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.