At the Spadina Condominium Corporation Annual General Meeting, held on Friday, October 9, 2015, an opportunity for residents to present their questions and comments over a great many issues, was not provided. As has been suggested by residents for a number of years, a residents meeting held sometime prior to the AGM, just as the commercial owners do, would then equally provide residents as well, an opportunity to voice and address their concerns, reach some level of consensus, and in turn, provide their resident Board members with their position that they would have presented to the AGM, and now to their Board. Residents would not be pressured and subject to overly restricted time limitations, which of course results in minimal recognition by the Board, of these resident issues, as has been the case for a number of years.

In anticipation of once again less than reasonable recognition of resident issues at this years AGM, some residents chose to leave presentation of their questions and comments to a residents meeting. Several residential board members have expressed their support for such a meeting, and there is good reason to believe that they will act upon this given the strong advocacy of Board member Brent Dunlop, who did initiate efforts for such a meeting, and I believe, has achieved recognition and  support for this meeting from his fellow residential Board members.

It has been requested that an invitation be made to the author of the Reserve Fund Study to attend the meeting and present the study to ensure that residents are duly informed before participating in the required approval vote of both the proposed reserve fund expenditures and appropriate fees for funding in the current fiscal year.

The residents meeting will provide as well, an opportunity to clarify and address the unanswered questions and neglected formal business not addressed at the AGM. This includes:

1. Extended review of the financial statements
2. Required resolution supporting approval of the Reserve Fund Budget
3. Required resolution supporting appropriate funding of the approved Reserve Fund Budget
4. Appointment of the Auditor for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016

To further ensure that residents are sufficiently informed before the coming residents meeting, the following information is provided for your review:

RESERVE FUND BUDGET Legal Requirements

RELEVANT LEGAL EXCERPTS 2015-10-21

Audit considerations 2015-10-09

The Condo Newsletter of September 18^th, 2015, unfortunately has once again provided false and misleading information regarding the heating system and related energy issues.

First of all, the heating system was installed during September through December 2010, 2010 (NOT 2012 as reported), and the boilers put into operation in January, 2011. On January 19, 2011, residents were advised by the Board, “please leave your thermostat at a desired temperature and the perimeter heating system should be satisfactory”. During installation, electrical consumption was substantially reduced (NOT “quite high” due to the use of space heaters as was reported.)

An accurate analysis of energy costs subsequent to the installation has been ongoing since the installation, and as posted September 13^th on Condonewscenter.com, there has in fact been a substantial increase in electrical energy consumption, resulting in a total accumulated increase in energy costs of approximately $70,000 since the installation. Further the $40,000 in promised annual energy savings simply DID NOT HAPPEN. Thus, as of June 30, 2015, the Board’s forecast is off track by some $250,000, severely impacting the Reserve and Operating Funds with their failed promises.

Average annual electrical energy consumption since the installation, has been reported by the Board to be 830,080 KWh. The ACTUAL average consumption from 2011 through 2014, is in fact, 1,027,918 KWh, under reported by 23%. Such discrepancies certainly require an explanation from the Board.

Apparently, the Board’s “exhaustive analysis” was really not that exhaustive, given the inaccurate and misleading findings of the report. The FACTS have proven otherwise.

Energy Cost Analysis 2015m

In the recent Condo Newsletter of August 15th, it states that “Webb Surveys have been engaged by the Board to establish the boundaries between owner’s properties and common areas intended in the original registered plan.”

The boundaries are made unquestionably explicit in the original registered plan, which is supported by Section 8 of the Condominium Property Act. As a result doors and windows are part of a unit unless otherwise stipulated in the Condominium Plan.

The commercial owner wants residents to share the substantial cost of their new front door and as well, does not want to participate in the cost of front wall window replacements of condominium units. Section 8 of the Act along with our Registered Building Plan, are legal documents which clearly designate unit boundaries and that the front door to the commercial unit is their responsibility (just as the front entrance door to residential units is the residents responsibility), and that maintenance or replacement of all front wall windows are a common expense of the building.

Therefore, any such effort to change the existing legal boundaries solely for the benefit of the commercial owner is unnecessary, a waste of money, and demonstrates a lack of respect for our residential unit owners.

It is interesting that four of seven Board members support the position of the Act and the Registered Plan, but three members do not. The Board has the majority support to maintain the status quo, and could have recognized such with a Board resolution. What happened, and why is the Board now spending residents money allowing the commercial owner to “establish boundaries” for their own benefit?

The Board must act responsibly and recognize the existing boundaries as set out by the Act and Registered Plan. Residents are not prepared to fund any such effort, and demand cancellation of this contract immediately and any related costs incurred to date, be paid by the commercial owner.

CONDO NEWSLETTER & resident comments

AUGUST 15, 2015

Your Board of Directors met on August 12. This is a summary of discussions and decisions taken. As always, your Board welcomes input and feedback from all owners with any concerns. As always, the Board refuses to acknowledge any input or feedback from owners with concerns if they disagree with any such input and feedback.

Good news- the residential elevator is back in service and the University Bridge is open. Bad news-Our domestic water heater has failed for the fifth time. Luckily, we had a spare on site so the replacement was accomplished within a few hours with a minimum of inconvenience to residents. Once again, the manufacturer, designer, contractor and service provider have been engaged to seek a solution. Once again, the Board fails to recognize that this sad situation is simply a demonstration of failed and irresponsible procurement procedures on their part. There is obviously a capacity issue here yet the Board seems incapable of addressing this issue once and for all. As for the elevators, there appears to be no monitoring of this project on the part of management or the Board. It has been nearly four months, and the project is still far from completion. The Board refuses to provide any details of the contract leaving many questions unanswered.

The safety tip for this edition is related to the automatic door openers on both the main lobby entrance door and the basement garage vehicle entry door. Since both of these are slow closing, please wait and see that they are fully closed behind you after you enter. There is opportunity for unauthorized entry while the doors are open.

FINANCIALS

Draft financial statements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015 were reviewed. The financial results are very good news. We ended the year with a budget surplus exceeding $50,000, which will be available to transfer into reserves. In every category, expenses were less than budget and in most cases less than prior year.

This proud declaration by the Board of a “SURPLUS” of $50,000 is a most troubling deception on the part of the Board, and comes as a result of failure to recognize and address the outstanding and growing DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, which has now escalated to a level of APPROXIMATELY $300,000!

Of special significance, building utilities (gas and electrical costs) were down. Currently, a historical analysis of actual annual usage of gas and electricity is underway. The Board continues to mislead residents with a false declaration of an ongoing reduction in energy costs. The facts are, that as of June 30, 2015, net energy costs have steadily increased since the installation of the new heating system in 2010. Rather that the Board’s projected energy savings of some $30,000 per year, there has been a net accumulated increase in energy costs of over $70,000. The Board’s promise of reduced operating expenses of $30,000 per year simply did not happen and this failed promise of savings along with the actual increase in energy costs, has resulted in a $200,000 plus deficit to the promised energy savings.

Also, repairs and maintenance are down indicating less outsourced services. We expect the refurbishment of the elevators will further reduce both these costs in future years. We continue to investigate every possible energy saving. For example, the installation of a variable speed pump on the pool circulation system has been approved. Energy savings of approximately 50% are expected over the existing pump. Why does the Board refuse to disclose data supporting such projected savings?

Statements are currently under review by our external auditors and will be available prior to the AGM. Are our EXTERNAL AUDITORS providing an audited financial report?

PARKADE PROJECT

Initial steps have been taken. Robb Kullman Engineering LLP has been engaged to deliver the first stage of the project, which is schematic design. This should be completed by September 30, 2015.This document should be available for presentation at the AGM and have systems and details sorted out and first run at phasing the project. No such expenditure has been included in a Reserve Fund budget as is legally required and subject to approval by unit owners with a special resolution. It appears our residential Board members continue to bow to the wishes of the commercial owner. No such project is warranted without clear demonstration of structural damage evidenced by destructive testing and analysis. The Board refuses to provide residents with any such evidence. The $50,000 option to correct the outstanding deferred maintenance remains the appropriate solution. 

RESERVE FUND STUDY

The study is complete and in the final stages of review and printing and is expected to be received shortly from the firm of Brundston, Junor, Johnson. It is imperative that the report be presented by a representative from this firm at the AGM in order to ensure a qualified presentation to residents.

REGISTERED PLAN

Webb Surveys have been engaged by the Board to establish the boundaries between owner’s properties and common areas intended in the original registered plan. There has been much discussion and some disagreement primarily with respect to responsibility for windows and doors. It is expected that this professional interpretation will resolve these issues. Their report is expected shortly.

Once again, residential Board members continue to bow to the wishes of the commercial owner. The Board is asked to identify which Board members are demanding such unnecessary and costly services where the Registered Plan IS THE LEGALLY RECOGNIZED DOCUMENT THAT HAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED THE BOUNDARIES and clearly defined the responsibility for windows and doors as was INTENDED IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN. 

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Our 2015 AGM will be held Thursday, October 8 at 2:00PM in the 4th floor meeting room. Mark the date.

TRANSITIONS

Welcome to Izim Okeren who has recently moved into 701. The Okeren family is original owners in Spadina Towers. Izim’s father, Turhan, was the Architect who designed the building.

Congratulations to Mr. & Mrs. John Beckman on their recent marriage. In spite of the honeymoon, John has thrown himself into the hard work of chairing our Board.

Units 401 and 503 are currently listed for sale. We regret that Rena, Patricia and John will be leaving. If you have friends or family who may be interested in relocating to the finest condominium building in the city, please spread the word.

BICYCLE STORAGE

Thanks to everyone who provided input into our survey. As a result, we have identified all the active owners, disposed of unwanted bikes and made arrangements for a rack to be installed shortly in the storage room. This will make storage much more orderly and more convenient. We would urge owners who currently keep bikes in their parking stalls to make use of the storage room.

SECURITY ISSUES 

It was recently discovered that there has been unauthorized entry and use of the party room and the guest bedroom on the 4th floor. Building management is currently investigating more secure methods for entry and authorization of use, as there may be a large number of old keys in circulation. Such issues are easily addressed if the caretaker is conducting his required evening inspections. 

REFURBISHMENT

Everyone is certainly aware of the sad state of some or our premiere amenities- pool area deck, windows (broken seals) and furniture; party room outdoor patio (black mold in carpet), furniture; dirty and no longer cleanable carpets throughout the 4th floor common area; guest bedroom bed, mattress, linen, furnishings (dating from 1978); etc. Instead of increasing, they may be actually reducing value of our properties from remarks being made by listing realtors and prospective buyers. In addition, there may be serious health issues. The Board is currently studying this issue and sincerely solicits opinions from the owners. Everyone is certainly aware of the Board’s ongoing failure to address such deferred maintenance which is simply part of the several hundreds of thousands of dollars in outstanding deferred maintenance which has failed to be addressed by the Board and continues to accumulate. 

SHOPPING CARTS

The current large metal shopping carts are causing considerable damage to walls, doorframes and elevators. As a result, an order has been placed for smaller, lighter carts made of plastic. These should be arriving shortly at which time the old steel carts will be disposed of. It has been suggested to the Board many times in the past, to simply have the caretaker attach a rubber bumper to the front of the existing carts. Apparently, the easy way is to simply write another cheque. 

IN CLOSING

Thank you to the many people who make positive contributions to our building not only in material ways but also in acts of kindness.

Bob Kowalishin

On behalf of the Board of Directors

Spadina Towers residents have continued to experience ongoing failed reception issues regarding both Shaw TV and internet services. This continues to be very frustrating to residents, particularly 02 and 03 units, yet the Board has failed to respect these concerns and make any attempt to address the issue.

The cable infrastructure within Spadina Towers has existed since the inception of the building. This infrastructure is, as declared by law many years ago, the property of Spadina Condo Corporation, and is ultimately, their responsibility. Shaw advises, that the Board refuses to discuss any reasonable address to this matter.

Therefore, the onus is upon those Board members representing their fellow residents, to initiate address of this matter, where cable service to all units within the building are finally, upgraded in order to finally resolve these issues. Responsible address by the Board, could achieve this at minimal if any cost to the Corporation. As this is a building infrastructure issue, the Corporation is responsible for the required negotiation, along with any related costs.

Ongoing rejection of the Board to this matter, is not acceptable to residents. Once again, the Board is requested to respond as to when this matter will finally be resolved and the interest of residents is finally addressed.

Spadina Towers has not had a MANDATORY Reserve Fund Budget presented to owners FOR THEIR MANDATORY APPROVAL, in several years.

At the 2014 Annual General Meeting of the Spadina Condominium Corporation, the Board advised attendees that the Reserve Fund Study, although now mandatory by law, was “not necessary” and was just “a waste of money”. The Board need be reminded, that a responsible Board will respect the professional guidance of an independent Reserve Fund Study, not demean and disrespect it.

A most troubling example of this disrespect, is the past Reserve Fund Study clearly recommending annual maintenance to the topping of the surface area of the parkade. The Board totally rejected this recommendation and has UNLAWFULLY, without a vote of unit owners, approved this CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, with a total replacement  of the topping, to be completed rather than respecting the professional guidance provided in the Reserve Fund study which recommends, ongoing annual maintenance. Any such maintenance, net of cosmetic only efforts, has not been performed in years. In other words, the recommendations of the Reserve Fund Study, have been totally rejected.

Responsible governance, of course requires the Board’s adherence to both the Bylaws, and the Condominium Property Act, whereby, address to CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, requires responsible financial budgeting and planning, reflected in a responsible Reserve Fund Budget. This Budget, of course, is subject to approval by unit owners. NO SUCH BUDGET HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO UNIT OWNERS IN A NUMBER OF YEARS, yet well over a million dollars has been spent, with no such approval.

It is clear that the Board has chosen to SIMPLY DECLARE ON THEIR OWN, to declare all RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES to be simply maintenance (or operating expenses), and have illicitly included, numerous, CAPITAL EXPENDITURES in this category as well.

This decision was made under the falsely declared premise, that evidence of structural damage has been demonstrated. This is of course a false and misleading misrepresentation of the facts. Any claim of “structural” damage, must be supported with a formal report based upon “destructive testing and analysis” on the part of a structural engineer. To date, the Board has refused to make any such report available to residents upon their request. Unilateral approval by the Board of such major CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, is unlawful and in direct contravention of both SCC Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act.

As Spadina residents learned following the 2014 Annual General Meeting, the “voting procedure” held for “disapproval” of an Audit, was conducted in a most inappropriate and questionable manner. Residents were misled at the meeting where it was later determined that some attending owners, felt they were signing in favor, not rejection of an Audit. The Board clearly denounced any need for an audit, and in fact followed up with a post AGM lobby effort, approaching those not attending the meeting, to support rejection of an Audit. Given the conflict of interest issues relating to management (who does the monthly accounting) and a number of Board members, this is very serious issue. An after meeting tally of residents, revealed sufficient signatures did in fact provide the required support for an Audit.

A resident review of invoices subsequent to the 2014 AGM, revealed well over $30,000 in illegitimate operating expenses during the 2014 fiscal year and several months following. Relevant information regarding Reserve Fund Expenditures, was not made available. This clearly revealed the reason for such an adamant rejection of an Audit by the Board.

The Board suggested that the additional cost of an Audit at an approximate cost of $3000, was a “WASTE OF MONEY” and rejected resident support for an Audit. Without question, residents would rather contribute their $50.00 share to this $3000 Audit cost that if performed, would reveal and confirm some $30,000 plus in illegitimate expenditures and result in a refund to residents of approximately $500.

Therefore, any responsible resident should support and vote for an Audit at the coming AGM.

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

As per the Registered Condominium Plan of the Corporation, and with reference to The Condominium Property Act, Section 8(2), the boundary of condominium units, is the inside edge of glass windows of walls separating a unit from the adjacent balcony common area. The Registered Condominium Plan states that these unit boundaries apply to levels 6-13 .I believe the preparer of the this owner certificate meant levels 4-13.  As there is no such provision “otherwise stated in the Condominium Plan” relating to the commercial levels, maintenance including cleaning of the interior and exterior of all windows on these levels, is the responsibility of the owner.

Therefore residents are responsible for cleaning the inside of these windows BUT NOT THE OUTSIDE OF THE WINDOWS AS THIS IS AS DEFINED BY THE ACT, COMMON AREA. It is therefore, the responsibility of the Corporation to clean THE EXTERIOR of all windows on the residential levels.

Unit owners should therefore expect to hear from management very soon as to when the exterior of all of windows in their unit, INCLUDING FRONT WINDOWS, are scheduled for cleaning. Access to their unit will be required in order to permit cleaning of the exterior of the front windows.

The board has feared an audit for quite some time. NOW WE KNOW WHY.

A recent resident review of invoices for the fiscal year ending 2014 and part of the current year, has revealed some very shocking information which must no longer be concealed from residents.

Resident funds have been used for payment of some $35,000 in illegitimate expenditures which include more than $20,000 in expenses exclusively for the sole benefit of the commercial owner. This is above and beyond the well over one million dollars in capital expenditures illegally approved by the board. Time restrictions prevented a complete review but documents including a couple dozen invoices, revealed some very disturbing findings. Details are available upon request. There is absolutely no practice of responsible procurement standards which include the requirement of tenders. No qualified and responsible board member or property manager, would approve of such reckless spending, let alone its concealment.

It is very clear that both management and the board have neglected their professional, moral and legal obligation to excercise respect and responsible management of resident interests and their money. The ongoing influence of conflict of interest issues relating to management and board members is a major factor and is very disturbing. Independent property management is the obvious solution and must be established as soon as possible.

