2014 information meeting that Ben Robb reversed his position and advised that there was in fact structural damage. Yet no evidence of structural damage was presented! Where is the evidence?

It was most unfortunate that both Ben Robb and a contractor attending the July 17^th meeting, brought up the Elliot Lake incident which involved a totally different type of structure that being a steel supported structure rather than concrete as at Spadina Towers. Fear mongering has no place in such discussions. Rather than monger fear, reference to the Elliot Lake incident should have reflected what is required by both the Board and engineer in their responsibilities to ensure responsible maintenance to the property. Much can be learned by the Board in a review of the Elliot Lake Commission of Inquiry.

As referenced in the Inquiry, the Building Code requires when considering an alteration to a property (such as the parkade surface), that a review be conducted in accordance with recognized Performance Standards. “Among other things, the Performance Standard requires the reviewing engineer to record deficiencies found during site visits and provide the owner with written reports of the deficiencies and the actions that must be taken to rectify the deficiencies”. No such report has been received from Ben Robb.

“Engineers need to quantify observed structural deterioration or defects and analyze their potential impact on structures, as well as provide engineering opinions on the potential impacts in deterioration or defects. It is therefore, important that engineers exercise professional judgement to determine which covered areas should be exposed for inspection. Suspected defects of structural significance requiring full structural investigation must be provided by the engineer.”

“A BCA (Building Condition Assessment) is based solely on a walk-through survey which is literally the field observer’s visual observations while walking through the subject property. A visual inspection does not include removing or lifting ceiling tiles, removal of materials or personal property.” It is to be conducted without the aid of special protective clothing, exploratory probing, removal of materials, testing, or the use of equipment, such as scaffolding, metering/testing equipment of any kind.”

“A STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REQUIRES THESE LIFTING DEVICES, TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT IN ASSESSING THE CAUSES OF THE FAILURE AND REQUIRES INTRUSIVE TESTING AND REMOVAL OF FINISHES AND MATERIALS”. THIS IS DESTRUCTIVE TESTING AND ANALYSIS.

Here at Spadina Towers, it is clear from the above, that no BCA report has been provided by Ben Robb. Given his statement that there is in fact structural damage, he is obliged to provide a STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING REPORT. Reports of structural engineering assessments of existing buildings contain statements of professional opinion and therefore must be sealed. No such report has been provided.

Before residents can be expected to even consider voting on such an expenditure, they must be provided with a copy of all of the reports mentioned above. Should there be no evidence provided that would reveal meaningful structural damage, then other options must again be considered. Residents have certainly not be provided with sufficient reason to proceed with even destructive testing at this time. Should such destructive testing take place, residents must be informed of all relevant information including a schedule and access to the onsite performance of this testing.

It is interesting to note, that a very similar surface repair proposal previously submitted to our residents in the Foster Report early this year, was also provided to the owner of the Elliot Lake property many, many years before the incident. It was rejected and the problem neglected. Our reserve fund study completed more than five years ago, also provided similar recommendations. It has also been rejected and the problem neglected by our Board.

In a building assessment report conducted at Spadina Towers in 2006, the following was stated: “The underground parking garage was noted to be in satisfactory condition with no major deficiencies noted. Due to the visible signs of minor moisture infiltration and former crack repair within the UPG (underground parking garage), ongoing required repair and maintenance of the area is anticipated through the term of the analysis. It was reported that a waterproofing membrane was installed below the parking area wear surface, atop areas of the UPG that extend beyond the footprint of the Site building at the time of construction.

This waterproofing is currently providing a satisfactory level of performance with isolated areas of minor moisture infiltration. ASSUMING THAT REGULAR ONGOING REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED, NO MAJOR EXPENDITURES ARE ANTICIPATED WITHIN THE TERM OF THE ANALYSIS RELATING TO THE UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE. ALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR ISOLATED EPOXY INJECTION REPAIRS THROUGH THE TERM OF THE ANALYSIS.

Our last RESERVE FUND STUDY advised the very same! Yet, this STRONG RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS ONGOING REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE DID NOT TAKE PLACE. The question is, who is responsible for this maintenance neglect? Sorry, but it is residents who will be demanded to pay up and pay for this negligence on the part of the Board.

Residents simply require the above information before considering this project where even an approximate cost has yet to be determined. Should it be clearly demonstrated within reports following the above required review process that there is in fact a level of structural damage requiring a replacement versus repair, residents would likely be supportive. However, until they have been provided with all of the relevant reports and information, they simply cannot be expected to make an uninformed decision and support this very questionable project. Why so many questions and no answers? Now we know.

We desperately need a demonstration of both transparency and honesty from our Board of Directors.

Many of us have watched a nearby neighbor who always neglected the care of his home.

His home had not been painted in some thirty five years. Windows and frames were in need of repair. His concrete driveway and adjoining curb had not been maintained for many years and was full of cracks and disrepair, and runoff was now finding its way to the basement. The flower beds adjoined to the home had not been properly maintained and they also were causing leakage into the basement. Replacement of flashing where required, had long been neglected and was a further cause of leakage into the home.

Neglect of the perimeter heating lines and air conditioner had resulted in leaking zone valves and expansion joints. Water shutoff valves in the home had never been replaced and several incidents of their failure resulted in costly inconvenience to the family. The humidifier had been removed several years ago in order to save money. This of course at the expense of the health and well being of his family. The ducting for air circulation in the home had never been cleaned, yet further neglect of his family’s healthy environment. The monitor for the home security system failed some years ago and was simply not replaced in order to save money.

Further, this neighbor took no pride in his yard. The lawn was seldom watered, was filled with weeds, and was not mowed regularly. The hanging baskets, once hanging in front of his home have been removed several years ago as he found that caring for them was too much work. His garage floor was filthy, only cleaned once or twice per year. This all, very much an embarrassment to his neighbors.

Although his cash resources were very limited, this homeowner came home one day and announced to his family that he was immediately going to proceed with painting, electrical work, some flooring and carpentry work, towards developing an exercise area in the basement. The cost would be over $7000. His family questioned him as to the priorities within the home, but he simply advised that he had made the decision and that it was final.

The neighborhood at Spadina Towers has experienced this exact same situation with very much the same obvious neglect of the owner. However, given we live in a Condominium, it is the Board that is responsible for such behavior and neglect. The decision to fund the cost of an exercise area of more than $7000, is of course most disrespectful of residents who have been excluded from any participation in this matter. Unfortunately, it is they who will pay for this expenditure which of course should belong at the very bottom of the priority list for proposed Reserve Fund Expenditures. Do residents know, our Reserve Fund is basically depleted, yet a very foolish expenditure has just recently, been made on the exercise room!

Responsible financial management requires consideration of priorities and affordability. The Board, must now demonstrate at least some sense of responsibility, and recognize the priorities and address them with a responsible budget. As is the case with the family mentioned above, neighbors within Spadina Towers are now watching the Board and reports indicate, that they certainly do not appreciate what they see. Resale value of condominium units within the building have been negatively impacted as a result of such neglect and conduct on the part of the Board and management.

Considering the intentional absence of any Reserve Fund Budget, an analysis of the substantial deferred and neglected maintenance and Capital Expenditures at Spadina Towers, has been proposed by others with special emphasis on a responsible priority of these expenditures. It is clearly apparent that most of the neglect relates to the residential Tower. It is very interesting, that those expenditures in the interest of the commercial owner, have in turn, clearly become the priorities. Residential Board members have simply conceded to the wishes of the commercial owner, and have forgotten just who they in fact represent. Your neighbors within the building are watching and again, they don’t like what they see.