As of Sunday, June 28, 2015, the water supply to the front planter, has been left on for two days. This since the caretaker left for the weekend on Friday, June 26th. The planter has drains which have worked very well and discharged this excess supply through the drains and onto the street. During this process, excess water has found its way into the parkade and is very obvious in the two eastside front corners of the parkade. No management or board attention has been made to this negligence for the past several years.

This negligence on the part of the caretaker’s failure to conduct his maintenance responsibilities, has in the past, unfortunately, been blamed upon the failure of the “topping” to the parkade surface structure. It is clear that the planter drains, which have operated continuously over the past two days, have worked just as they should, and no blame to the planter structure is warranted. This ongoing negligence relating to failed attendance on the part of the caretaker to required monitoring of water supply to the front planter, is totally unacceptable. Why has management, and in turn the board, not been monitoring and acting upon this negligence?

An automated irrigation system was installed by the Corporation prior to arrival of the current caretaker. The current caretaker has however, failed to make use of this efficient control system including timing of water usage for the front lawn and planter area. This negligence has resulted in the most obvious and unnecessary flooding into the parkade. Most unfortunately, the board has been quick to blame such leakage as a contributor to a failure of the “topping” over the parkade.

Once again, the position of the board as to “structural” issues of the parkade, have yet to be demonstrated. FAILED ANNUAL MAINTENANCE to the surface area along with negligence as noted above, has resulted in a most flippant and unqualified decision by the board to simply rip up the entire surface area to the parkade and install a new one.

The message to both the board and management: Implement responsible maintenance practises and address all deferred maintenance immediately. Don’t simply expect residents to fund a major capital expenditure (surface replacement), simply because it is an easy excuse to address irresponsible and deferred maintenance management.

Again, it must be repeated, that the board has provided no supporting evidence to their claim that structural damage to the parkade exists. Until a formal engineering report including a full assessment report based upon a fully transparent and REQUIRED destructive testing and analysis, any unit owner cannot be expected to contribute to the cost of any such CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.

Continued rejection on the part of the board to address this and many other deferred maintenance issues, along with their disrespect for the provisions of our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act that require appropriate unit owner approval, is not acceptable by those who pay for the majority of such illegitimate expenditures, that being our residents.

During recent renovations conducted by the commercial owner, perimeter heating lines were modified and installed. An invoice revealed the nature of this expenditure along with charges of approximately $7,000. The invoice was however, not paid by the commercial owner, but by the Spadina Condominium Corporation. An audit of the past few years, may very well reveal other invoices for other such heating or plumbing line modifications.

Throughout the history of the building, the cost of any renovation modification to perimeter heating lines has been paid by the owner of the unit. The above cost of $7000 is no different, and the Corporation should be reimbursed for this amount by the commercial owner.

News & Events

Residents of this building have always been reminded, albeit not in recent years, that windows and doors to all condominium units are to be closed at all times, in order to ensure efficient, stable and safe levels of air circulation within the building.

The opening of windows on outside units of the building, results in a severe interruption to our pressurized system which is designed to provide a constant, fresh air supply to all residential units where in normal mode, enables a positive flow of fresh air forced into all units. This interruption results directly, in a NEGATIVE impact to the necessary supply of fresh air to all residential units. This often leads to a vacuum and withdrawal of fresh air from units versus the necessary positive and pressurized supply of fresh air. The inevitable result is of course, a substantial impact upon energy costs.

The board has been reminded on numerous occasions of this problem in the past, but has failed to act and ensure respect of residents to  conform to the requirement of closed windows and doors. A visual outdoor observation of opened doors and windows on all units, does in fact reveal the source of this problem. 

The board has been requested in the past to address this issue, only to provide an unqualified response, that “management” advises the concern is unwarranted, even though an extensive report on undue influence upon an ENCLOSED building air circulation system was provided to the board. The board is asked to address this issue once and for all, and ensure that all residents are provided with the required supply of fresh air to their units as per the requirements of the original design and operational requirements of the building.

At the October, 2014 Annual General Meeting, the owner of the commercial units advised the meeting that the front entry door to the commercial units was to be replaced and as a common expense of the Corporation. Effectively, residents would bare the majority of the cost.

Yet once again, the Condominium Property Act, Section 8(1), clearly states that “doors and windows are part of a unit“. Therefore, should the commercial owner wish to modify or install a new front door to their unit, they must first of all, submit to the Board, a request in writing for permission to make this modification, and at the same time accept full responsibility of the cost, all subject to approval of the modification by the Board. The same requirement as outlined in both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act, of course, apply to the entry door to any residential unit.