This minimal review has rightfully enabled a challenge to the board’s ongoing rejection of an audit and has exposed many very disturbing facts. The amount of money involved here is substantial and a review of the past several years finances is certainly in order.

What’s next? The board’s lack of transparency has proven to be a huge political advantage for them. This is about to come to an end. There is no question that an audit is now clearly necessary for not only the current fiscal year, but should also be conducted for at least three prior years as well given the disturbing findings of the current year. The many requests of residents over the past few years for participation in this review process have now proven to be very much warranted. This financial and management fiasco must come to an end. A new board with resident directors who actually represent the interest of residents, is necessary. The ongoing rejection of board members to sign an ethics disclosure statement with a declaration of no conflicting interests, continues with well justified and grave concern among residents.

Given the very serious level of financial irregularities within the Corporation and the failure of the board to recognize and address this very disturbing financial fiasco, residents can only expect a further diminishing level of respect from the board, along with continuing requests of them to simply write cheque after cheque to keep this building afloat.

Clearly, residents should now realize that they can no longer AFFORD TO NOT be involved and must demand full transparency. The board and management, must be held accountable for their failure to perform their many responsibilities under the Condominium Act. Given the recent revelation of evidence relating to this fiasco, there will be an audit for the current year and certainly should be a review of previous years, whether the board likes it or not. Any responsible resident will be fully supportive.

Here we are going into June and yet the most recent financial statements provided to residents are from January. Do we still have a board of directors or are they all in hiding? The silence is deafening.

Once again, why the continuing and most adamant rejection of an audit by the Board? Now we know why.

At the October 2013 AGM, attendees voted overwhelmingly in support of the purchase of a sign to clearly identify the building as SPADINA TOWERS. The sign would provide much needed identification and street exposure to visitors and due recognition of the building, commonly known as SPADINA TOWERS.

The board however, has against the will and in disrespect of our owners, rejected their wishes. Our residential board members have once again bowed to the commercial owners interest and have permitted a commercial advertising sign which is very much an eyesore to the property.

It is once again requested of the residential board members to respect the interests of their fellow residents rather than simply allowing one owner to use common area property for commercial advertising purposes.

At the expense of residents, there has been an ongoing rejection by the caretaker to fulfill his duties. The Board and management simply condone this irresponsible conduct and have approved of thousands of dollars spent on contractors to perform this work rejected by the caretaker. As the caretaker contract and details of total compensation have been withheld for a number of years, residents do not realize just what this is costing them.

1. Base contract compensation with benefits                        $50,000 plus
2. Apartment with parking and services @$2000/month         24,000

TOTAL BASIC COMPENSATION                                              $74,000 plusBillings for  for caretaker services now provided by others:                              6,000 plus(Billings

include EXTRAS from caretaker, carpet cleaning,caretaker maintenance, lawn mowing and maintenance,grounds care) This does NOT include additional costs paid to contractors for mechanical related maintenance, normally the responsibility of and conducted by the caretaker in the past.

TOTAL ANNUAL CARETAKER COSTS                                   $80,000 plus

Prior to the current caretaker, the position had always been a part time position and the onsite caretaker cared for several other properties at the same time. The building was well cared for and no outside contractor was required for caretaker services. The total annual cost of the caretaker was much less than half of what it is now.

Our front lawn and the parkade have severely lacked attention for several years now and are an embarrassment to residents who expect a much higher standard of care. We have carpet cleaning equipment which our current caretaker has never used and this work is now contracted out as well.

Of further concern, the caretaker’s wife has been billing the Corporation at $24 per hour for “extra services” she claims to have provided. She was also paid $500 for her efforts at the Christmas Party dinner which excluded food purchases. The total cost of the event was $50.00 plus per person while other condos were very pleased with a catered meal at $15.00 per person plus beverages.

Certainly, the Board, and at least our residential Board members, should recognize this very serious and costly issue and act accordingly. A first step would be to provide residents as per their many requests, with a copy of the “top secret” caretaker contract, to which they are legally entitled. This secret contract is proving to be much too expensive for residents who take this matter to be much more serious than the Board.

The recent addition of members new to the Board, is certainly welcomed by residents who have been seeking a new direction from the Board for quite some time.

Residents look forward to hearing of some positive developments in the near future. There is now a new and most welcome opportunity for change.

An opportunity to make meaningful accomplishments in the interest of all unit owners of Spadina Towers, lies before us as we enter the year 2015.The following three New Years resolutions, in respect of all unit owners, would upon their implementation, provide a return of respect among unit owners along with the much needed transparency and in turn, stability within the Corporation.

1. Completion of a review by interested residents of all records and information that would normally be requested and reviewed by an Auditor.

2. Formal adoption of Sector representation within the Corporation to ensure proportional and democratic representation of unit owners.

3. Contracting a totally independent property manager to correct the many current and past conflict of interest issues.

The Board is requested to act upon these requests supported by many residents, early in the New Year, in order that unit owners are able to experience the many resulting benefits as soon as possible.

November 11, 2014

SPADINA CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION

730 Spadina Crescent East

SASKATOON, SK

S7K 4H7

ATTENTION: President and Board of Directors

RE: AUDIT

Dear Sirs:

A motion was made at the Annual General Meeting to seek consent by signature of those who did not want an Audit. It was not until October 24th, that the Board advised that sufficient consent had been received and that an Audit would not be conducted. Considering the obvious confusion among residents as to the net effect of this motion which did not result in a confirmed resolution as required at the AGM, a number of residents contacted management following the AGM and advised that their signature was provided inadvertently as a result of being MOST INAPPROPRIATELY encouraged by the Board, to reject an Audit and the obvious confusion as to whether they were voting for or against the Audit.

An AUTHENTIC list of resident signatures has been obtained which clarifies and confirms the position of unit owners. AS A RESULT, MORE THAN 20% OF UNIT OWNERS, as is required by the Act, DO IN FACT SUPPORT AN AUDIT and further, they have with their signature, requested as well, that all information to which the Auditor may request of the Corporation be provided to interested owners upon their request.

The vote for this motion at the AGM was not conducted in a proper manner. The commercial owner whose property management company does the monthly accounting along with the treasurer who supposedly reviews these monthly statements, should have abstained from the vote considering the most obvious conflict of interest. WHY THEIR MOST ADAMANT OPPOSITION TO AN AUDIT? It can’t be cost, as the average cost per resident for the Audit is miniscule. Correction of inappropriate allocations of commercial expenses being shared by residents, more than pays for the share of residents of an Audit!

With the Board ILLEGALLY approving RESERVE FUND expenditures of 1 to 2 MILLION DOLLARS WITHOUT THE REQUIRED PRESENTATION OF A FORMAL BUDGET AND FURTHER, ITS REQUIRED APPROVAL OF UNIT OWNERS, the reason for their rejection of the Audit is most apparent. All Board members, and in particular, the two Board members mentioned above, should have remained neutral on this matter, however they and their fellow Board members, all strongly objected to the need for an Audit at the AGM. A continuing (and unjust) lobby effort for obtaining further signatures rejecting an audit continued in the days and weeks following the AGM. Not all residents were contacted as is required by the Act and Regulations.

Therefore it is requested that the Board respect the wishes of 20% plus of unit owners, and ensure that an Audited financial report be completed and provided to all unit owners by December 31st, 2014.

Please provide your acknowledgement of and written response to this request within seven days.

Yours truly,

Dennis M. Tofin Suite #603 Telephone: (306)242-0409 Email: [email protected]

Cc: all residents

Since the installation of the new hot water heating system, every attempt has been made by the Board and management, to minimize the input temperature to the perimeter heating lines in an effort to condense and minimize gas consumption and heating costs. This practise is total unacceptable, and residents find this practise to be most deceitful and disrespectful of the comfort of residents. The Board promised a substantial reduction in energy costs following the installation of the new hot water heating system. This promise, proved to be totally misleading and of course resulted in substantial increases in energy costs, to the detriment of residents.

Residents have in turn been subject to excessive noise of the heat pump units, and most importantly, a substantial increase in energy costs.  This is very evident when temperatures drop to normal winter levels. This is certainly not a responsible way to operate our heating system.

The input temperature on the perimeter heating line must be increased to a level of 185 degrees (F) PLUS, when necessary. Supply of heat from the Enercons is only necessary with prolonged cold extremes in temperature. It has been suggested that the caretaker, under instruction from management and the Board, refuses to use a temperature setting above 175 (F) degrees, as they are afraid that a higher temperature will cause the perimeter lines to leak. The perimeter lines, zone valves and other fittings on these lines are generally rated at 250 (F) degrees and 150 PSI pressure rating, both well beyond what our system can possibly reach. Zone valves and expansion joints on these lines have not been properly inspected and maintained for a very long time and are only looked at after they have failed, begin to leak, all at the inconvenience of residents.

The ongoing excuse of fear of leakage on perimeter heating lines and valves is a result of neglected maintenance and is certainly, not an acceptable reason for insufficient heat levels being provided to residents.

Yes, it is time to turn up the heat!  

Auditors

Condo corporations generally have a contract with an auditor who works on behalf of corporations independently of boards of directors and management companies. An owners’ search committee can select an auditor and present this choice to the AGM. Whatever the process of selection, the auditor has to be elected at the annual general meeting.

Auditors cannot be removed by boards or managers or replaced unless they resign between annual meetings. An auditor who resigns has to be replaced but the replacement has to be elected at the next annual meeting of owners.

What’s the Auditor’s Role?

The role of an auditor is to verify the corporation’s accounts (work orders, invoices, contracts) against the financial statements and yearly budget. The auditor must examine the minutes of meetings held by boards to make certain that boards have duly approved expenditures, as well as new and existing contracts.

In addition, the auditor has to:

• Ensure that the board is complying with the reserve fund study
• Verify that the level of reserve funds follows the general outline of the board’s implementation of the recommendations contained in the study
• Verify that revenues and expenditures are based on proper by-laws
• Provide a written auditor’s report before each annual meeting so that this report is included in the AGM’s package of documents that owners receive before the meeting
• Report findings and conclusions to the board and owners at the annual general meeting
• It is suggested that owners be able to approach auditors and be assured of confidentiality–because auditors are accountable to the Corporation and not to the board exclusively.  It is important to note that, as per Section 34(3) of the Condominium Property Act, a Corporation consists of all persons who are: (a) owners of units in the parcel to which the condominium plan applies.

The average residential unit owner of the Spadina Condominium Corporation, based upon information provided by the Board of Directors, may very well be demanded, to commit themselves to cash calls of approximately $35,000 to $40,000 over the next twelve months. The cost of an audit at about $60 per resident, is a very small price to pay for full transparency of how their money is being spent.

 At the recent Annual General Meeting of the Spadina Condominium Corporation, held on October 8^th, 2014, ALL BOARD MEMBERS REJECTED, ANY SUGGESTION THAT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING SHOULD BE AUDIO RECORDED.

The Board was advised that audio recordings of Annual General Meetings, is very commonly conducted by many organizations and Corporations in order to ensure accuracy of any records including preparation of minutes for the meeting.

Further, it provides an opportunity for unit owners to be informed should they not be able to attend the meeting. In response, several Board members, most adamantly advised the meeting, that given their “VAST EXPERIENCE OF SERVING ON BOARDS”, they had “NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING!” These same Board members and one other resident, demanded “WHICH ONES!” Any attempt of rebuttal, was totally rejected by the Board.

A simple google search will take you to thousands of organizations and corporations, that include this practice in their Annual General Meetings. Any responsible unit owner, shareholder or member of these organizations is very much aware of this practice.

Audio recordings of Annual General Meetings of the Spadina Condominium Corporation have been made for a number of years. These recordings have proven to provide a very valuable reference to the proceedings of these meetings.

What is the Board so afraid of? Well, probably because these records do in fact provide confirmation of MANY SERIOUS CONTRAVENTIONS OF THE LAW BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.

THE BOARD IS ADVISED THAT, THESE CONTRAVENTIONS OF LAW ON THEIR PART, ARE FAR BEYOND THOSE OF OUR CORPORATE BYLAWS AND THE CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY ACT.

This ongoing deceit, misrepresentation, concealment and other very irresponsible and illegal conduct of Board members at our AGM’s is reprehensible and will no longer be tolerated.

ATTACHED: Example documents of Corporate AGM audio practices.

SPECIAL NOTICE TO RESIDENTS

October 18, 2014

A number of residents left the AGM last week rather confused after being asked with no advance notice to sign a signature list to support rejection of the new legislation requiring an Audit of the Corporation. The Board’s most adamant effort to convince residents that an Audit was unnecessary was most inappropriate, misleading and clearly exhibited a conflict of interest. THEY SIMPLY DID NOT WANT THEIR FINANCIAL REPORT TO BE REVIEWED BY AN AUDITOR. Those who do feel mislead and confused over the request for their signature, should immediately advise the Board and property manager that they do support an audit and ask that their signature be removed from the list. Residents are advised that an audit will in fact reveal that residents are sharing in costs for which they are not responsible. THE REQUIRED CORRECTION THAT WILL BE MADE WITH THE AUDIT, WILL EASILY PAY FOR THE RESIDENTS SHARE OF THE AUDIT COST. The accountant has advised an estimated cost of $2500 – $3500 and further advised, that a much more thorough review will be conducted. The announcement of the Board’s position at the meeting was loud and clear, including the following DECLARATIONS.

1. “THESE EXPENDITURES WILL ME MADE WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE    BOARD”
2. “THERE WILL BE NO VOTING OF UNIT OWNERS”
3. “THE RESERVE FUND BUDGET IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY”

Bylaws 10.4, 10.5 of the Corporation, clearly demonstrate, that any such DECLARATIONS and the related demand for cash calls, is totally invalid and requires that a general meeting be held for presentation of all required information and an accurate Reserve Fund Budget, before seeking the REQUIRED APPROVAL OF UNIT OWNERS. Unit owners are under no obligation to pay any of these cash calls until these requirements have been met.

If this required procedure does not take place soon, the average resident must realize, that they will probably be subject to the demands of the Board, to commit themselves to cash calls of $35,000 to $40,000 over the next twelve months. Therefore, residents must ensure that the above Bylaws of the Corporation be respected by the Board of Directors. Please refer to the informative review report on the 2014 AGM held on October 8^th. The report is available online at condonewscenter.com. Username and password are both 731. For those of you who do not have internet access, a printed copy of this review is available to you in a printed version upon request at (306)262-3109. Condonewscenter.com

Spadina Condominium Corporation held its Annual General Meeting on October 8, 2014. Unfortunately, the meeting was conducted just as many AGM’s have in recent years with little or no respect for meeting Rules of Order. An audio recording has fortunately been kept of the proceedings at previous General Meetings and have provided very revealing information and confirmation of the ongoing misconduct including false and misleading information provided by the Board at these meetings. As is the practice at most Corporate AGM`s, an audio recording is made available to those who could not attend the meeting and most importantly, to ensure transparency and accuracy in preparation of minutes and other reports on the meeting. The Board chose to pick and choose which motions they would allow to proceed through the required process. Board members ensured that all motions made by residents were defeated. These included motions which attempted to correct much of the current financial mismanagement of the Corporation. As a result, unit owners came away from the meeting rather confused and left less informed than when they came. A great deal of misinformation was provided by the Board and exposed many contradictory statements made by Board members.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES  The Board refused to correct errors and omissions in the minutes from the 2013 AGM.  The errors were clearly confirmed as such from an audio recording of the 2013 meeting. Of 22 owners present for a hand vote at the 2013 meeting, 13 voted in favor of a motion to approve the purchase of a sign for the building. The Board rejected the results and declared the motion to be defeated. At the 2014 AGM, Board member statements included “it was defeated” and “this was only for information purposes”. Falsification of records?

MEETING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCURACY Regarding audio recording of the meeting, the Board rejected the facts presented to the meeting that Corporations very commonly use audio recording of their General Meetings. A couple of Board members stated that given their vast experience as Board members of Corporations, “they have never heard of such a thing!” and asked “which ones!” referring to Corporations. Obviously, these Board members are not knowledgeable or experienced regarding such Corporate  AGM practises.

Peter Dielschneider then jumped in with the same comments. It may be of interest to note, that at a prior Annual General Meeting, Mr. Dielschneider, on the record, adamantly demanded the necessity of an Audit of the Corporation. He further, went on to make a further, most adamant statement, that “good fences make for good neighbors” and that an “independent property manager should be contracted”.  A review of the record from this meeting will clearly support these statements.

CHAIRMANS REMARKS included the following statements: Statement from the Board –“If you have a list of work, bring your cheque book”! (The Board is thus suggesting rejection of any reminder to them of priority projects by demanding money before considering any attention to these projects.) –“Getting work done is only a matter of funding!” (The Boards position is that they determine the expenditures from the Reserve Fund without the required unit owner approval and THEN DEMAND YOUR MONEY.) – “Is the elevator expenditure essential at this time? NO was his response to his own question. (Then why not consider addressing priorities that are in fact essential and require immediate action now before their ongoing neglect results ultimately in a much greater cost to unit owners). – Statement from the Board– “The Reserve Fund Study is of little advantage to us!” “It has no fixed function and is unnecessary”. (The Reserve Fund Study provides a Board of Directors with guidance in order to ensure that responsible management of repair and maintenance is conducted.

As has happened with the parkade surface, the Board has neglected the recommendations of the Reserve Fund Study to conduct appropriate repair and maintenance.) The Board should rather be appreciative of input from unit owners as to what projects in the building have been neglected and require attention. As for the Reserve Fund Study, had the Board followed the recommendations of proper and regular maintenance, the building would not be in this rather grave position where these deferred projects have piled up and yet the Board rejects the many priorities and attention to this neglect. With recent projects such as the heating system costing hundreds of thousands more than necessary, a dramatic improvement in financial management of the building is urgently required.

