Residents Meeting Report 2015-11-22

Residents are now able to confirm the facts on their own, of comparative energy costs (and effectively consumption) by reviewing the energy analysis included in the previous post.

Some of us have been severely harmed by the Board’s irresponsible, false and misleading statements of ongoing savings in energy costs. It is therefore requested that fellow residents bare with ongoing efforts to finally obtain a truthful response from the Board which would correct their misrepresentations. The Board can certainly provide responsible address to this matter, simply by providing reasonable response to the following questions, which were yet again asked of them very recently:

1. What is the (Boards) claimed net reduction in electrical energy consumption and cost from 2010 (the year of the new heating system installation) through to each and every year subsequent to 2010?
2. The Board advised the court in April of 2012, that in the first year following installation of the new heating system in 2010, TOTAL NET ENERGY COSTS decreased by more than $44,000. The Board had promised savings of $40,000 per year with the new installation. The judge accepted this number, refusing to acknowledge an objection to this number which included a proposed presentation of the facts. The facts clearly demonstrate that there was  an INCREASE in net energy costs AND THERE WAS NO SUCH SAVING, AS WAS FALSELY PRESENTED TO THE COURT. Please refer to the facts included in the energy report within the previous post. The Board is asked to respond to the following question: What evidence do you have, that provides confirmation of this $44,000 plus declared saving in that first year which was submitted as evidence to the Court?
3. What are the net realized energy savings declared to both Federal and Provincial Energy Programs, where there was a conditional and required submission of evidence of these declared savings, demonstrating net energy cost savings actually realized? A copy of the original application and any further communications with these agencies is requested.

Residents are asked to support the numerous requests made to the Board for their response to these questions which have been totally rejected to date. Once again, this ongoing demonstration of secrecy on the part of the Board, is totally unacceptable. Lack of transparency remains a very serious issue.

Dennis M. Tofin

The Board continues to remind residents of energy savings contributed to the installation of the new heating system in late 2010. I personally have for some time, been prepared to provide an analysis supported by the facts, where the Board’s declaration of savings, has proven to be very misleading.

In order to clarify once and for all, the facts of the matter, I have prepared the attached report which includes ACTUAL COSTS of energy, comparing the period 2006-2009 prior to the 2010 installation, to the following period, 2011-1014. Residents can confirm these numbers on their own, by simply referring to the financial statements for each of these years.

With these numbers, any resident is able to apply the impact of published energy rate adjustments over these comparative periods, and come up with exactly the same analysis. This analysis is as follows:

SCC Energy Cost Summary 2015-11-13

It is important to note that, the Board has most recently advised me, that I will not be permitted access to our City Electrical account and will no longer have access to OUR account data. The board refuses to review or even acknowledge any energy analysis prepared by others. They have strongly objected to the efforts of anyone attempting to disclose the facts which have proven to be unacceptable and rather embarassing to the Board. As a result, energy costs going forward will simply be monitored through a continuing review of data from our financial statements and any impact of published rate adjustments.

Dennis M. Tofin

SPADINA TOWERS

NOTICE OF RESIDENTS MEETING

To Be Held at 1:30 P.M, Thursday, November 19^th

4^th Floor Meeting Room

This meeting will provide residents with an opportunity to discuss the many issues which were not permitted for discussion at the Annual General Meeting.

The primary issue which urgently requires the attention of residents is that of the Corporation’s finances which are in a rather troubling state. The legally required resolutions of unit owners to approve, first the Reserve Fund Budget, secondly, the appropriate monthly fee contributions, and thirdly, appointment of an Auditor, were not presented nor permitted for discussion at the AGM.

In addition to addressing the above, this meeting will provide residents with an opportunity to ask questions, present their views, opinions and participate in an open and informal discussion. The meeting will ensure sufficient time for participation of all those attending.

Your response please.

From: dennis tofin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 3:41 PM To: ‘John R. Beckman, Q.C.’ <[email protected]> Subject: Heating

John:

Once again, a reminder that nothing has been done to activate perimeter heating which is our primary means of heat distribution in the residential units. Enercon distribution of heat is only necessary when extreme winter temperature and wind conditions exist, and it is only then, that the Enercons are to be used for supplemental heating.

Prevention of use, is not a very responsible means of energy cost reduction.

Unfortunately, Board members nor the property manager apparently do not understand the primary/supplemental heating system that we have. It is now November, yet perimeter heating at Spadina Towers is not permitted.

I would ask that the perimeter heating be put into operation immediately. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for this irresponsible operation of our system. The only reason as suggested by many with qualified commentary, is that the Board continues this practise in an attempt to display energy cost reductions which have proven to be false and misleading to residents.

I would suggest that you act accordingly which would exclude consulting with the property manager or his employer, who have proven to be unqualified to comment on this matter.

It is suggested that the caretaker simply be instructed to activate sufficient levels of perimeter heating immediately, something all residents do understand and expect as a right and entitlement for which they pay dearly!