The commercial owner failed to make this formal request of the Corporation and further, submitted an invoice for reimbursement for the total cost of this major modification to the entrance of their condominium unit. The cost has reported to be some $10,000 plus. Appropriate objection by board members was apparently expressed, however the matter has been reported to “remain in dispute” after many months.

Residential board members are asked, why does this matter remain in dispute, when the Condominium Property Act regarding responsibility for cost is very explicit?

The lobbying and promotion of the commercial owner and their unfortunate influence upon the Board to install fob activated entry proved to be simply for the convenience of the commercial owner and their tenants to use these fobs to ENTER BOTH THEIR UNITS AND THEIR STAIRWELL. Residents, on the other hand, received no such benefit, and CONTINUE TO REQUIRE KEYS TO ACCESS BOTH THEIR UNITS AND STAIRWELL. No improvement to the security of residents has been demonstrated. In fact, security to residents has been lessened as a result.

Does the Board not realize, that ANYONE CAN WALK IN OFF THE STREET AND ENTER THE COMMERCIAL ENTRANCE, WALK A FEW FEET TO THE STAIRWELL, TAKE A FEW STEPS DOWN TO THE PARKADE, BREAK INTO VEHICLES, TAKE THEIR STOLEN PROPERTY AND SIMPLY EXIT BY RETURNING THROUGH THE COMMERCIAL FRONT DOOR ENTRANCE OR THE BACK DOOR IN THE PARKADE..

No such means of entry is possible from the residential front entrance whether fobs or keys are required. Therefore, current security issues are a result of deficiencies (within the commercial condominium units), and have nothing to do with access to the residential side. It is the responsibility of the commercial owner to, at their own expense, address these security breaches and not demand that residents share in this expense.

Calls for considering residential concerns to this proposal, were simply rejected by the Board. As is very clear in the Condominium Property Act, Section 8(1), “doors and windows are part of a unit” and therefore the OWNER is responsible for any cost associated with them. This would include the cost of modifying or replacing any door to ANY “UNIT” in the building. This of course, includes modifications for fob entry.

On the other hand, doors separating common area on each side of a door, are as such, “not part of a unit” and any modification (ie. fob entry), is a common area expense. Thus, resident unit owners need only to contribute to their proportionate share of the cost of required modifications to the door of the front residential entrance.

As a result of the fob entry equipment modification to doors, residents wrongfully paid for the majority of this expenditure which cost some $10,000 plus. The Board proceeded as per the wishes of the commercial owner and further, failed to ensure a correct allocation of this cost as is required by both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act.

A number of requests have been made for an accounting of the total costs of this entry system including a reconciliation and analysis on the number of fobs in circulation, their cost and the destination of all revenues collected. The Board has refused to provide such information.

The Board is hereby requested to provide by current fiscal year end, a full report on all costs and revenues relative to this installation and subsequent costs of this system including the specific location of any associated and installed equipment. A review of this report should be made available at the request of any resident and a corrected allocation of any and all costs must then be conducted. The recovery of the excessive contribution of residents will be substantial.

It will be interesting to see if our residential Board members are prepared to consider and support the concerns of residents where they have borne the majority of unlawful funding in support of an expenditure of convenience for the benefit of the commercial owner and their tenants.

Any attempt by management to blame residents for security breaches as noted above, and restrict the number of fobs in their possession clearly demonstrates a lack of managements and the Board’s understanding of the essence of this problem which has been noted above. An expensive computer monitoring program provides a record and history of fob activity. Before blaming residents for security breaches, the Board is advised to provide residents with evidence of such incidents.

Further, as has been requested in the past, residents are entitled upon request, to a full accounting of the total costs of this fob system along with all fobs purchased, distributed, and what revenues have been collected. Any suggestion of restricting the number of fobs per resident is simply a poor excuse for failed security in the commercial units as noted above. Unfortunately, resident vehicles are exposed to theft and damage, just as they were before the fobs were required. Once again, there has been no security benefit whatsoever and at the expense of residents. I would suggest that residential Board members at least take a stand on this issue; that is if they have anything to say about it.

At the 2013 Annual General Meeting, a resolution with overwhelming support of residents, directed the Board to register the Corporation as a member of the Canadian Condominium Institute/Northern Saskatchewan Chapter.

Apparently, the Board did not renew this membership, contrary to the wishes of residents. It was understood that the membership was subject to renewal and remains so until such time as a resolution at an AGM requests cancellation. No such resolution has been made and immediate renewal of the membership is in order.

The resources available from the CCI, are many and of great value to condominium owners. Yet, the many benefits and services have been taken from our residents as the board has deemed, on their own, that residents are no longer entitled to them.