• FINANCIAL REPORT
• The Audit-The Board stated:`The accountant says we will get the same information”. `We proceeded with a review only at the last AGM”. (Both statements are false and misleading). The meeting heard comments, questions and concerns from residents regarding insufficient financial reporting to residents, the need for much greater transparency, and disclosure of information. For the entire past fiscal year, the financial reports did not include a balance sheet or Reserve Fund Statement. This is total inadequate in the view of residents. The Board responded to these issues by simply stating that “sufficient information had been provided”.
• The Reserve Fund Budget was in fact not a budget at all. It was not even an accurate representation of priority projects which do belong in a proposed Reserve Fund Budget. The Board simply stated that this was “for information purposes only”! Board members further stated that no vote was required on these projects as the Board had the authority to approve any such projects on its own. This is of course a very false and misleading statement and clearly demonstrates a lack of responsible financial management of the Corporation.The Board made further comments including: “these expenditures will be made with the approval of the Board.” “There will be no voting by unit owners”. When a resident asked why there was no Reserve Fund Budget presented at the 2013 AGM either, the response was “it was an oversight”. The truth is and as stated in the audio recording of that meeting, the treasurer advised the meeting that “there would be no Reserve Fund Budget” because there would be no Reserve Fund Expenditures”! However during the 2013-2014 fiscal year and without a required and approved Reserve Fund Budget, the Board all on their own approved projects of well over one million dollars!The Board totally rejected numerous statements made by residents advising them of the requirements of both the Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act which reads as follows:
• BYLAW 10.5 The Board shall from time to time and at least annually prepare a budget for the common expense funds and a budget for the Reserve Funds, in accordance with Bylaw No. 3, and determine by estimate that amounts necessary for the next ensuing fiscal year or remainder of the current fiscal year, as the case may be. The board shall then submit the reserve funds budget for approval of the unit owners, pursuant to 10.4(b) above.
• BYLAW 10.4 b) The amount required for the reserve funds shall be determined by the ordinary vote of the unit owners at the annual general meeting, by taking into account anticipated repair and replacement costs and life expectancy of the things mentioned in subsection (a), or as otherwise permitted or directed by the Act.
• BYLAW 10.4 E) In no event shall unit owners approve an amount required for each of the reserve funds which is less than that required for the anticipated repair and replacement costs and life expectancy of the things mentioned in subsection (a), unless otherwise permitted or directed by the Act.
• The Board received questions, comments and concerns from residents regarding careless purchasing procedures. Exorbitant fees are being paid to favored contractors with no effort to obtain a reasonable number of quotes or inviting multiple tenders on larger projects. The Board voiced total rejection of any suggestion of using such practises. Comments from the Board included: “I’ve never heard of that”, “board is competent enough”, “not workable”, all most irresponsible statements. The Board declares proposed expenditures of 1-2 million dollars without the approval of unit owners and then makes every effort to avoid an Audit with a total additional cost of $2500 to $3500! All residents should be seriously concerned about this.
• BUILDING REPORT Tom McClocklin Sr. advised the meeting that the commercial owner is replacing the front door from the common area into unit #1 and at the expense of the building. Boundaries of Units SECTION 8(1) Subject to subsection (2), unless otherwise stipulated in the condominium plan: (a) doors and windows are part of a unit. Mr. McClocklin responded; “that’s not how it’s been in the past” and then went on to say “it hasn’t been brought up with the Board”. Maurice Duval then stated, “let the Board deal with this”. So apparently, this door has been replaced with the assumption that the building would be paying for it. Yet, it has been stated “it hasn’t been brought up with the Board”. The only reason it needs to be brought up with the Board is to seek approval by the building for this modification, not the responsibility for cost. There is no question as to responsibility for cost, it is a commercial expense. It is important to note that had this issue not been brought up at the AGM, the building would have paid for this door. It would only be an audit that would have picked up on this. The savings to residents as a result of exposing this, more than pays for their share of the Audit.
• INSURANCE A motion was presented to seek competitive bidding on the building’s insurance policy. Again, the Board and in particular, the commercial owner, totally rejected any consideration of the matter. His comments included: “it’s just a matter of picking the right guy”.The Board rejected any consideration of the Bylaw requirement for the unit owners to discuss the deductible and available options.Many residents are probably unaware of a major incident that resulted in this extremely high premium we are currently paying.
• In 2009, a new cooling tower was installed outside of the building above the fourth floor. In the Board minutes of January 15, 2010, the following is recorded: December 23, 2009: Water started to leak out of the system. December 27, 2009, A large amount of water came out of the cooling tower, it was shut down and bypassed completely. Cracks were visible in the cooling tower. Black and McDonald and Vortec were consulted, as were BI&I, the boiler insurers.
• Unfortunately, unit owners will continue to pay for this negligence. The caretaker had already left earlier in the day on December 23^rd and later reported that when he left, the cooling tower was working just fine.
• So, given the circumstances, the property manager was negligent in not addressing a very dangerous situation in a manner which obviously required immediate attention when the leak was discovered on December 23^rd. Further, for the property manager to leave this serious incident unaddressed for FIVE DAYS is well beyond reason and certainly confirms negligence. The ultimate cost of this disaster (over $100,000) should have been born by Colliers McClocklin Property Management and their insurers, not the Spadina Condominium Corporation. In the year following this incident, there were a number of other water damage claims made by the Corporation strictly due to a lack of maintenance. This involved failed water shut off valves in a number of units that had not been maintained. Unfortunately, unit owners will continue to pay for this negligence of the property management company.
• PROPERTY MANAGER
• A representative of Colliers McClocklin Property Management, provided many inappropriate statements to the AGM. Residents were somewhat bewildered with some of these statements including those related to, in his words “Dedactments”. Few, if any residents understood this (incorrect) terminology and the point of his message. The AGM is not intended to be a venue for a property manager voicing his support for his employer, the commercial owner.
• The Board’s permission to hear Mr. Kowbel’s commentary on matters where his knowledge and experience is somewhat subject to question, is of concern, particularly when allowance for time to speak by residents is so restricted.
• Mr. Kowbel, was most inappropriately permitted to advise the meeting, that all expenditures listed in the provided Reserve Fund Budget, require only the approval of the Board. The property manager has, in contradiction of the legal requirements of the Bylaws and Condominium Act in this regard, been allowed by the Board to make these false and misleading statements to residents.
• Such conduct, on the part of the property management company, can no longer be accepted by residents. Obviously, the ongoing requests and demands for independent property management is are simply one measure required to ensure seek democratic governance of the Corporation.
•  IT IS CLEARLY TIME TO FINALLY REVIEW THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CONTRACT, AND APPOINT A NEW TOTALLY INDEPENDENT PROPERTY MANAGMENT COMPANY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY ACT.
• WORTHY NOTES OF THE MEETING
• For the past few years, the conduct of the Board at Annual General Meetings has been truly reprehensible to say the very least, and certainly an embarrassment to residents. Rules of Order, are not respected and meetings are conducted as those in a dictatorship. The arrogance and narcissism by certain Board members continues to be blatantly displayed. The Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act are not respected and are rejected when cited by attending residents. The Board continues to reject unfinished business at each AGM and often refuses to acknowledge past resolutions. We are supposedly provided with guidance from our Bylaws and the Condo Act, yet even Judges on our Board have clearly demonstrated their total lack of respect and understanding of these laws. False information has even been provided to the Courts by the Board. It is very troubling to observe this ever ongoing conduct of the Board.
• Obvious conflict of interest is condoned along with total rejection by the Board for Audited Financial Reports and refusal to provide relevant financial information upon the request of residents. As residents attending the 2014 AGM now know more than ever, they have been misled on many issues where concealment of far too much information is taking place. Among many examples, a resident inquired with Board member at the meeting as to the cost of a video contract with a Board member. The response of the Board member was abhorrent and despicable. and refused to provide any information or respect to the inquirer. There is no place for such conduct by those supposedly representing the interests of fellow residents. It is of grave concern that information on all contracts, continues to be totally concealed by the Board.
• A most despicable accusation was made at the meeting by Tom McClocklin Jr., openly broadcasting to the meeting that one named resident refused payment of outstanding arrears for unpaid interest and other charges for services. Again, this is yet another blatant false and defamatory statement made by a Board member. Mr. McClocklin, will of course have to answer to this defamatory conduct in due course. RESIDENTS MUST BE ADVISED THAT THESE ARE TOTALLY FALSE ACCUSATIONS AND A REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE OF THESE ARREARS HAS BEEN REFUSED BY THE BOARD AND MANAGEMENT.
• Even though the chairman was provided several days prior to the meeting via email with the request of a unit owner to ensure that his motions be placed on the Agenda, the Chairman advised the meeting that he had not received this request. The Chairman accepted a motion for adjournment of the meeting without recognizing these motions. These motions were as follows:

MOTION (1) The vote required by unit owners at the Annual General Meeting to approve the Reserve Fund Budget shall be postponed indefinitely until such time as unit owners have been sufficiently informed and provided with all relevant information including recognition of all priority projects.

MOTION (2) All Directors of the Corporation shall sign a DIRECTORS CODE OF ETHICS in the format provided by CCI, the Canadian Condominium Institute and acknowledge completion of this document at the next meeting of the Board of Directors.

MOTION (3) The Board shall direct the caretaker to conduct inspection along with any required repair or maintenance within all units, of all mechanical and plumbing components for which the Corporation is responsible. This includes, perimeter heating lines, connections, zone valves, thermostats, water shut off valves, Enercon heat pump units, filter replacements, and inspection of ducting and other related components. This work shall be completed no later than October 31^st, 2014.

MOTION (4) The Corporation shall prepare and pass a Bylaw for the establishment of individual Sectors representing the respective interests of Commercial and Residential unit owners of the Corporation subject to section 47 and 47.1 of the Condominium Property Act. The Bylaw will provide for the management, control, administration use and enjoyment of the units, common property and common facilities in the Sector.

SUMMARY

It is very important to note, that as confirmed in the record of the 2013 AGM, and now in the record of the 2014 AGM, this Board has now openly stated, that it is the Board and the Board only, that will decide where your money will be spent and how much money you will contribute upon their demand. No more need for a Reserve Fund Budget and its required approval by unit owners. This dramatic display of ignorance, arrogance and disrespect for residents at the AGM, has now reached a very dangerous level and should certainly not be accepted by residents. The deafening silence of many residents at this point will most unfortunately result in very damaging consequences to all residents.

• It is very obvious, that the only way that residents will be able to achieve democratic representation in the building is with the adoption of the provisions of the available Sector structure of governance,  available as per the Condominium Property Act. It will only be then, that they will be permitted to oversee their own governance of the residential sector and determine their own REAL REPRESENTATION on the  Board of Directors.
•  Residents must make a sincere effort to understand that, for a number of years, ONE SINGLE COMMERCIAL OWNER AND ONE SINGLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT OWNER, have been capable of dictating the operations of the building with their combined unit factors exceeding 50% of all unit factors, and in turn, EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF THE CORPORATION. IN ADDITION, THESE TWO UNIT OWNERS ARE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHO IS ELECTED TO THE BOARD AND WHO IS NOT.
•  It is clear that the Board has strongly rejected any consideration or even discussion of the Sector structure. With the grave concern of conflict of interest issues, all Board members have been requested on numerous occasions to sign a DIRECTORS CODE OF ETHICS disclosure statement. These two unit owners adamantly refuse to sign this disclosure statement. As a result, all business of the Corporation requiring a majority vote, continues to be subject to this most undemocratic influence.
• Given the above, residents should now understand why the only way their vote can mean anything, is if the SECTOR STRUCTURE of governance,  is adopted by the Corporation which would enable independent property management and full democracy via elected representation of both the commercial and residential sectors on the Board. Until this is adopted, the future of the building will continue to dominated by as few as TWO UNIT OWNERS. THIS MUST COME TO AN END AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
• Until residents realize the facts of this matter AND SPEAK UP, they will continue to be subject to this constant and most damaging oppression on the part of the Board of Directors.
• All Board members are challenged to refute any and all of the factual information included in this review report of the AGM. It is all very obviously, clearly irrefutable.

Residents must again be provided with yet another stunning revelation that should be of grave concern to them. This involves the major RESERVE FUND/CAPITAL EXPENDITURE DECLARED by the Board of Directors, that being the elevators. This comes with no surprise to many residents, but others should be finding this DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURE BY THE BOARD, to be very alarming following a review of the facts. Board members should be the first ones to recognize the very damning evidence that now faces them and their conduct in this most questionable debacle. Residents have been advised at past Annual General Meetings by Tom McClocklin Sr., that in his opinion, the elevators should be replaced. A sequence of relevant events should be examined very closely:

July 9, 2013: The elevators are inspected by the Provincial Inspector. As is done on an annual basis, the inspector provided a report instructing the Corporation of what measures are required by the building to ensure adherence to any code requirements and ensure that the elevators are in optimal condition. Based on the inspection report provided, the building is directed to replace the steel components in the pits and clean several component areas. NO INSTRUCTION FOR REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF MECANICAL COMPONENTS OR ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS WERE ADVISED AS NONE WERE NECESSARY.

• March 1, 2014: The condo newsletter, states “ongoing study using consultants and building experts on our two major building requirements (elevators and parkade) continues.” It is further stated, “your board plans to hold an information meeting, probably in mid year”. 
• March 31, 2014: The board minutes state “Bob Kowalishin moved to accept the Otis tender to replace the mechanical system and controls of the two elevators at a cost of $304,000 plus taxes, to be shared 50/50 between residential and commercial unit owners”. Tom McClockin, CA, seconded. Carried. 
• May 18, 2014: The condo newsletter, states in reference to the BOARD APPROVED replacement of the elevators, “the savings in energy costs and maintenance are significant”. 
• July 7, 2014: Management distributes notice of an ELEVATOR CASH CALL, with the first installment due by July 31^st, the second installment by September 30^th, and a third installment due in early spring, “when the actual work starts in the building”.

A review of industry fees for the required work following the July 9, 2013 inspection, can very easily be determined and in fact this cost has recently been confirmed but remains concealed by the Board. Within days of this inspection, a request by the Board was made for a quotation to conduct all necessary work to ensure that both elevators were in optimum condition. All of the required work to ensure adherence to code requirements was quoted at a total cost of less than $40,000 for both elevators. Completion of this work would place both elevators in optimal condition.

 This is of course very damning evidence in that the Board has stated that the elevators no longer meet the required Code and the $300,000 plus expenditure was absolutely necessary. NO SUCH NOTICE WAS EVER RECEIVED THAT THE ELEVATORS DID NOT MEET THE REQUIRED CODE! Of course the inspection report stated something dramatically different. The Board has refused all requests to date to provide to residents a copy of this provincial inspection report.

Further, the Board has concealed the quotation obtained for services required in order to comply with the recommendations required in the inspection reports. IT CAN THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED, THAT THE $300,000 PLUS EXPENDITURE DECLARED BY THE BOARD IS TOTALLY UNNECCESSARY AND RESIDENTS HAVE CLEARLY BEEN MISINFORMED.

Contrary to a “planned information meeting” regarding the elevators “probably in mid year” as the Board advised, such meeting only took place following the many demands of residents. When this meeting finally did take place, the Board allowed discussion of the parkade project but refused to permit any questions or discussion of the elevator project which had already been DECLARED AND APPROVED by the Board. Many questions, no answers. We now of course know why.

As is the case with the DECLARATION BY THE BOARD for replacement of the parkade topping, residents have not been provided with any opportunity to participate in the review and approval process of the elevator project DECLARED by the Board. This is of course in contravention of both the Bylaws of the Corporation and the Condominium Property Act. As noted above, the Board accepted the “Otis tender”. Who was invited to tender and what were their tenders? Was a quotation obtained by the Board to simply address the requirements of the 2013 inspection report? What were the particulars of any such quotations?

The Board states that “the savings in energy costs and maintenance are significant”. The fact is, elevator energy costs are typically no more than 5% of building electrical costs which would suggest a cost of $6000 per year. A 10% energy saving (if in fact achieved) would be approximately $600 per year, hardly enough to justify a $300,000 plus expenditure. Fees for a maintenance service contract will always be required so considering a reasonable estimate of energy and maintenance cost reductions, they certainly do no justify this major expenditure. As was the case with the new heating system, “significant” energy cost reductions were promised yet it was proven that a “significant” INCREASE in these costs was actually realized.

It appears that a number of directors on our Board have once again been unduly influenced into the making of a most irresponsible decision, that being to unnecessarily spend well over $300,000 on the elevators. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent unnecessarily and well beyond estimates provided by the Board when the heating system was installed. This careless and unnecessary spending of residents money cannot be permitted. Should the commercial owner wish to spend this money on the elevators, let them spend their own money on the commercial elevator at their sole expense. Allow common sense to prevail and ensure that at least spending of resident funds is managed in a responsible manner.

For a Condominium Corporation that did not even have a Reserve Fund Budget for this past fiscal year, it is rather frightening to see the Board of Directors approve Reserve Fund projects without resident review and participation, and yet may very well cost some $1.5 TO $2. MILLION DOLLARS!  Immediate attention must be given to responsible budgeting and funding of the Reserve Fund. Priority projects must be completed as soon as possible. At this point, the facts suggest that neither the elevators or the parkade topping are priorities. The practice of major projects being declared by the Board and in turn announcing cash calls out of the blue demonstrates very questionable financial management. This cannot be permitted by residents.

