Unfortunately, residents were provided with only a fraction of the 2020 Reserve Fund Study. Why?
Brunsden advised in May of 2020 in a telephone communication that the “reserve fund study is in the Board’s hands as we speak”. Yet the Board advised the AGM that “the study was not received until September 28th”. Who is correct? The evidence suggests Brunsden was correct in the timing of their submission.. Why did the Board sit on the Study for some four months? What changes to the Study did the Board request” and if Brunsden did make any of the requested changes, specifically, what changes were made? Brunsden must respond to this question as well.
The Board advised that Brunsden made numerous errors in the Study and that they found it necessary to prepare their own cash flow projections. Why did the Board not simply advise Brunsden of the “errors” and request a correction of the Study? This would have prevented a great unnecessary confusion among residents
On page 22 of the Study, it states “All exterior windows from the ground floor to the top floor, are owned by and the responsibility of the condominium corporation/association”.On the same page, it states “The windows in both the commercial and rersidential units are the responsibility of the specific unit owner. Thus, no funding if identified for them”. Why did the Board not request a correction of this in the Study? THE FACTS ARE: The registered plan of the building clearly states that the Corporation is responsible for the exterior maintenance of all windows in the building (maintenance refers primarily to cleaning). Replacement of front windows is the responsibility of the Corporation.
On page 24 of the Study, it states “The condition of the concrete deck surface under the center 4th floor balcony could not be inspected and verified as it is covered by indoor/outdoor carpet which was not removed to enable the concrete to be observed”. Brunsden was provided in October, 2019 with detailed information and documents including photographs of the “structural repairs” required. The Study states correctly, “the condominium corporation is responsible for all structural repairs only”.
The Study further states: “The condition of the concrete deck surface under the center 4th floor balcony could not be inspected and verified as it is covered by indoor/outdoor carpet which was not removed to enable the concrete to be observed”. The need for required “structural repairs” can easily be determined and observed by simply walking over the balcony surface. Further, the owner of this unit, was available and prepared to assist at the time of Brunsden’s visit to the property but management made no attempt to ensure that the owner was contacted.
The Study further states: “The condition of the center 4th floor residential concrete deck surface could not be ascertained. Funding has been provided to repair the concrete deck surface in five years, if required.” So if the condition of the deck surface could not be “ascertained” then why does the Study state “Funding has been provided to repair the concrete deck surface in five years, if required”. No resident would ever accept this “intentional” refusal of Board address to this deck structure issue on their condo preventing the owner from conducting their own surface covering replacement as all other owners are entitled to. The owner of 402 has made many requests over many years to the Board to address this issue only to receive constant rejection. The Board is clearly liable for this negligence and very disrespectful conduct. Without immediate written confirmation of structural replacement to be completed by the spring of 2021 provided to the owner, a statement of claim against “responsible” parties is promised by the unit owner.
Why has the Board failed to provide a responsible reserve fund budget by simply not recognizing or responsibly preparing for numerous short term and imminent expenditures, including chiller replacement, air compressor replacement, window replacement, center deck structural repair, probable Enercon replacement, the urgently required return of the humidifier removed for false reasons (a proven and very valuable tool to assist in preventing Covid transmission within the building especially in the elevators). Why did the Board fail to ensure that these items were reflected in the 2020 Reserve Fund Study when they were fully aware that these expenditures were very much imminent in the immediate future? These overlooked expenditures, totalaling some $150,000 are not recognized in the 2020 AGM Reserve Fund Budget. This all clearly leads to depletion of our projected Reserve Fund balance easily falling to well below $100,000 in 2021.
Unfortunately, this very serious misleading information all leads to yet further resident confusion and the need for CASH CALLS substantially above and beyond the $3000 already being demanded of residents. It is important to note, that there is no reason to support or defend residents who continue with their very irresponsible silence and are simply prepared to accept and succumb to the consequences of whatever misleading information they receive from the Board.
November 26, 2020