The substantial increase in energy consumption since the million dollar expenditure for the new heating system installed in late 2010, has resulted in an ACCUMULATED INCREASE in costs of NET ENERGY CONSUMPTION equivalent to $72,097.46 over the period January 1, 2011, to April 30, 2015.

This includes a necessary adjustment factor for changes in rates. Residents are encouraged to ask their board for its written analysis which must consider the necessary consideration of the effect of both increased energy consumption and changes in rates of energy costs during this period.

The dramatic DECREASE in natural gas rates during this period has resulted in an inaccurate interpretation by the board and their false report to residents of increased energy efficiency and reduction in energy costs. Further, electrical consumption has INCREASED DRAMATICALLY over this period because of the shift of the energy load to the residential Enercon units. The reason for this, is the board has been unable to demonstrate that the new system is able to provide the same output temperature to our perimeter heating lines as the previous steam system did.

Therefore, residents must now use their Enercons for heating all winter whereas they never had to in the past. Obviously electrical consumption goes way up if the new hot water boilers do not provide sufficient heating and extensive use of their Enercon units is therefore required, as they run on electricity, which is much more expensive than natural gas that fuels the hot water boilers.

In 2010, an internationally recognized and accomplished research scientist in the planning of energy efficient buildings and indoor air quality, attended a general meeting at Spadina Towers and was prepared to offer his opinion on the proposed new heating system. This man was Dr. Rob Dumont MSc, PhD, who just last week on May 29^th, passed away in Saskatoon.

A most valued opportunity was lost, when at this meeting, chairman Ben Goldstein, made every attempt and very much succeeded in preventing Dr. Dumont from providing his opinion to the meeting. Those attending will never forget the most rude and disrespectful behavior of Mr. Goldstein and his fellow board members towards Dr. Dumont. Most residents were very much embarrassed by this most unforgivable behavior of Mr. Goldstein and his board.

Mr. Goldstein, would in the following year falsely state, on behalf of the Board of Directors, in a Court of Law, that within just one to two years following completion of this capital project, the building had saved more than $40,000 in energy costs. The presiding Judge, who was a fellow provincial court judge to Mr. Goldstein, rejected even hearing my well prepared analysis of energy costs and simply accepted the position of Mr. Goldstein. My case as presented in objection to the conduct of the Corporation, was simply dismissed and Mr. Goldstein’s word was effectively declared sacred.

Mr. Goldstein and his fellow board members are hereby today, requested to provide  evidence of such savings, presumably a reasonable request in a Court of Law. This request has of course been made many times in the past, but rejected by both he and his board along with subsequent boards. A response remains outstanding and the current board in obliged to respond.

Residents today, must be reminded that Dr. Dumont did provide a written opinion which the board refused to even look at. Dr. Dumont’s opinion, essentially recommended that the building replace the existing steam boilers with the current and upgraded version of the same units with a substantial increase in efficiency and net reduction in energy costs. He considered the total potential cost of an entirely new system with hot water boilers, could very well exceed and rather substantially, the total cost estimate provided by the board. This cost in his view, would never be recovered let alone achieving the energy savings promised by the board. He of course, was proven to be correct.

Dr. Dumont, with his vast experience in indoor air quality, was also a strong advocate of an efficient humidification system particularly in a high rise building. Unfortunately, our board determined that the cost quoted at $28,000 included in a $1,000,000 project to replace both residential and commercial humidifiers was not affordable and therefore removed and not replaced. Residents have paid the price by experiencing an extremely dry environment throughout our long winters, and poor air quality ever since.

It has been four years and four months since the $1,000,000 hot water heating system was installed. During this period, the equivilant cost of increased net energy consumption has accumulated by some $72,000 as opposed to the promised energy savings of $30,000 to $50,000 per year. Not to mention the hundreds of thousand of dollars wasted by unit owners in buying this system.

Our friend, the late Dr. Rob Dumont has proven that he was in fact correct on his unquestionably qualified recommendation to Spadina Towers back in 2010. As was advised by Dr. Dumont at that time, we would never recover the cost of the proposed new heating system. How true. Not only are we unable to recover one dollar of this unnecessary capital expenditure because of NO ENERGY SAVINGS, but we have accumulated a net increase in energy consumption equivalent to $72,000 TO DATE.

Yet our board has over this entire four plus years, continued to mislead residents with their boast of “THE CONTINUING PAYBACK FROM A MOST WORTHY INVESTMENT”.

What should you do? Speak up and demand a full report including all details as referenced above.

*Please note that this report reflects an update as of June 6, 2015