Residents must demand immediate and responsible attention to the Corporation’s finances and ensure that their participation is respected as is required by our Bylaws and the Condominium Act. What is required immediately is, once and for all, establishment of a reasonable and responsible Reserve Fund Budget so that residents have some idea of just where they stand as to not only the near but long term obligations they may face.  Information provided by the Board to date on the parkade and elevator projects has been very minimal with much information being concealed from residents.

It is recommended that a vote for approval of the Reserve Fund Budget to be presented at the Annual General Meeting, be deferred until such time as residents have been provided with sufficient information to allow them to make an informed decision on any of the proposed expenditures and of course, those already DECLARED BY THE BOARD.

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.

Many of us have watched a nearby neighbor who always neglected the care of his home.

His home had not been painted in some thirty five years. Windows and frames were in need of repair. His concrete driveway and adjoining curb had not been maintained for many years and was full of cracks and disrepair, and runoff was now finding its way to the basement. The flower beds adjoined to the home had not been properly maintained and they also were causing leakage into the basement. Replacement of flashing where required, had long been neglected and was a further cause of leakage into the home.

Neglect of the perimeter heating lines and air conditioner had resulted in leaking zone valves and expansion joints. Water shutoff valves in the home had never been replaced and several incidents of their failure resulted in costly inconvenience to the family. The humidifier had been removed several years ago in order to save money. This of course at the expense of the health and well being of his family. The ducting for air circulation in the home had never been cleaned, yet further neglect of his family’s healthy environment. The monitor for the home security system failed some years ago and was simply not replaced in order to save money.

Further, this neighbor took no pride in his yard. The lawn was seldom watered, was filled with weeds, and was not mowed regularly. The hanging baskets, once hanging in front of his home have been removed several years ago as he found that caring for them was too much work. His garage floor was filthy, only cleaned once or twice per year. This all, very much an embarrassment to his neighbors.

Although his cash resources were very limited, this homeowner came home one day and announced to his family that he was immediately going to proceed with painting, electrical work, some flooring and carpentry work, towards developing an exercise area in the basement. The cost would be over $7000. His family questioned him as to the priorities within the home, but he simply advised that he had made the decision and that it was final.

The neighborhood at Spadina Towers has experienced this exact same situation with very much the same obvious neglect of the owner. However, given we live in a Condominium, it is the Board that is responsible for such behavior and neglect. The decision to fund the cost of an exercise area of more than $7000, is of course most disrespectful of residents who have been excluded from any participation in this matter. Unfortunately, it is they who will pay for this expenditure which of course should belong at the very bottom of the priority list for proposed Reserve Fund Expenditures. Do residents know, our Reserve Fund is basically depleted, yet a very foolish expenditure has just recently, been made on the exercise room!

Responsible financial management requires consideration of priorities and affordability. The Board, must now demonstrate at least some sense of responsibility, and recognize the priorities and address them with a responsible budget. As is the case with the family mentioned above, neighbors within Spadina Towers are now watching the Board and reports indicate, that they certainly do not appreciate what they see. Resale value of condominium units within the building have been negatively impacted as a result of such neglect and conduct on the part of the Board and management.

Considering the intentional absence of any Reserve Fund Budget, an analysis of the substantial deferred and neglected maintenance and Capital Expenditures at Spadina Towers, has been proposed by others with special emphasis on a responsible priority of these expenditures. It is clearly apparent that most of the neglect relates to the residential Tower. It is very interesting, that those expenditures in the interest of the commercial owner, have in turn, clearly become the priorities. Residential Board members have simply conceded to the wishes of the commercial owner, and have forgotten just who they in fact represent. Your neighbors within the building are watching and again, they don’t like what they see. 

It  has been stated that Vector Construction was engaged in about 2000, to repair cracks on the driveway. The work was in fact successful and more than 90 percent of their crack filling remains intact today. At the time, Vector made it very clear that the driveway surface was to be monitored and maintained on an annual basis. If there was such great concern with Vector’s work, why was there no concern or effort made to address THESE RECOMMENDATIONS?. Why was another contractor not brought in if there was such great concern?

From 2003 to 2008, a few proactive Board members, did take the initiative to act upon this deferred maintenance. They directed the caretaker to immediately attend to the matter but additional maintenance was required. The property manager was directed to obtain a quote to perform additional sealing work. No such quote was obtained.

Another year later in 2009, Tony Boryski, the Building Committee chairman, prepared a report which included a very strong message that immediate action was required to address the continuing deferral of the driveway maintenance and the neglect of leakage onto vehicles in the parkade. The chairman refused to hear this report for several consecutive meetings. Mr. Boryski directed the caretaker once again, to immediately conduct maintenance work on the driveway. CCD Western was also asked to do some maintenance work. In the October 9, 2009 Board minutes, it was stated that “CCD Western came in to do some caulking. They finished half the job and have not yet returned”.

Yet another year later in 2010, the Board advised: “Last fall surface cracks over a portion of the parkade were filled which resulted in a significant reduction in the overall water seepage. A permanent long term solution will likely require a much more extensive fix and is still being determined.” Later in 2010, the Board advised: “A permanent fix for the parkade is a monumental job. The work has been investigated but no costs have been estimated – this will be costly. We have been filling the cracks in the parkade in an attempt to stop the leaks. This is a temporary solution.” Given the above history, it is clear that when the regular annual maintenance procedure recommended by Vector was followed, “significant reduction in seepage was experienced”.

Again, more than a yet another year later, in 2011, a report was obtained from Kenyon Engineering with a cost estimate of $650,000 plus engineering fees and taxes. This did not include any recommendation for repair or replacement, or address of any delaminated or deteriorated concrete which might be discovered in the structural slab. CLEARLY, RESIDENTS  HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITHIN THIS REPORT, WITH NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY SUCH STRUCTURAL DAMAGE EVEN EXISTS! Given the evidence submitted to date, THERE HAS YET TO BE ANY CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF STRUCTURAL DAMAGE, thus permitting serious consideration of measures outlined in the Foster Report.

It is most unfortunate that the measures recommended within the Foster Report, receive no recognition, where at the same time, no evidence of structural damage has been demonstrated to exist at Spadina Towers.

I would very strongly suggest, that before the Board feels empowered to proceed with replacment the parkade topping, that they reconsider their position as per their required adherence to provincial and federal legislation. It is clearly unjust on the part of the Board, to misrepresent any such support for a major reserve fund expenditure, where insufficient support has been provided, whether it be technical or financial.

More than two further years later in 2013, yet another engineer was engaged to review the matter. Finally, in 2013, after many years of maintenance neglect and failure to act on the matter, a proposal was made to the Board by concerned residents who were anxious to see some prompt and serious effort to address the matter (See the Foster report). Given the failure of the Board to act, the proposal was intended to initiate immediate attention to the matter and make a sincere effort to extend the life of the existing structure until such time as there would be sufficient reason to address any legitimate concerns as to structural damage.

Before any suggestion of an entire replacement of the parkade topping is to be considered, a stamped structural engineering report (which requires destructive testing and analysis) must be provided that clearly demonstrates sufficient structural damage to warrant replacement of the topping. Residents should be provided with this report and any related information to ensure that they are fully informed before they approve of any such reserve fund (and Capital Expenditure) project.

There are a number of very qualified local contractors that might be considered for this project (IF INDEED THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED), and should this project actually need to take place, residents must be provided upon request, a copy of all relevant tender documents including the details of the invitations to tender.

It is now into the second half of 2014, and the Board has advised that we still do not know what the cost will be to remove and replace the surface area. As well, the neglect of effective ongoing maintenance continues. Again, yet another year has been neglected as to the annual required maintenance of the parkade surface.

With the uncertainty of costs and the inability of the Board to provide such information, it is clear that residents must be provided with all information both technical and financial, before any definitive decisions are made.

CAPITAL COST VS. CURRENT EXPENSE

Unfortunately, the neglect of required annual maintenance relating to the parkade for many years, has now reached a point where an entire removal and replacement of the surface area is being contemplated. This is obviously a Capital expenditure and not simply a current operating expense. The cost of the necessary annual maintenance which was neglected for many years would have been a current expense in the year the maintenance was conducted.

As has been clearly demonstrated by the Board over the past few years, there is not simply suggestion, but they in fact DEMAND that our major Capital projects be treated as current expenses rather than as a Capital expenditure. Residents ask, why is the Board making this DEMAND in such an adamant manner? First of all, our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act do require a particular procedure for Reserve Fund projects including a Reserve Fund Budget. It is the unit owners, not the Board who approve of that Budget and the amounts required. Further, any Capital Expenditures must be approved by a special resolution of unit owners requiring two thirds support. It has been suggested many times that the Board has DEMANDED current expensing of these major Capital projects for two primary reasons:

1. The Board does not want the participation of residents in approving these projects. If they are Reserve Fund related, sufficient funding of the Reserve fund and approval of a budget including proposed expenditures, must be approved by the unit owners. If they are Capital expenditures, then participation of unit owners goes one step further, and a special resolution requiring two thirds support is required. In the Boards mind, they feel that they can circumvent this requirement by declaring the cost of the project to be simply a current expense (repair and maintenance).  With an expenditure such as the parkade or elevators, the nature of the proposed expenditure is well beyond simply repair and maintenance and is very much Capital in nature. The definition of a Capital expenditure vs. current expenditure has been provided in previous posts to this site.
2. Our Board includes unit owners who own units in the building that are rental revenue units. These include the commercial owner (44.31%) and a residential unit owner who owns  (5.07%). They have a combined interest of 50.07% of the building. In other words, they are able to control not only Board decisions but also decisions made by the unit owners at a General Meeting. The exception to this is if a special resolution is required. Considering potential conflict of interest issues, numerous requests of the Board over the past several years has been requested of them to provide on record, an Ethics Disclosure Statement in a format that is commonly used and respected by members of the CCI (Canadian Condominium Institute). This provision would certainly provide a very much needed and formal response  to the many serious concerns of residents relating to such matters. The Board has adamantly rejected any such provision. Why? It has been suggested that there is in fact very good reason on the part of Board members for this adamant refusal to sign on to such a statement, as there is in fact reason on their part for concern. In any event, residents must demand these ETHICS DISCLOSURE  STATEMENTS before the next Annual General Meeting.

These suggestions have further advised, that owners of revenue units, obviously want to reduce taxes on their income from these units by claiming these major Capital projects as current operating expenses which can then be deducted in full in the current taxation year. If they are approved as Capital Expenditures as they should be, they are not able to write the total expense off in the current year, but over a number of years. This, they do not want to see.

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles clearly define such projects to be Capital in nature and not simply a current expense. Canada Revenue Agency has also reviewed this matter as it specifically relates to projects in our building (heating system, parkade resurfacing project and the elevator project). In addition to their respect for GAAP, they have found these projects to be Capital in nature.

As a result, a special resolution of unit owner approval is required before any such project takes place. There continues to be a great amount of confusion and uncertainty. Today, we still don’t know what the cost will be. Now of all times, the Board has allowed themselves to be convinced that the elevators require immediate replacement.

 AN ALREADY MADE DECISION BY THE BOARD WITHOUT THE REQUIRED APPROVAL OF RESIDENTS TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE TOPPING OF THE PARKADE HAS BEEN MADE LONG AGO. Yet no definitive structural engineering assessment report, has been provided and stamped by a structural engineer, and provided to residents. Such a report must include a thorough investigation, including the results of destructive testing and investigation procedures required in a professional submitted structural engineering report. As with the provincial elevator inspection report, ALL REQUESTS FOR SUCH REPORTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE BOARD! Residents must be clearly provided with sufficient evidence and supporting information, that there is in fact structural damage relating to the parkade and further, a confirming report by the provincial inspector, directing immediate major expenditures on the elevators. This project cannot proceed without the appropriate participation of residents and their approval which is of course subject to their review of this information that has been requested.

It is very unreasonable of the Board to request any payment toward these projects, until residents have have been sufficiently informed and the required protocol of our Bylaws and the Condominium Act are respected. The resale price of condominiums in this building over the last few years has been negatively impacted because of this confusion and uncertainty in this building.

Provision of the required Reserve Fund budget was rejected by the Board at the last AGM for the reason that “there would be no reserve fund expenditures”. Yet at the same time, they have approved on their own, expenditures that may in fact approach two million dollars. What is a prospective purchaser of a condo in this building to think? All of this confusion and uncertainty can only negatively impact our property values. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Finally, residents have long requested financing options of such Capital Expenditures if they do in fact take place. With currently very low interest rates, a financing arrangement on behalf of residents can easily be arranged by the Board. A $100,000 cash call could be financed and repaid at approximately $100 per month. A number of current Board members have, on numerous occasions, both in the past and very recently, provided a most disrespectful response and comment to such resident requests, by stating, if you can’t afford the fees your are being charged, you shouldn’t be living here!  Why does there continue to be such demonstration  of lack of respect to our residents? It is these board members who shouldn’t be living here, as they are not welcome by their neigbors. Residents are entitled to a demonstration of responsible financial management from their Board. The required respect of residents, does in fact require the Boards sincere effort to respect and accommodate finance options for their unit owners as is done in many condominiums.

I joined the Board of Directors in 1995, and remained on the Board for fourteen years. Over much of that of time, the Board respected democracy and encouraged the views and participation of residents, particularly regarding major expenditures. In fact, there was always unit owner consensus on Reserve Fund expenditures which of course required their participation and approval. Hopefully, our Board will become much more transparent with the Corporations business. Further, we can only remain hopeful that someday, we can return to the era of democracy that we all enjoyed at one time.

The Board has once again proceeded with inappropriate approval of a Capital Expenditure, that now being the elevators. Once again, this conduct of the Board is obviously in violation of both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act. The call for cash is also not permitted prior to receiving the benefits derived from the Capital Expenditure. No such expenditure is permitted without the review and approval of unit owners at a general meeting.

As was the case with the past Capital Expenditure for the heating system, the Board is again promoting the “significant savings in energy and maintenance costs” in their support of the elevator expenditure. As we now know, energy costs following the Capital Expenditure for the new heating system, increased dramatically.  The facts have been established, and  the onus is upon the Board to provide factual demonstration of the builidngs energy costs. The Boards practice of spending other peoples money at their own will, can no longer be tolerated by residents of Spadina Towers. These Capital projects, will not proceed, until all residents, have participated in a legally recognized vote of unit owners on the matter.

The proposed parkade project is yet another Capital Expenditure being considered without the required participation of residents. This project will not proceed without the required participation of residents.

The garage floor has been neglected for so long, that the soil has caked on the floor and will require much further effort to remove this caked material as soon as possible. This neglect must not be allowed to continue and once the caked material has been removed, monthly washing is absolutely necessary in order to prevent this problem and the need for additional and unnecessary costs beyond that of regular maintenance.

Another Capital Expenditure, in the excercise room, has been inappropriately approved by the Board which again is in violation of our Bylaws and the Condominium Act. Any such expenditure, to be born by residents, is clearly, most disrespectul of responsible management of residents funds. It is suggested that this item be put on a list of Reserve Fund Expenditures TO BE CONSIDERED BY RESIDENTS, at the next annual general meeting.

There is obviously a further question as to who specifically, are the intended beneficiaries of this expenditure. They of course, are very obvious. You would think, that these beneficiaries, would provide a formal request of the Board, to establish  some reason for receiving a financial benefit of the Corporation.

After approximately four years, you would think that there has been enough “discussion with consultants” regarding the ongoing problems with the domestic hot water system. It is time for some action, not simply “further discussion”.

Contrary to the comments made in the report regarding the buildings “sparse and sketchy” historical information, there has been since the building’s inception, readily available and very extensive historical information on file, all of which has been kept in the 4^th floor office. Since Colliers began management of the building, most records have been stored off site (at another property) as has been disclosed by Colliers employees.

Considering a potential change in management, immediate steps must be taken to ensure that CURRENT, RECENT AND HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS of the Corporation are in fact stored in the 4th floor office. Confirmation of such, must be provided to residents in writing which should be included in the Board’s next monthly report.The Board is hereby advised, that the 4th floor office has always been and must continue to be, the secure place of storage of all of the Corporation’s records. Any objection of management and the commercial owner to this request, must be presented to a general meeting, where a decision will be made subject to the provisions of the Condominium Property Act.

Appropriate building photos are included in our reserve fund study report which are included in the cost of that report. Should any further photos be required, they can easily be taken with a common digital camera. A motion picture taken where there is no motion is not a very responsible expenditure. Why such careless use of residents money when we have such a long list of priority projects?

About ten years ago, it was determined that the penthouse structure could very easily accomodate installation of a very secure, surrounding cable that could in turn be used to anchor window cleaning equipment. Yet every year, we simply hear that “investigating” solutions continue. Again, residents have heard more than enough about these never ending “investigations”.

Residents are reminded, that at the last Annual General Meeting, a question was asked of the treasurer as to why there was no presentation of a Reserve Fund Budget. His response was, that the Board has no expectation of any Reserve Fund Expenditures in the comming year.

Well, we all know now, that this stated position of the treasurer, is well deserving of some very serious question among residents. During the current year, we have been advised of inappropriate approval by the Board of the most costly Capital Expenditures in the history of the building, with estimated costs of BETWEEN ONE AND TWO MILLION DOLLARS! The Board is hereby advised, that all reasonable minded residents will reject any such suggested expenditures, particularly when such projects are considered without any respect for resident’s review and consideration of such projects.

The first four months of energy costs for 2014 are in and the results are not good.

Net energy costs for the January to April period of 2014 vs the same period in 2010, are up $16,654.46. Rate adjustments have been considered in the comparative analysis in order to ensure a true and accurate comparison.

