NATURAL GAS PRICES– It is very concerning that the Board would enter into a contract for natural gas with an alternate supplier to Sask Energy, when it was clearly known by the public at the time, that a reduction in natural gas rates from Sask Energy was projected for January 1, 2016. Spadina Towers will unfortunately not be experiencing this reduction in rates because of this unfortunate decision of the Board. Once again, why is the Board committing residents to such unnecessary costs without any consultation with them?

FINANCIALS- Why is the Board no longer providing any breakdown of expenditures, particularly when they are above budget? Why has a balance sheet and statement of the Reserve Fund not been presented? Residents can not be expected to simply take the word of the Board without being fully informed. With well over one million dollars spent on HVAC in the recent past, residents want to know why HVAC expenses are so high.

It is very interesting that the Board blames increased hot water usage for the supposed “spike” in water expense. How was this irrational correlation determined? The claims of widely fluctuating city water supply pressure are simply false and misleading, and there is no need to “set valves” to compensate. This claim is also irrational and as has been acknowledged to be so, by an engineer with the City of Saskatoon.

BUILDING OPERATIONS- It is unfortunate that the Board’s solution to the domestic hot water problem is simply to keep buying “spare” water heaters. There is obviously a design flaw and provisions to address such issues should have been included in the contract with the engineer where the responsibility lies. What assurances, guarantees and warranties were included in the contract with the engineer? It is certainly not reasonable for the Board to simply keep buying new water heaters at the expense of residents. It is however, their responsibility to hold the engineer accountable.

The fob system has provided NO change to security in the Residential section. NO change was ever necessary. The system was simply added at the request of the commercial owner who clearly wanted the system for convenience of their tenants. The residents Board members, simply bowed to their wishes.

Residents did not vote in favour of signage for BOTH THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS. Residents did vote, based upon a formal written motion, in favour of “A” sign identifying SPADINA TOWERS. The commercial owner already has sufficient signage. Any proposal for this new sign should be presented to unit owners at a general meeting for their review.

PARKING REMIDIATION- Why has the Board rejected all requests from residents for confirmation of structural damage in a detailed report from a structural engineer. Such response is very troubling and could lead to serious legal issues. Further, why has the Board not sought the approval of this project from the unit owners at a General Meeting as is required by the Act? The Act clearly requires all reserve fund expenditures to be presented in a reserve fund budget for the approval of unit owners. A further resolution approving a responsible plan for inclusion in reserve fund monthly condo fees is required as well. A General Meeting is of course required as soon as possible, in order to address these outstanding issues as is required by the Act. Yes, approval of residents is required.

As the Board has chosen to include as a news item the Statement of Claim against the Corporation by Dennis Tofin for “various damages to his properties” and would be a cost to the Corporation, the Board is advised that they could have easily addressed these damages for which they are responsible, long ago and at a far more reasonable cost. Unfortunately, they have refused to even respond. It should also be noted, that the counsel for the commercial owner has once again been retained by the Corporation rather than the Corporation’s own, long time counsel. Conflicting interests continue.

It is most unfortunate, that many of the serious issues facing this Corporation, could have been addressed at the TOWN HALL MEETINGS that the Board suggested, yet have since rejected. Residents find this this response of secrecy to be very disturbing, and yet once again ask the Board to conduct THEIR SUGGESTED TOWN HALL MEETING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.