This brings the total accumulated, net increase in energy costs since installation of the new heating system to $98,971.46. This considering the fact that we were promised that the new heating system would provide SAVINGS of this amount or more by this time. A $200,000 discrepancy in promised savings versus actual increases has clearly resulted in a major negative impact to the Corporations finances. This deficiency has continued to be reflected in depleting Common Expense and Reserve Funds. Cash calls to unit owners will of course continue in order to pay for these ongoing and dramatic cost increases.

SCC PROPOSED RESERVE FUND BUDGET-4

Upadated on June 6, 2014 by CJ

Residents of Spadina Towers are about to be assessed major cash calls, to fund deferred or neglected projects, primarily of a capital nature. The following is a proposed budget that will provide residents with a more reasonable view and time frame, for completion of these projects and an estimate of their required contribution which may be demanded from them over the next few years. Residents should be provided with some form of budget so they are able to assess the potential financial impact upon them. The Board is requested to first of all prepare a Reserve Fund Budget this year, and provide for the required review and approval of unit owners.

The attached schedule is a prioritized list of capital expenditures and deferred maintenance that is to be considered at Spadina Towers. It is requested of the Board to please review this schedule and the attached proposed Reserve Fund Budget which I believe is in the interest of all unit owners to order to provide them with some understanding of just what these projects are and which are the priorities. Please click on the link below to view the schedule.

Capital Expenditures & Deferred Maintenance

Posted in Spadina Towers | Leave a reply

Q. Does the size of the assessment make a difference?

A. Size certainly does matter. The larger the assessment (generally) the larger the amount of work that is required. Sometimes this work is done over a period of time, and therefore the total cost of the assessment isn’t always known. Often this type of assessment is sold to the owners by saying “that it will improve the value of the property.” In most cases this is true, but a lot has to do with the management of the project and money. I have been involved in projects where the concept of the scope of work of the assessment was fantastic and would definitely add value to the property once it’s done. However, if the project is not managed properly it can lead to further assessments.

Q. If the value is only going to improve why would people be nervous about buying a condo with an assessment?

A. Fear of the unknown. In my experience buyers fear that unknown quotient – how it will turn out, will there be additional assessments, will the project well be well managed? They are also comparing the properties that they are looking at now in their current state, and it is often hard for people to conceptualize the work that needs to be done. Again this depends on the size of the assessment. If the assessment is only $1500.00 and the seller is willing to pickup the tab it is a lot more palatable than something in the range of $20,000. Even if the larger sum will be due and payable in installments. It is because of uncertainty that buyers will stay away. The more detailed the plan, the lower the uncertainty and the more likely the buyer will consider the property.

Q. How do I sell my property if I have had a large assessment?

A. Information is important:

• Having as much documentation about the “why, how and when” will certainly be helpful.
• Details about the scope of the work will help buyers understand what inconveniences they may have to endure.
• Financial details of when the money will be due. Will it be lump sum instalments or added to the existing condo fees?

Read more: Condo assessments | The Edmonton Real Estate Blog

Reserves for deferred maintenance (performed less frequently than yearly, to maintain the asset’s useful life) and capital expenditures (purchasing or replacing assets that have a useful life over one year, or extending the useful life over one year) are required for certain building components, unless the membership votes annually to waive or reduce reserve funding.

Condominium associations must reserve funds for roof replacement, building painting, concrete maintenance, as well as for any other item for which the replacement or deferred maintenance is required.

The amount required to be annually set aside in reserve is computed by a formula that takes the estimated cost of deferred maintenance, or the replacement cost, and divides it by the remaining useful life of the asset.

As an example, assume the estimated cost to replace the roof of a condominium building is $100,000, and it is also estimated that the roof will have to be replaced in 10 years. Therefore, the current annual contribution that must be placed in the roof-replacement reserve account is $10,000.

The primary purpose of establishing and funding reserves is to spread the costs of major expenditures over the lives of the assets to be maintained or replaced, in order to avoid large annual assessment increases or the need to levy special assessments, which some owners may be unable to afford all at once.

Who Is Liable for Under-funded Reserve Accounts?

The failure to adequately fund association reserve accounts can be costly to homeowners and could potentially result in legal action against owner-elected directors of the association. When there are budget shortfalls and inadequate reserves for a capital or deferred maintenance expense, the first step generally is imposition of a special assessment against the unit owners. This means that, in addition to regular monthly or quarterly assessments paid by unit owners, the unit owners are required to make additional special assessment payments to the association to cover the expense. In some cases, the association needs to borrow funds, if such loans can be obtained by the association, to supplement the revenue obtained from the special assessments. Borrowing funds, if they are available, adds the cost of financing to the cost of the underlying expenditure. In addition to the obvious financial risks to the association and the unit owners, there are also risks of legal liability. Owner-elected boards are at risk for breach of fiduciary claims for failing to cause the appropriate funding of reserve accounts. A verdict against a director for a breach of fiduciary claim could result in personal liability of the director.

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE…PROCRASTINATORS BEWARE!

The cable infrastructure within the building requires upgrading. Problems have been reported to the Board for a number of years now, with no response received. As has been suggested in the past, the Board should be negotiating with Shaw Cable to address this problem. The Corporation may in fact have to contribute to the cost of this repair or upgrade.

A number of years ago, a review of communication infrastructure issues was conducted by the appropriate authorities including the CRTC. As a result of this review, it was determined that the ownership of the communication infrastructure within a building is in fact owned by the property owner. In turn, the property owner could be held responsible for modifications or improvements to this infrastructure.

In any event, the Board is responsible for prompt review of this matter, and ensure that unit owners are provided with a communications infrastructure that accommodates unit owner requirements and complies with current industry standards. This deficiency is a further example of yet another addition to the long list of deferred maintenance in the building.

Therefore, unit owners must ensure, that the Board address ALL DEFERRED  MAINTENANCE projects before any unnecessary and ILLEGITIMATE Reserve Fund expenditures are approved. A halt of the inappropriate RESERVE FUND EXPENDITURES, including those related to the exercise room, must take place immediately, in order to address the growing liability of these DEFERRED MAINTENANCE projects. Some of these deferred projects have been noted in recent posts to this site.

Deferred maintenance and its correction, should be included in the Reserve Fund budget. As unit owners were informed at the last AGM, the treasurer advised that there were no reserve fund expenditures anticipated in the next fiscal year, and therefore there was no need to provide unit owners with a Reserve Fund budget.

Very troubling indeed.

Once again, residents have been provided with incomplete financial statements. There is no balance sheet, no Reserve Fund statement and no supporting notes pertaining to the larger expenses each month. Again, this lack of information and transparency is in violation of both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act and further displays a lack of moral respect as well.

This delayed and sloppy financial reporting continues month by month. The Board continues to be most reluctant to answering questions of residents regarding financial matters. As is well known, the Board skips through the financial statements at every AGM without proper response to the questions of residents. They would prefer to not be bothered with the simple questions of residents.

Residents have been informed that rather than providing them with a strategic plan within the Reserve Fund in respect of the many recommendations of the Reserve Fund Study, they will simply be subject to cash calls when the Board feels them to be necessary. Reserve fund expenditures are required to be approved by unit owners and at no time can Reserve Fund expenditures be made that exceed the dollar amount approved by unit owners. The cost of the recent heating system resulted in a final cost that exceeded the cost submitted to residents at a general meeting by more than $500,000. This violation resulted in residents paying for the majority of this unnecessary and unapproved expenditure. In addition, it also resulted in the depletion of the Reserve Fund to the lowest level in the history of the building.

Yet the Board with egg on their face, attempts to disguise their major blunder with yet further deceit by telling residents that they are doing them a favour by not having a strategic contribution plan to manage the Reserve Fund according to the recommendations of the Reserve Fund Study. This deceit can only go on for so long. One of these days, when the Board once again suddenly demands funds without appropriate approval, residents who will finally speakup and voice their concerns over this most insidious conduct of the Board.

ENERGY COSTS

For the first two months of 2014, net energy costs are up a staggaring $10,000 plus (over 30% increase) compared to January and February, 2010, prior to installation of the new hot water heating system. The median temperature for both periods were about the same. Energy rate adjustments have of course been considered in this comparison.

The Board of Directors however, continues to report to residents that “we continue to see savings in our energy costs”. Unfortunately, it is apparent that our newest Board member is being provided with inaccurate and misleading information from management and his fellow board members.

EXERCISE ROOM

The Board has again approved yet another Reserve Fund and Capital expenditure, that being the exercise room. Residents must be provided an opportunity to participate and voice their preferences as to what they wish to see done in this area including the cost.

ELEVATOR REPLACEMENT

This Reserve Fund and Capital Expenditure, must also include the participation and input of residents before they are asked to make any financial contribution. As per our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act, this expenditure cannot be considered until consultation with residents is completed and their approval is received.

PARKING DECK REPAIR

It has now been several years that we have heard that the parkade surface is in critical need of replacement. Yet as the years go by, this area continues to be neglected with no effort to conduct any annual maintenance. Once again, this expenditure cannot be considered until consultation with residents is completed and their approval is received. It is interesting to note, that the proposed option of the repair of the surface area, is simply an adherence to what has been recommended in our Reserve Fund Study, which was conducted more than five years ago. The failure of the Board to respect the recommendations of normal maintenance in this study, has now resulted in yet another  deferred maintenance project that could have been avoided.

SUMMARY

The Board has failed and refused to recognize that spending other people’s money without their consultation or approval, is not permitted by our Bylaw’s or the Condominium Property Act. The Board has apparently failed or refused to recognize the importance of responsible maintenance in the building. This deferred maintenance is continuing to accumulate at a rapid pace. Painting and repair of balconies, maintenance and repair of perimeter heat lines and heat pumps, replacement of the humidifier, preventive maintenance and cleaning of drain lines, purchase of spare Enercon units, inspection and replacement of water shut off valves, installation of water supply isolation valves, are only a few examples of maintenance that has been deferred. Neglect of proper maintenance by management and the Board, has of course led to a great amount of unnecessary damage and inconvenience to residents for a number of years now. We are also now paying for this neglect with probably the highest insurance premium and deductible for a condominium property in Saskatoon. It is time for management and the Board to begin taking their responsibilities seriously.

Unfortunately, the Board refuses to correct their inappropriate approval and in turn, lack of respect for residents in their turning of a blind eye to unit owner modifications and misuse of common areas in both commercial and residential areas of the building.

In the residential areas of the building, common area finished entry doors in some units have been painted a totally different color and unit numbers have been affixed to the adjacent wall to the door entry, with yet a totally different color again. As building regulations were not respected by neither the Board or the owner at the time of these modifications, it is not the responsibility of a new owner to correct this violation, but is now the responsibility of the Board. Unfortunately, all unit owners will have to pay for the cost of correcting this negligence on the part of the Board.

In the commercial areas of the building, there are also violations that have simply been neglected by the Board of Directors. First of all, the inappropriate approval by the Board to install a pressure reducing valve in order to restrict water pressure levels on the commercial floors, is subject to serious question. All plumbing lines and fixtures since the inception of the building, were designed with consideration of the range of water pressure levels provided by the City of Saskatoon.

The only reason a pressure reducing valve would be required, is if modifications to the water distribution system within the building were not capable of handling what have been to date normal water pressure levels. Therefore, obvious questions include, what modifications were made in the commerical area which were not capable of accomodating normal water pressure levels? Of course, our Bylaws, Regulations and the Condominium Property Act require a detailed report from any unit owner prior to acceptance of any modification which may impact the infrastructure of the building.

The commercial owners have installed an air conditioner unit in a fire lane regulated area in the parkade adjacent to the south east mechanical room. A commercial cooling unit for computer systems has also been installed in a common area in the parkade. These units could have been installed within the commercial unit level one, but as the lost of space  would have reduced revenue to the commercial owner, the Board was unduly influenced (and by way of negligence on their part), to permit the installation, which is contrary to our Bylaws and the Condominium Act.

The commercial owners are now renting  common area to non-unit owners, the north east storage room in the parkade, which is a common area of the building. Further, they are using as storage, an area in the firelane adjacent to this storage room. Does this mean that the opposite south east storage room is now available for income to residents from rental of the south east common area storage room? Of course not. Neither of these areas are intended or permitted to generate rental income.

The commercial owners have for some time, rented to their tenants, the common area parking stall designated in our Bylaws, to be used exclusively by our caretaker. As a result, the caretaker parks his larger vehicle in a lateral stall which creates inconvenience and a hazard to those residents who park in this area. This problem would not exist if he would park in his own designated stall. Further, the caretaker, is now using this same area, for storage which further extends the hazard. Why is the caretaker not using his designated parking stall?

The common area in front of the building is not to be used for commercial signage outside of the banner on the front wall. A resolution was made at the last AGM to install signage which would recognize the building commonly know as Spadina Towers. Apparently, there has been no effort on the part of the Board to act upon the resolution. There has been great support for a larger, professional sign, to be mounted on the front lawn, clearly describing the site and building as SPADINA TOWERS and the address of 728/730 Spadina Crescent East.

The decor at the front of the building is very important to residents. This is where they live, and they are entitled to recognition of their preferences as to the front lawn, the flower bed, and all other areas at the front of the building. A few of our residents have for many years,  been very active in the landscaping maintenance at the front of the building. These residents should be invited to participate in the selection and placement of flowers, and providing direction as to the required maintenance to all landscaping.  Residents deserve responsible attention and respect to their input on landscaping which is very much a part of their home.

A primary common area is of course the underground parkade. Apart from the DUTY OF CARE provision of our Bylaws, and the Condominium Property Act, there is also the principle of common sense, which is obviously not being practised by our Board of Directors.  We may very well have the filthiest underground parkade in all of Saskatoon. There is no responsibly managed property that would allow such neglect to a parkade as the one at Spadina Towers.

Again, this clearly demonstrates neglect of reasonable care and respect for the interest of our residents. Where is the idea comming from where the floor only requires cleaning twice per year? One can only imagine. Do our residential Board members, particulary those who are absent for much of the winter and do not experience the filthy conditions including a fog of dust in the air, have no respect for those residents who reside in the building over the winter? The primary traffic during the week, is of course commercial tenants who enter and exit the parkade at least twice per day. This traffic is well beyond what is experienced in residential condominium properties. Therefore, far more cleaning is required, not less.

It is interesting that snow removal is demanded on a daily basis for the benefit of the commercial owner, when very often it is not required at all. Yet, our Board has the gaul to suggest that the residential parking area requires cleaning only twice per year! How can  our residential Board members be so supportive of this neglect?

It is suggested that the Board act immediately upon these common area issues.

The Board continues to proceed with ongoing reserve fund expenditures without any respect for the required procedure which includes the participation, review and approval of residents. The Bylaws of the Corporation and the Condominium Property Act, require that unit owners be provided with a Reserve Fund Budget on an annual basis. This budget includes proposed expenditures for the next fiscal year and requires the approval of unit owners. A further provision within the Bylaws, provides that at no time shall reserve fund expenditures exceed the amount approved by unit owners.

Residents must understand that these requirements of the Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act are in their best interest. The ongoing rejection of the Board to respect these laws and simply approve on their own, these expenditures, and then simply demand payment from residents without providing any opportunity for residents to participate in any way other than writing a cheque upon demand can no longer be tolerated. This practice clearly demonstrates both conceit and deceit on the part of the Board.

For those who have read the reports provided by the Board, it is clearly apparent that the Board has their own agenda as to reserve fund expenditures. The participation of residents is unfortunately not on this agenda. RESIDENTS WILL BE SHOCKED BY WHAT IS COMMING THEIR WAY IN YET FURTHER CASH CALLS. Should residents fail to voice objection to this most troubling situation, they will simply continue to participate by writing cheques upon demand.

During the week of March 17th, an inspection took place within the residential common area of the building where the caretaker accompanied this person and discussed the fire alarm system.

During this inspection, the caretaker advised this inspector, that the fire alarm system worked very well. In fact, he further stated, so well, that many elderly residents were complaining about the EXTREME LOUDNESS of the fire alarm when activated. The inspector immediately responded that this was a good thing versus them not being able to hear. The caretaker and the inspector both responded with laughter and agreed that the alarm system was working very well if residents were in fact complaining that the fire alarm was too loud!

In the past, residents have, on many occassions, expressed their concern over the lack of decibels (loudness) with the new alarm system. There has never been an attempt to address this very serious concern of many residents.

Several years ago, a representative from ADT (our automated fire alarm system) conducted an inspection and advised that the existing alarm system was just fine and that the decibel (loudness) level of the EXISTING  alarm system at that time, could very easily be increased to a much higher level if necessary. Contrary to this information being provided, this information was neglected by the Board, and a new alarm system was installed. Since the time of this new installation, residents have been deprived of an alarm with anywhere near the capacity of the previous system which was more than compatible with current regulations.

Residents recently received in the month of March, a copy of the minutes from the Board of Directors meeting held on January 10^th, 2014. As has been expressed in the past, there is no valid reason for a two month delay in distribution of the minutes. It is very common in well managed condominium corporations to see monthly reports provided within seven days following the meeting.

We continue to see approved  Reserve Fund expenditures recorded in the minutes, however, they are not reflected within a Reserve Fund report or balance sheet which are required in legitimate monthly financial reports.  At the Annual General Meeting held last fall, the treasurer was asked why there was no reserve fund budget provided to the meeting for review and approval. His response was simply; there will be no reserve fund expenditures!

 For those of us who know better, such conduct on the part of those involved  in the financial administration of our Corporation, is of grave concern and deserves appropriate response.

 Once again, the Board is reminded that there are requirements and obligations on the part of the Board to comply with both our Bylaws and the Condominium Property Act regarding the Reserve Fund and financial statements. Yet, this Board feels that this is unnecessary. This neglect of responsible financial reporting is unacceptable and residents demand the immediate attention and appropriate response of the Board.

Unfortunately, our board members apparently, have not taken the time to review our energy costs and continue to provide inaccurate and misleading information to our residents. It seems that the Board refuses to recognize actual energy costs since the installation of the new hot water heating system.

Net energy costs have IN FACT risen dramatically over this period and yet the Board chooses to misinform residents with contrary information. Why does the Board refuse to provide residents with the facts?

Cleaning services in the building have continued to deteriorate and yet the Board has failed to respond to the concerns of residents. As has been mentioned previously, all caretakers in the past have washed the parkade floor during the winter months on a monthly basis and even more often when required. This is a common maintenance procedure in any well managed condominium parkade. The floor in our parkade may very well be the worst maintained in the city of Saskatoon. It has been left neglected for so long that a great deal of time is now required to scrape and remove the build up of dirt before the floor can even be washed. This is not acceptable to our residents and certainly well below the required standards of most residents. This is primarily a residential building and residents deserve better. To suggest anything less than regular monthly washing of the floor in the winter months, is very disrespectful of residents.

The neglect of parkade cleaning of course leads directly to the wear and tear of the hallway carpets and increased costs of  their maintenance. Since the current caretaker has been here, the hallway carpets have never been shampooed. Is carpet cleaning as required, not included in the caretakers contract? For many years prior, the hallway carpets were shampooed, by the caretaker, at least once in both the spring and the fall. Finally after receiving repeated complaints from residents, the carpets were recently shampooed although not by the caretaker as is one of his duties, but by a service company at of course a much greater cost to the building. The unfortunate selection of the recent carpet, will now require much more maintenance at much greater cost.

The new carpets are simply not compatible with multi resident traffic and residents must now pay the price for this clearly unjust decision.  Concerns of residents were clearly voiced at a residents meeting held for the purpose of receivng their input. All concerns and recommendations expressed by residents at this meeting were totally rejected.

The domestic hot water system problem requires no further review of “our consultants and building manager”. Residents have become very annoyed with these continuing “reviews” of consultants and engineers. Why were emergency service and warranty issues not addressed in the original contract of purchase. Who on the part of the Board entered into the contract and what effort was made to address these basic requirements at that time?

There are questions relating to the need for a pressure reducing valve on the commercial floors. We have had no such problem since the inception of the building. All pressured water lines and fittings in the building are rated well beyond incoming water pressure from the city water main. Further explanation as to the need for such an expenditure is required. Going forward, it would be in the best interest of residents if a cap of $5000 was placed on expenditures approved by the Board.

This is why a Reserve Fund budget is necessary and required by the Condominium Act where proposed expenditures are included in the budget and that budget approved by unit owners at a general meeting. Serious questions certainly come to mind when considering the refusal of our Board to present a legally required Reserve Fund budget at all. Therefore, it is suggested that this expenditure wait for such approval at the next general meeting of unit owners.

 In the January 2014 report of the Board of Directors, it was stated, “Mr. Justice Benjamin Goldstein has kindly offered his assistance to fully reviewing the 1993 Condo Act to attempt to help us clarify“. “We are grateful for his experience and time.” This issue of course, related to legal responsibility for the cost of replacing damaged front wall windows in our building.

Mr. Goldstein has failed to provide any such review and has simply left the matter in limbo. He and his fellow Board members, have not only rejected compliance wtih the laws governing this issue, but more importantly, have clearly demonstrated  a most troubling lack of respect for their fellow residents.

Should our Corporation require a legal opinion on any matter with relevance to the interest of any or all unit owners of our Corporation, only QUALIFIED AND INDEPENDENT legal resources should be used. In this matter, one needs only to read Section 8 (2) of the Condominium Property Act. No legal opinion is required.

It is clear that our Corporation is in fact responsible for the replacement of any wall window, where damage has been reported by the unit owner, an inspection conducted, and where it has been determined that the owner is not responsible for the cause of the damage through their own negligence.

This responsibility is clearly defined in the Condominium Property Act.

In September of 2006, Tom McClocklin Jr. and Tom McClocklin Sr. through their respective holding companies, became the new owners of the commercial units of the Spadina Condominium Corporation. Tom McClocklin Jr. became a Board member shortly thereafter.

Subsequent to this change in ownership, the Board of Spadina Condominium Corporation, felt that there was good reason to believe that the new commercial owners were seeking a controlling influence upon the Corporation. This serious concern has been well documented in the records of the Corporation. The new owners were not only suggesting, but were DEMANDING that their affiliated property management company, COLLIERS McCLOCKLIN REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, be simply APPOINTED as property manager of the Spadina Condominium Corporation.

A committee was established by the board, to review the matter, with responsibilities  including the request for submissions from other management companies to manage the building. Several well respected property management companies, presented their proposals to manage our property.

The proposals were received by committee members and the Board found them all to be very qualified. It was obvioulsy the requirement of a responsible Board of Directors, to ensure no conflict of interest, a legal reqrirement of the Corporation. Following a review of the proposals, the Board was prepared to make a recommendation at the next Board meeting to be held early in the New Year.

Almost immediately, and following his again absence at the Board meeting, a generally absentee Board member, demanded a meeting next morning on a Sunday, to hear his message.

This Board member, immediately advised the meeting with a STATED DECLARATON, THAT THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH CONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD TO APPOINT A DIFFERENT PROPERTY MANAGER! This pompous declaration, was of course, very disrespectful of his fellow Board members and fellow residents. The reasons for considering a change in management were explained to this Board member, who simply refused to acknowledge the reasons. This  Board member, then insisted,  that he and the chairman, would meet with the commercial owners and their property management company, and RESOLVE the matter! This was certainly not a matter for someone with such disrespectful conduct, to make any such demand.

This meeting did take place, and it was again, pompously declared,  that Colliers McClocklin Real Estate Corporation would in fact, continue to be the property manager of the property. This of course, without approval of the Board or the input of residents!  It was obvious that, this Board member’s opinion and extra special interest in this matter, would become subject to very serious concerns by both Board members and residents.

Most unfortunately, our chairman, succumbed to the demands of this unruly Board member and his unconditional support of the commercial owners. Both Board members and fellow residents found this to be very disturbing where now, serious concerns of conflict of interest issues existed. After many years of absenteeism from Board meetings, this Board member, suddenly expressed and undertook, a most sudden and unusual interest in attendance of Board meetings. Clear support for any and all interests of the commercial owners, became very apparent.

What residents should find to very disturbing, is the fact that just this one resident board member along with the commercial owner, effectively control both the Board and representation of all unit owners! This is why when approximately 80% of all residents voted against the new hot water heating system, it did not matter. The legal requirement of a special resolution was simply rejected, and this one resident Board member along with the commercial owner, determined the outcome!

This control by just one resident and the commercial owner prevented a democratic vote. As has been stated on many occasions by astute residents, OUR BOARD IS NOT ELECTED, IT IS APPOINTED! WITH THIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST, ALL RESIDENTS COULD VOTE IN FAVOR OF A RESOLUTION, ONLY TO BE DEFEATED BY ONE RESIDENT AND ONE COMMERCIAL OWNER! There is of course no valid reason, for any resident to NOT OBJECT to this absence of democracy!

The adoption of sector representation and contracting independent property management,  would correct this serious situation by ensuring democratic representation of our residents. It is important to note that the one resident Board member referenced above along with the commercial owner, have voiced strong objection to sector representation. There is of course no valid argument, other than special interest, that would support such objection.

Given the damaging outcome of what has been allowed to happen here, there is certainly good reason for adoption of meaningful measures to address these issues, and ensure democratic governance of the Corporation. Numerous requests for provision by each Board member of an appropriate CODE OF ETHICS DISCLOSURE, continue to be rejected, and in particular by one particular residential Board member, and the commercial owners.

Therefore, it is requested that all Board members, sign and submit to the board at their next meeting, a CODE OF ETHICS DISCLOSURE. Receipt of these written disclosures should be acknowledged in the minutes of that meeting.  It is requested that the DISCLOSURE STATEMENT available from the CCI (Canadian Condominium Institute), a respected legal document, be used for this purpose. It is a commonly used form of disclosure used by many condominium associations across Canada.  Any further rejection of this request, will of course raise some very serious questions. 

The Board should also advise residents that they do in fact have the option to achieve democratic representation BY ESTABLISHING SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SECTORS FOR THIS PURPOSE. The Board should respect the interests of residents and ensure that they are permitted to determine on their own if they wish to adopt sector representation. It is requested that this option be placed on the agenda of the next general meeting where residents will be given the opportunity to express their support for its adoption. 

Finally, without responsible address to these issues, all unit owners can continue to realize a most negative impact upon the value of their property. There is no need  for this serious situation to continue. Corrective measures have been suggested above, and the sooner they are implemented, the sooner residents will realize an increased interest, respect and value in their property!

At the 2013 Annual General Meeting, the board did not prepare and present a budget for the Reserve Fund account. When questioned at the meeting as to why not, the response was simply that there would be no reserve fund expenditures in the coming year. As the building throughout its entire history, has always had Reserve Fund expenditures and certainly a budget for them, this response from the treasurer was found to be very questionable.

Recently, residents were informed that someone on the board would like to spend resident funds on the exercise room. This would require funding from the Reserve Fund. Apparently, this Board member convinced the Board to proceed with this expenditure.We once again see the Board proceeding with absolutely no consultation or participation of residents.

A far more necessary and responsible use of residential funds would of course be to install a humidification unit which was removed and not replaced during installation of the new heating system. Again, members of the Board  made this decision with no consultation or participation of residents. Residents have been severely impacted by the extreme dry conditions in the building during the winter months.

This has been yet again another winter where our residents have experienced extremely low humidity levels, often following below 10% which becomes an extreme health hazard. There is no question that this problem must be addressed before any other Reserve Fund expenditure is considered.

The Board has attempted to provide excuses for not replacing the former humidifier unit, including that the engineer advised the building it didn’t need one. This was found not to be true.  When the engineer was questioned about this at a general meeting held subsequent to the installation of the new heating system, his response was that he was directed NOT TO INCLUDE THE HUMIDIFIER IN ORDER IN ORDER TO REDUCE COSTS OF THE PROJECT!  It is important to note, that humidification was an original and intregal component of  the building’s HVAC system and served the building well for more than 30 years. Residents purchased their units with the understanding and comfort knowing this was a beneficial feature of their unit.

Any such alteration or removal of such a major component of the building’s mechanical system which in turn seriously impacts the the use and enjoyment of a residents property, is very disrespectful of our residents and certainly raises questions about such decisions being made without appropriate consultation with them.

The Board must not be allowed to continue spending other people’s money simply to satisfy their own personal agenda. It is requested that immediate arrangements be made to reinstall the humidifier to serve the residential units. Further, it is requested that no expenditure be made regarding the exercise room until residents have in fact been consulted on the matter and an opportunity provided for their input. This matter should therefore be left for further review at the next general meeting.

There have been many suggestions on the part of residents that the “BUILDING OPERATIONS COMMITTEE“ is subject to serious questions and concern. There are obviously concerns relating to not only qualifications and experience, but in addition, CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUES. The property management company is paid to oversee and manage building operations. Thus, committee members must be totally independent of the property management company. This has resulted in the existance of an obvious conflict of interest issue for some time.  Unit owners are entitled to receiving disclosure of any commercial relationship between board members and/or their related entities, both currently and in the past.

It  has been repeatedly requested in the past, that ALL BOARD MEMBERS, provide signed disclosure statements. These requests have always been rejected, even though residents have and continue to question this rejection of our residential board members in particular. It is suggested that each board member provide to the Board, a signed disclosure statement (using the prescribed form provided by the CCI). This is a very common requirement of condominium board members across Canada. This would certainly help provide at least some measure of respectful address to the many questions and concerns of residents.

Residents believe that the most recent appointment to the Board of Directors, Mr. Kowalyshin, is far more qualified and experienced to represent their interests as they relate to building operations. It is suggested that Mr. Kowalyshin, be immediately appointed, as the sole chair and committee member of the building operations committee.

Residents apparently don’t seem to notice or care about the waste of THEIR MONEY on expenditures in this building from which they receive no benefit.

A couple of years ago, the commercial owner advised the board that “Smart Plugs” should be installed for outdoor commercial parking stalls. Yes, there certainly were residents who did question and object to this expenditure of “their money” but were simply advised that it was for their benefit and would result in a major reduction in residential electrical costs.

Residential board members simply rejected these concerns of their fellow residents, and yet once again, provided unanimous support to the wishes of the commercial owner for yet another expenditure for their exclusive benefit. This may be an added value to the commercial units, but to those who know better, residents have paid the majority cost of this unneccessary expenditure, when there is absolutely no benefit to them!

Well, several years later, electrical costs continue to increase substantially, with no reason to believe that this expenditure has resulted in any such savings.  If residents have not noticed, with ongoing below normal cold mid winter temperatures, their fellow residents have observed that commercial tenants or employees of Colliers DO NOT plug in their vehicles! If any do, they certainly have not done so during this record cold season! Obviously, there has been no promised electrical saving realized with this installation of smart plugs, but simply a waste and loss of residents money. The Board should demonstrate some responsible address to this matter, and require that the commercial owner use their own funds for this yet another expenditure that provides zero benefit to residents.

Again, residents must become much more attentive to such expenditures which continue without their objection. Residential board members simply agree to the commercial owners demands for such expenditures with little if any responsible representation of their fellow residents and their money.

It is therefore suggested that the board indeed take responsibility for such illegitimate use of resident funds, and require this wasted cost to be born fully by the commercial sector.

We have now completed three years of operation with the new hot water heating system. Sadly to say, not only did the total capital cost of the system far exceed the number provided to residents, but energy costs have increased dramatically and continue to escalate.

THE TOTAL ACCUMULATED INCREASE IN ENERGY COSTS FOR 2011-2013  versus the year of completion of installation, 2010, ARE $82,317.00 OVER 2010 when installation of the new system was completed. 

This includes reflection of the adjustments required for reduction in natural gas rates and increases in electrical rates (approximately $31,702.10 net savings due to rate reductions). In other words, $82,317.00 is the total additional and accumulated cost of energy (2011-2013) had rates not changed and therefore provides a direct and more accurate comparison to 2010.  The only reason actual NET CASH COSTS during this period have only increased $50,614.90 is because natural gas rates dropped substantially in 2011, 2012 and 2013. Again, had it not been for a reduction in ENERGY RATES, the amount of the accumulated increase in net energy costs would be $82,317.00.

Residents were informed by our Board of Directors, prior to the purchase of the new system, that energy costs would DECREASE substantially, and that there would be more than a $10,000 annual saving in chemical costs as NO water treatment would be required. Well, the fact is, water treatment IS required and there is no such saving. It was further stated that this system would last 40 to 50 years and that the dramatic reduction in energy costs would result in a payback period of approximately 7 years!.

These of course, are very irresponsible and misleading statements made to residents who are expected to have trust in their Board members. Residents were advised that those considering the sale of their unit would find that this system would be a “very strong selling point, as fees should continue to go down”. This is of course seriously challenged by residents who have, most unfortunately realized the negative impact of the new heating system project, upon the market value of their unit. Approximately 80% of residents voted AGAINST approval of this system and expressed their strong preference for simply a direct steam for steam replacement of the two steam boilers that have performed extremely well for over 30 years. Their preferred option would have SAVED MORE THAN HALF A MILLION DOLLARS in capital costs, and more importantly, would have resulted in a substantial DECREASE in energy costs and a reduction in monthly fees. A responsible review of comparative technical data, clearly supports the benefits of this preferred option. 

Yet the board proceeded without the required special resolution of our unit owners as is required in our bylaws. The commercial owners were strong advocates of this new hot water system and along with the support of only a few residents, declared approval of this system and proceeded with its decision to install the new system.

Unfortanately, residents have been forced to pay the majority of not only the unnecessary capital cost of approximately ONE MILLION DOLLARS,  but also, the dramatic increase in energy costs since the installation, and of course the ongoing increasing energy costs going forward.

NONE of the above promises have been realized. At the current rate of energy consumption, within seven years, these accumulated cost INCREASES will be approximately $200,000 versus the promised savings or DECREASES of a similar amount! Residents must reaIize that the promised energy cost savings did not happen and never will. Residents will never get their money back over 7 years through energy cost savings as promised. Further, they will be subject to much higher monthly fees required to pay for this most unneccessary and irresponsible adventure on the part of the Board.  

A contingent liability now exists where the thousands of dollars received in grants based upon the inaccurate submission of the Corporation projecting substantial energy SAVINGS may very well be subject to a return of these funds to the government. Residents would then of course be asked for additional fees in the form of a special assessment to fund this.

In terms of property values, the lack of transparency to this entire project has had a very negative impact upon property values in this building and has certainly proven NOT TO BE THE BIG “selling point” as was repeatedly touted by board members.

These dramatic cost increases to residents are obviously of great concern. This has of course contributed to the tremendous increase in electrical consumption and in turn costs, since installation of the new heating system.

Clearly, an opportunity has been lost where we could have had a much more reliable heating system with a substantially lower capital cost, along with improved efficiency and in turn, substantially lower energy costs. From this point on, residents must be prepared to challenge these poor decisions made on their behalf by the Board, and ensure that any and all major projects are reviewed with the participation of residents and approved only following approval by a special resolution.

A detailed report and analysis supporting the energy cost analysis noted above, is available to any unit owner, subject to prior receipt of a formal analysis presented by the Board of Directors for the same period.

***When this issue was heard in Provincial Court in April of 2012, the court was advised that the Spadina Condominium Corporation SAVED $44,329 in total energy costs including rate adjustments for the first year of operation of the new heating system. The court was further advised that the Corporation stated on the grant application that there would be an estimated annual saving of $46,000 per year in energy costs with the new hot water heating system! What will the auditor of this grant program have to say about this submission today?

The facts clearly demonstrate, that these amounts submitted with the support of our own President, were very simply, UNTRUE! Our Corporation was represented during the trial by Board President Ben Goldstein and a team of lawyers from the McPherson, Leslie & Tyerman law firm. A fellow provincial court judge of Mr. Goldstein accepted his submission that there were SAVINGS of $44,329 in energy costs in the first year! The judge, surprisingly, refused to even look at the prepared report of a factual and accurate energy cost analysis which was fully supported by actual invoices and other documentation! Lawyers who have reviewed this matter since, find this behavior of both the judge and those representing the Spadina Condominium Corporation, to be very disturbing.

It is clear that the court was deceived by those representing the Spadina Condominium Corporation. Mr. Goldstein, who yet remains a board member, is requested to respond to this issue by providing that analysis of energy costs of 2011, 2012 and 2013 relative to 2010 that he acknowledged and in turn presented as evidence to the court.

Upon receipt of Mr. Goldstein’s report, the details of the energy analysis report referenced above along with comparatives to years prior to this report, will be disclosed to all unit owners.

From unhealthy and even dangerous humidity levels in residential units to a fog of dust in the parkade, residents, yet once again, have very good reason to complain to their Board of Directors. (Not to mention continuing repeated failure of domestic hot water supply, insufficient perimeter heating, etc.)

Humidity levels during the winter over the last few years, often fall to 10% or less since the removal of the residential humidification system. As for dust levels in the parkade, these have also become extreme, unhealthy, and totally unacceptable. The resulting health hazard is equally harmful to the low humidification levels within condominium units. You can wash your car one day, only to find it covered with a layer of dust the following day. As residents use the parkade 24 hours per day, lack of address to this very serious condition is certainly most disrespectful of our residents on the part of both management and more importantly, the Board of Directors.

The continuing reduction and neglect of residential services in our building requires  meaningful action. The lack of responsible attention of residential Board members to these ongoing issues has serious negative impact on their fellow residents.  These issues have now reached a most troubling level. It is preferable that the Board act promptly as opposed to residents having to act on their own initiative to seek address of these issues.

The Corporation and board members are clearly exposing themselves to liability for the neglect of these serious conditions. While the board may simply provide their usual response that residents are always complaining about something, they should be showing respect for their fellow residents and their concerns. Duty of care is fundamental responsibility of Board members along with many other legal obligations to our residents.

For many years, the parkade floor was washed twice a month during the winter months to remove the great amount of sand being tracked in by vehicles and the resulting dust in the air. Now, we are lucky to have the floor washed even once during the entire winter. Given this neglect of what should be normal and regular maintenance, a much more extensive effort is required in order to remove the accumulated build up of dirt and debris which has now been allowed to cake to much of the parkade surface area. This further neglect of required maintenance will of course result in a totally unncessary cost to residents. This is of course not acceptable.

We have a similar problem with our residential hallways. The current caretaker has been here nearing five years and the hallway carpets have never been shampooed! Again, these carpets were previously shampooed every year in both the spring and in the fall. The recently installed carpets have become stained on a number of floors and there has been no effort to remove them. They are showing wear already after only one year. Unfortunately, the carpet selection has failed to be compatible with multi unit traffic.

 Further, for many years, we have had weekend janitorial service, but have not for the past several years. Residents are often embarrassed as a result of this lack of service service which is of course assumed to be provided in a luxury condominium property.  It appears that those who voice or support concerns of such matters, appreciate a higher level of standards than others.

It is obvious that the caretaker is no longer being directed or adequately supervised to ensure this work is done on a regular basis. For whatever reason, the board nor management say nothing.  Even snow removal on the sidewalk is now being done by others. Just what is our caretaker responsible for? The cost of this caretaker is well beyond reason and yet his services to the building continue to diminish.

Once again, a copy of the caretaker contract should be provided to those who have made the request. The subject of caretaker contracts came up at a recent CCI meeting and fortunately we had residents there participating in the meeting. It was made clear that condominium corporations must provide a copy of the caretaker contract for review upon the request of a resident.

The legal resources available to and from the CCI, are obviously far more qualified than those available from SCC board members. Therefore, their qualified position on the requirement of a Condominium Board to provide its residents with access to the caretaker contract must be respected, NOT REJECTED. It is suggested that the board respect their legal obligations and provide residents upon their request, an opportunity to review this contract in its entirety.

Over the past few years, residents have attempted to advise our Board of Directors of their serious concerns relating to many different issues which have been negatively impacting them. Residents have participated in meetings with an objective to identify and seek address to many of these issues of common interest and concern for presentation to the Board.

The Board has rejected many requests of them to provide any meaningful response or respect for these many serious grievances. It is very clear that given the nature of the many complaints, residents did not realize the extent of such conduct of the board and how it could influence their lives while residing in this building.

It is very troubling and of grave concern to residents, that when they have attempted to remind the Board of even minimal legal obligations on the part of the Board, the Board immediately disputes the resident inquiry and any need for response.  In fact, they most often, immediately place blame on any resident for questioning the Board.

Residents find this very disturbing when their fellow residents with board positions use their influence to punish THEIR fellow residents with whom they disagree. The impact upon residents of the self bias and many conflicting interests of the commercial owner and management upon resident owners has created a very serious situation in this building and residents continue to become exceedingly alarmed by this situation.

The complete absence of even minimally required standards, training or even reasonable orientations for our board members and further the lack of independent foresight, is clearly apparent in the board’s  control of this building. Further, it is a most serious matter when our resident board members succumb to the direction of the commercial owner.

Those from outside of our Corporation who have observed and understand the serious nature of  our predicament, continue to advise that there is no other condominium corporation  in our province that can benefit more from the establishment of Sector representation than our building. Both address by the CCI (Canadian Condominium Institute) and recent legislative amendments to the Condominium Property Act,  have now enabled Sector representation in condominiums.  Establishing a residential sector and commercial sector in our building would provide for a very meaningful and democratic representation of these two special interest components, residential and commercial, who obviously have varied interests. Directors would simply be democratically nominated and elected, not effectively appointed as they are now. Basically, we would continue with a common board of directors, but would allow a democratic representation of both sectors on the board. Residents would nominate and elect their representation to the board of directors and the commercial owners would do the same. Democratic representation would then, truly be established.

This solution as is outlined in the Condominium Property Act, provides a most responsible, respectful and meaningful solution to the serious conflict that has existed in this building for far too long. It clearly provides a solution which can be easily accepted by any sector of owners truthfully seeking a democratic solution. The status quo can simply not be tolerated any longer. There is no valid reason why any unit owner would not be supportive of sector representation. Those who would object to such a democratic solution must of course be prepared to explain the reason for their position to residents. All unit owners in our building  are encouraged to give serious thought to this solution and express support for its implementation in 2014.

For more than a year now, unit owners have received only the income statement portion of the monthly financial statements. A balance sheet and statement of the common expense and reserve funds has not been provided. These are required in order for the reader to conduct a reasonable review of finances. These should be provided as soon as possible.

The month to month financial activity in our Corporation is relatively minimal and monthly financial statement preparation can easily be completed and a complete statement distributed by the 15^th of the following month. Unit owners are being provided with financial reports often months after the reporting month has ended. This is not acceptable.

The monthly reports in the past used to include a management report which provided some description of the nature of expenditures. This practise should be returned and included in all monthly reports going forward.

There continues to be not only reluctance but refusal on the part of the Board and management to respond to requests from residents for financial and other pertinent information. The Board is reminded that this is in contravention of the Condominium Property Act. The Board should therefore direct management to promptly respond to current and past requests for such information as per this requirement of the Act.

Over the last several years, Spadina Condominium Corporation, has experienced many problems and issues relating to the mechanical systems in the building. These have included the new hot water heating system, the cooling tower, humidification, the domestic hot water system, etc.

Many of these issues could have been addressed in a much more efficient and effective manner. The most recent issue was of course the fourth failure of the domestic hot water system. Even though the board has been advised on numerous occasions by residents and others, what appropriate action must be taken, the board has failed to act upon this advice and has resulted in a great cost to residents.

The Board as per the wishes of the commercial owner, has refused to replace the humdification system. Should the commercial owner not wish to have humidification in the commercial units, fine, but residents have experienced health related problems over the past few years due to the extremely dry atmosphere in their units. The commercial owner has claimed that the engineer advised the Board that we do not require humidification and that the previous humidifier “didn’t work anyway”. The engineer has in writing and stated at a general meeting just the opposite, that the reason the humidifier was removed and was not replaced was because the Board advised him that they wished to save money on the overall new heating system and therefore he was given instructions to not install the humidifier.  The unit owners had approved albeit without a required special resolution, a heating system which included humidification. The engineer further advised, that at the time of his review, it was only the commercial humidifier that was not working. We have a number of former health care professionals residing in the building and you can be assured that they will acknowledge the health risk factors that exist without sufficient humidification. The residential humidifier must be installed immediately.

It has been suggested that a much different and more responsible approach be taken by the Board in addressing these mechanical issues. Considering the required level of knowledge and experience with mechanical systems, it has been suggested that because our most recently appointed Board member is in fact qualified and experienced in this area, that he be appointed to act as the building operations committee chairman. Questions and concerns of residents may very well then be be addressed with a qualified response.

The Board of Directors is apparently having a very difficult time understanding provisions within the Condominium Act relating to replacement of the front windows in our building. This matter has been addressed in a previous post which clearly states that the building is responsible for front window replacement as a common area expense. Common area is specifically and clearly defined  in the Registered Plan of the building. It raises serious questions as to why the Board of Directors finds such a clearly defined provision to be so difficult to understand. I would suggest that the Board simply finds the the facts of the matter much more difficult to accept as opposed to finding it difficult to understand.

The front windows have always been and continue to be part of the common area of the building and therefore any replacement is therefore a common area expense to be paid by the Corporation, not the unit owner. All front windows in the past have been, following a report by the owner of the damage, inspected and approval given to replace the window at the building’s expense. The building then seeks the best price (approximately $1000 per window) and arranges installation at the convenience of the unit owner.  Where an owner has chosen to replace a window without reporting damage and requesting replacement, they are of course responsible for the cost.

There has apparently been one window replaced in the past year, and approximately six or seven replaced over the past twenty years. These have all been damaged windows where the owner has reported the damage, an inspection conducted, and the window replaced at the building’s expense. There have been NO costs incurred by unit owners where they have reported a damaged window and requested replacement. Therefore, there are no refunds to consider.

It is important to note, that several of our residents attended and participated in a disussion of window replacement at a recent CCI meeting. The meeting confirmed that where the Condominium Act defines the front windows as common area, as is clearly the case in our building, the cost of replacement is the responsibility of the building. The CCI is certainly qualified with its legal resources in making this determination.

At the 2013 Annual General Meeting, a resolution was approved to have the  Spadina  Condominium Corporation purchase a membership in the local chapter of the Canadian Condominium Institute (CCI). The board was rather reluctant to support the purchase of this membership, however residents were overwhelmingly supportive of this membership which had been rejected by the board for a number of years. Contrary to the position of the board, the CCI is a very strong and well respected organization, representing the many interests of condominium owners across Canada. The benefits of membership are many.

Since obtaining this membership last fall, there have been a number of written communications issued by the local chapter to its members, some of them being of an urgent nature and requesting the input of condominium owners. Unfortunately, our residents received none of those communications that would have been received by our Board of Directors.

Fortunately, we have several residents in our building who contacted the CCI on their own and were able to obtain a copy of these communications and provide a response to the CCI’s request for input from residents. These residents met personally with CCI board members and voiced their opinion on a number of matters of interest and concern to our building’s residents.

These residents, having discovered on their own what the southern Saskatchewan  chapter of the CCI had accomplished for its members, voiced their support to our Chapter to obtain the same benefits for residents in our northern chapter. This includes:

Obtaining a refund for garbage removal services for which unit owners pay for in our taxes but do not receive because  we contract and pay for this service ourselves.  This refund is estimated to be $25 to $50 per unit per month, which would result in a substantial cost saving to our building.

The CCI has agreed to pursue this cost saving measure.

The local chapter of the CCI, has also been an active participant in the preparation of new and amended Regulations to the Condominium Property Act.  Unfortunately, our residents did not receive any CCI materials from our board which included an invitation to residents for their participation in the review process. However, several of our residents were able to find this information through their own efforts and did in fact participate directly in the review of these Regulations. Through both meetings with and written submissions to the Justice Ministry, our residents had an opportunity to provide their input.

The efforts of our residents who have participated in these matters on their own initiative, have ensured that their voice has been heard and will continue to be heard in the future. It is through such efforts, that benefits such as those previously mentioned can be realized for the benefit of all unit owners.

It has been approximately two weeks since domestic hot water service abruptly failed in an ongoing series of failures.

The board was shortly after and in the interim, reminded and questioned by numerous residents regarding their grave concerns as they relate to the boards demonstration of a very irresponsible lack of response and conduct in addressing this ongoing failure of hot water service to our residents.

Numerous residents have also expressed concerns over insufficient heating in their units without the requirement and extensive use of their Enercon (heat pump) units. The board  continues with their failure to understand that the design of the building requires the use of the Enercons only as a supplemental source of heat when temperatures and particularly effects of wind chill are extremely cold. This has been the case since the construction of the building in 1977 and the requirement of Enercon use on a regular basis in the winter months only began upon the recent installation of the new heating system. Net energy costs have increased dramatically as a result.

Further, management and the board have recently informed residents that they are afraid to increase boiler temperatures to “normal and acceptable temperature output settings” because our baseboard (perimeter) heating lines will start to leak! This clearly demonstrates a sad state and lack of understanding of the appropriate operation of the heating system. As many residents will attest to, there has been minimal inspection and maintenance to perimeter lines and associated valves and fittings over the past several years. Attention has primarily been limited to events of failure on these perimeter heating lines and the resulting damage. To  intentionally limit operating temperatures to well below what is required simply because of deferred maintenance is not at all acceptable.

It is not fair to residents in this building where they are required to live with unnecessary restrictions which prevent a comfortable level of heat supply to their units. Nor is it fair or reasonable to neglect the concerns and respect of residents upon their many requests for a responsible address to the ongoing failure of the domestic hot water service to the building. There is obviously a very serious operational or mechanical capacity issue with the current hot water service, and residents are entitled to a prompt response and explanation. The many requests of residents for the response of the board to advise as to the details of what plan is in place to address the yet next failure which could happen again at any time have yet to receive a response.

Residents require meaningful response and address to these few of many outstanding issues. We continue to await this response.

No hot water, no telephone call, no information memo, no caretaker! No board members?

Yes, the hot water system has failed yet once again and residents are also, once again experiencing yet another agonizing week long disruption. These repeated failures of this new hot water system have all received delayed and irresponsible attention of management and the board.

The board has been clearly advised on several occasions in the past that given the history of problems with this system, they must prepare an emergency action plan in the event of another failure.  Obviously, the board has simply neglected these previous suggestions and no such preparation has taken place. This of course, is unfortunately to the detriment and expense of our residents.

This latest failure occurred on Thursday, December 26^th. Why was a tank not ordered for shipment on the following day so that it could be installed on Saturday. As has happened in the past, just because a contractor says that “this is all that can be done” does not necessarily mean that this is all that can be done. This replacement tank could and should have been shipped via an overnight “hot shot” shipping service with the direct participation of board members if required. Once again, management failed to act and so did the board.

Given these continuing failures, one must question the design and capacity of this system. A request has been made several times in the past for technical information on this system but has been refused on each occasion. It is requested, yet once again that this information be provided.

Finally, it would be most appropriate if someone would distribute a memo today advising our residents of what has happened and what is being done about it. This total absence of communication with residents at a time like this is very disrespectful to say the least.

Dennis M. Tofin

Since the installation of the new hot water heating system, every attempt has been made to minimize the input temperature to the perimeter heating line in an effort to condense and minimize gas consumption. As it is not possible to achieve this desired condensation during most of the winter, this is of course an ill fated measure.

When this happens, the heating load is shifted to the Enercon units, so electrical costs are increased as a result. Any attempted saving of natural gas cost, is far exceeded by a direct increase in electrical costs incurred with the unnessary use of the Enercon units.

This is very evident when temperatures drop to current levels. This is certainly not an acceptable way to operate our heating system. The input temperature on the perimeter heating line must be increased to a level of 190 degrees (F) or more when necessary. Supply of heat from the Enercons is only necessary with prolonged cold extremes in temperature.

It has been suggested that the caretaker and management refuse to use a temperature setting above 175 (F) degrees, as they are afraid that a higher temperature will cause the perimeter lines to leak. The perimeter lines, zone valves and other fittings on these lines are generally rated at 250 (F) degrees and 150 PSI pressure rating, both well beyond what our system can possibly reach. Zone valves and expansion joints on these lines have not been properly inspected for a very long time and are only looked at after they have failed and begin to leak.

The fear of leakage as a result of minimal and deferred maintenance is not an acceptable reason for keeping the boiler temperature far below where it should be.

Yes, it is time to turn up the heat!

Report on CCI Annual General Meeting

December Meetings

Following the installation of the new heating system in 2010, energy costs increased dramatically in 2011 and 2012. The net increase in energy costs year to date in 2013, is even much more dramatic.

A detailed analysis of energy costs considering  required rate adjustments, has been prepared and should be reviewed by the Auditor. Unfortunately, the board refused to allow the AGM held in October, to appoint  an auditor as is required by our bylaws. As our bylaws provide that should an auditor not be appointed, then the current auditor will serve another one year term. The energy cost analysis will therefore be made available for the review of the current auditor.

Numerous residents have expressed concern over the obvious neglect of snow removal from pedestrian areas including the sidewalk in front of the building. Neighboring properties along Spadina Crescent ensure that sidewalks are cleared on a daily basis. Apparently, the sidewalk in front of our building, is not considered to be subject to such maintenance.

This service has always been understood to be the responsibility of our contracted caretaker. The absence of performance of this contracted service, clearly exposes unit owners to potential liability issues.

The board of directors are hereby requested to ensure that all snow removal responsibilities of the caretaker, are to be performed on a daily basis.

It is further requested of the board, to provide residents with a copy of the caretaker contract, in order to clarify the often questioned responsibilities including those of snow removal.

Over the last few years, and again most recently, there has been discussion among residents that the Christmas Party held in recent years has been held at a cost well beyond what residents find reasonable. The cost per attendee has for some time,  proven to be in excess of $60.00. This when, the more respected condominium buildings in Saskatoon, have held their annual Christmas Party at a substantially lower cost, often less than $20.00 per attendee, and  most often with the traditional participation of resident volunteers.

It is therefore suggested, that tickets for the 2013 Christmas Party event at Spadina Towers be offered to all unit owners with the ticket price determined with all relevant costs included.

This measure would ensure that residents are informed of the actual cost of this event, and provide them with an opportunity to decide on their own if this wish to participate.

Considering the absence of audited financial statements for the past several years, and a number of serious concerns of residents, a written request was made to the board prior to the Annual General Meeting, to address these concerns by acknowledging this written request at the meeting, and provide assurance that this information would be provided within thirty days following the meeting.

No such acknowledgement or assurance let alone mention, was provided at the AGM. The board is once again reminded that the Bylaws of the Corporation and the Condominium Property Act require disclosure of all information that was requested in this written request, as it is all most relevant to the questions and concerns of unit owners.

The refusal of the board to recognize the Corporation’s legal obligation to provide an audit and make available, this requested and  relevant information, is of very serious concern to those residents that do in fact require such information in responsible management of their personal finances.

This request for information was made to the Board prior to the Annual General Meeting and is referenced below:

Request for Information October 9, 2013

The Annual General Meeting held on October 10, 2013, has once again raised questions regarding the need for each director of the Corporation to provide a signed CODE OF ETHICS disclosure statement in the format referenced below.

These signed statements from each director of the Corporation, should be presented at the next board of directors meeting, with acknowledgment of their receipt recorded in the minutes. They must also be made available for viewing by unit owners upon request. This document includes suggested provisions provided by the Canadian Condominium Institute and is commonly used by many condominium associations across Canada.

Provision of this statement by board members will assist in addressing the questions and concerns that unit owners may have regarding the conduct of directors including conflict of interest issues. It is very unusual and very questionable for directors of any Corporation to refuse to provide this disclosure. Refusal to do so, will of course only validate the reason for the questions and concerns of unit owners. Should this be the case, then it is obviously necessary for a director to, as an alternative, submit a written notice of resignation. This required disclosure document is referenced below.

Code-of-Ethics PDF 2013-10-07

The board once again at the October 10, 2013 AGM, refused to allow unit owners to appoint an auditor as is required in our bylaws. Without inviting any participation from those attending, the treasurer immediately following his financial report made a motion to the effect that THE BOARD WILL MAKE ANY SUCH DECISION. This is most inappropriate conduct on the part of a treasurer and board member of the Corporation. The other board members supported this motion and in turn displayed a lack of understanding or respect of the bylaws as well.

Considering the above and the obvious resistance to responding to questions of the financial report, residents have every reason to question this behavior of their board. Why does the board continue to make every effort to prevent the appointment of an Auditor at Annual General Meetings? Many unit owners find this behavior to be very unusual and raises a great many questions and concerns. One must certainly wonder why current board members who adamantly supported an audited report for many years, have now bowed to the position of others on the board who oppose an audit. With million dollar projects in the very recent past and being considered in the near future, there has never been a more appropriate time for an audit.

In the last few years, the board has unnecessarily spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of other peoples money. Yet, this board continues to not only breach provisions of the Bylaws requiring the appointment of an Auditor at the Annual General Meeting, but fails as well to demonstrate respect or responsibility for the Corporation’s finances. The excuse of trying to save money is not a valid reason to refuse an Audit, is obviously very irresponsible, and further, gives good reason for serious questions and concerns when hearing this excuse time and time again.

Any attempt of the board  to make such an appointment without the required participation of all unit owners at a general meeting can of course not be legally recognized by unit owners of the Corporation.

Please refer to the following which was posted on May 27, 2013.

SCC Board Refuses to Appoint Auditor

At the AGM held on Thursday, October 10th, the board misinformed the meeting in stating that front window repair or replacement is the responsibility of the unit owner. A motion was made requesting that the Corporation replace front windows at the buildings expense, wherever necessary and as soon as possible. Supporting reference to the Bylaws, the Condominium Property Act and the Registered Building Plan was also provided. With grave concern and question, relevant provisions in the Bylaws, Condominium Property Act and the Registered Plan of the building were met with the boards rejection and refusal to acknowledge or respect them.

Further, the board declared that no windows have ever been replaced by the building and that this expense has always and will continue to be the responsibility of the unit owner. The boards position and conduct in addressing this matter at the AGM was very misleading to say the least and in direct contravention of the law.

Please review the attached  2005 AGM minutes which provides THE TRUTH to this matter. It is noted that five residential windows were replaced along with one commercial front window at the buildings expense. The commercial damage was the result of vandalism and the residential damages were the result of structural stress. For any owner who wishes replacement of their windows which are not damaged, it is obviously their own responsibility.

The supporting documents to the motion made at the AGM are available in a previous posting on this site (May 26, 2013). It is suggested that they be reviewed as well. It is very interesting that current board members who were on the board in 1995, as well as other attending owners at this AGM who were also members of that board, have no recollection of these facts and the truth of the matter, but obviously support this most irresponsible position of this board. This most questionable conduct is without question, one of very grave concern and will not be accepted by any responsible unit owner.

AGM 2005 FNL

CRA BOD 2013

The Annual General Meeting for the Northern Saskatchewan Chapter of the Canadian Condominium Institute will be held on Wednesday, October 30th. The proposed agenda will prove to be a most invaluable benefit to condo owners, particularly residents of Spadina Towers. Residents are encouraged to support membership in this association at Spadina Condo’s Annual General Meeting on October 10, 2013, in order to ensure representation at this Chapter AGM meeting and realize the many membership benefits enjoyed by thousands of Condominium Associations across Canada.

CCI AGM 2013

The  notice for the Annual General Meeting and report for the June 30, 2013 fiscal year end has been received.

A copy of the report has been posted to the Documents page for your convenience.

A report titled “THE PARKADE TOPPING” dated July 26, 2013 was recently distributed to residents. As residents are aware, there is concern among many as to the review conducted on this matter.

The report begins with an admission of the board that they reached a “conclusion resulting in the letter to the owners giving notice that a cash call would be required at some time in the future, when this work would be done. It would likely be 2-3 years from now”.

We have received notice that a conclusion of the board was reached prior to giving notice to unit owners of a cash call. There have been several requests of the board to consider very viable alternatives but it appears they wish to stand by their final decision made long before submission of alternatives. These options have not received any reasonable consideration.

The report states that the work will likely be completed 2-3 years from now. This obviously raises the question, why has the board made a final decision on such a major capital project where there appears to be no interest in commencing such a project for several years? We now apparently have yet another capital project with many serious questions and concerns of residents being approved by the board without appropriate review, particularly with a board admission of a decision to proceed prior to responsible assessment of viable options.

How can such a capital project be considered, let alone be approved,  where there is clearly uncertainty and unpredictability as to costs one, two and three years down the road? Of very serious concern to residents, is the fact that these concerns have established a dark cloud and uncertainty over the market value of their property and the clear impact on resale values of residential units

A statement was made in the report to “continue with cleaning out and caulking of cracks”. It is further stated that this has been done over the last few years. Ongoing observation has found it to be very obvious that there has been no such maintenance over the past few years. This whole issue is simply one of deferred maintenance as has been acknowledged by qualified contractors. A question as to specifically where there has been any such maintenance has been clearly avoided by management and the board.  Our weather this summer has been, as was last year as well, very conducive to conducting this maintenance. However, no such maintenance has taken place and we will now defer this maintenance for yet another year.

A most viable option provided by Vector Construction Ltd., probably the most qualified contractor in Saskatchewan providing this required service, did provide a very accurate cost estimate and has advised the board  that all products and workmanship provided is in fact guaranteed. It is important to note, that the Vector proposal, given proper annual maintenance, would provide up to ten years of service without the need for major expenditure. This as with any reasonable option, is subject to appropriate annual maintenance.

The report states “The board has concluded that the action selected initially, to replace the topping, is the correct one and in the best interest of the building and its long term life.”

As we all know by now and stated in the conclusion of this report, any expenditure that is in fact “in the best interest of the building and its long term life”, is clearly a capital expenditure. As per the bylaws of the Corporation, such expenditures require approval of unit owners by way of a special resolution.  

The resolution of the board regarding this project is obviously inappropriate and contrary to the bylaws of the Corporation. Should the board wish to propose such a project, they must present this proposal to all unit owners at a duly convened meeting of the Corporation. Approval is of course subject to the support of a special resolution.

Residents over the last few years have experienced similar ill-fated projects. The heating system project not only resulted in realized capital costs exceeding those as promised by approximately 50%, but further have resulted in a discrepancy of over $150,000 in promised energy cost reductions as of June 30, 2013. The promise of no need for an increase in condo fees for the foreseeable future because of the promised savings has proven to be totally inaccurate. The projected balance of our reserve fund has unfortunately been severely impacted with a reduction of approximately $150,000. We have received no reserve fund statements for many months, but its balance at year end can only be expected to be pretty much depleted.

The estimate provided by the board for this proposed project exceeds $700,000 given current estimates.The board seems to be rather uncertain as to a proposed date of commencement. A responsible assessment of this matter would lead one to assume the ultimate total capital cost may very well increase by 50% as did happen with the new heating system. It must be further noted, that residents  have never been advised of the actual total cost of the new heating system.

Finally, an audited financial report to unit owners will help address these concerns and provide unit owners with much needed clarification and confirmation.

74

C-26.1 REG 2                  CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY, 2001

15. The corporation has adopted a funding plan in conformity with the recommendations in the reserve fund study report:

Yes

No                 Why not, or in what way is the funding plan not consistent with the

recommendations in the report?

The corporation also advises for your information only, BUT DOES NOT CERTIFY, that, as of the above date:

The names and addresses of the members of the board of directors of the corporation are:

(name of condominium corporation)

by:

(Signature of officer of the corporation – include title)

If requested, copies of the following documents will be provided on payment of the fee noted opposite each document:

1. latest financial statements for the corporation                         $
2. current budget for the corporation
3. current policy of insurance
4. current bylaws of the corporation
5. any current management agreement

If the corporation wishes to, it may disclose the following:

1. The particulars of the parking or any exclusive use area, including any special rules regarding those areas.
2. The date of the last annual meeting and the date of the next annual meeting, if known.

Net energy costs following the installation of the new heating system increased by approximately $17,500 in each of the calender years 2011 and 2012. Now we find that these costs are up approximately $18,000 in just the first six months alone of the current year, 2013, over the same  six month period in 2010.  This is very alarming and obviously raises some very serious questions.

So, over the 2 1/2 year period since installation of the new heating system, accumulated energy cost increases are in excess of $53,000.

Considering the substantial energy cost savings promised by the board and the engineer to residents on several occassions including a general meeting in 2010 where approximately 80 % of residents disapproved of the hot water heating system, the project proceeded anyway. The net result was that those promised savings plus the actual energy cost increases, resulted in a negative discrepancy in excess of $150,000. In other words, residents were advised that effectively, the promised savings would result  in a projected reserve fund balance of over $150,000 more than the actual realized balance as of June 30, 2013.

For our responsible residents who choose to remember, residents back in 2010 were advised that because of the promised savings, there would be no need for any forseeable increase in fees. Fees were in fact increased, and we no longer have the reserve fund that we had prior to the new heating system. Substantial cost overuns to the heating system project along with this serious discrepancy in promised savings, have in fact contributed greatly to the depletion of our reserve fund over this period. Of serious concren, residents have not been provided with a reserve fund report for quite some time.

The promised  savings simply did not happen, and given the ongoing and unexplained increases in our energy costs, residents will be called upon to pay even more for this unneccessary debacle. Residents must realize that this shortfall will be primarily funded by them and at the same time, be aware of the fact that they face yet further cash calls for funding of the recent action of the board to take on yet another unneccessary project with an even greater projected cost.

That project is of course the replacement of the parkade surface. Residents must not permit any consideration of such projects without their approval by way of a required special resolution.

There will of course be those who will strongly object to any questioning of the above mentioned issues which should be of very grave concern to every responsible resident. These opponents are asked to provide their facts and information that support their objection.

For those who choose to stand in respect for themselves and their investment in this building, there has never been a better opportunity to express serious concern and call attention to these issues. This of course includes support for an appropriate audit which help answer many questions including  those of energy costs.

In the June condo news report received from the board, it was stated that the board is tendering for a new lighting system in the parkade. Once again, residents must be included in any such descretionary expenses. This, along with the parkade resurfacingn as proposed by the board must not proceed any further until these matters have been reviewed at a general meeting.

It is very important that residents be clearly aware of projects which are a priority and must be addressed as soon as possible. These include the following:

1. Installation of residential humidification which was inappropriately removed and not replaced during installation of the heating system. The heating system project was placed before unit owners for a vote. The proposal included humidification and unit owners understood that this was in fact included in proposed project cost estimate. The project, did however, did not receive the required support of unit owners but the board proceeded anyway. Further, the humidifier was in turn, removed but never replaced.

The engineer advised a general meeting that he was instructed to not replace the residential humidification in order to reduce the cost of the new heating system project. Residents have as a result, suffered greatly from a lack of humidification during our long winters. These very low humidity levels have also contributed to higher energy costs. Installation of the residential humidifier is clearly a priority and must be installed before the coming winter season.

2. Repair and maintenance to balconies is a priority as well. This includes painting and repair of facing above the front windows as well as the side walls. This issue has been raised by residents many times over the past few years. Any required maintenance or repair must be completed during this summer season.

3. The Vector proposal for repair to the surface of the parkade is a priority and certainly must be completed before a new lighting system is considered.

4. Repairs including caulking to north side windows must be completed as soon as possible as there is leakage into the bedrooms of residents. Insufficient drainage relating to the roof and side walls of the building must be addressed as well. The drains installed in the walls around the base of the entire building appear to not be working. This must be corrected this summer season.

5. Security monitors must be inspected and repairs or replacement conducted where required.

6. There are several front windows requiring replacement. This must also be completed during this summer season.

7. The fourth floor front patios must be thoroughly inspected and appropriate sealant and flashing installed in order to prevent damage around the perimeter of these patios which has proven to cause leakage to the floor below. This again, must be completed during this summer season.

In mid June, a proposal for addressing the leakage issue from the parkade roof was received from Vector Construction Ltd. This company is a national company and is very well respected in the concrete services industry. Their review of our concrete surface area led them to a recommendation that crack filling and concrete repair of damaged areas be conducted. They determined that the surface area was basically sound and there was no need for a total replacement as has been suggested by others. Further, if the board acted promptly, the project could probably be completed yet this year.

Two board members attended a meeting to review the proposal but appear to be bound by their decision, at a board meeting earlier this year, to proceed with a total replacement rather than consider any alternative solutions. The cost of this total replacement has been suggested to be approximately $650,000 plus engineering fees and GST. The total cost of the Vector proposal is less than $50,000. Why incur unnecessary  average costs on behalf of each resident well in excess of $13,000 for a total replacement versus the Vector proposal which would on average cost each resident less than $1,000?  

The Vector proposal provides that with minimal annual care, we could extend the useful life of the surface by up to ten years before any significant capital repair would be required. Appropriate annual maintenance is recommended just as it would be following a total replacement.

A careful cost analysis of these options is very important. The Vector proposal, which includes product and  workmanship guarantees, may very well cost less in total than just the engineering fees for the replacement option. This option should first be tried, rather than undertake a huge replacement project that may in fact prove to be totally unnecessary. By implementing the Vector proposal, we would have an opportunity to observe the effectiveness of the sealing program.

Should replacement of any particular area be found necessary in future years, this could be done as needed in conjunction with the annual maintenance program as proposed by Vector. There is no need to make a simple declaration that the surface has failed and that it must be totally replaced.

Time is of the essence. Should the board act immediately, there is a possibility that Vector could proceed with the project yet this summer season. It is important that unit owners request the immediate attention of the board to this matter.

In response to the recent concern of some residents over the display of wireless internet networks within the building or nearby proximity appearing on their computer screen, Please be advised that this display on your screen, is NOT AN INVITATION to join any of these networks. This is simply a duly reported list of “wireless” networks  currently used within the building or nearby proximity, and provided by any local internet service.

Should you wish to not be informed of these local networks, you may simply delete this display of networks by using your own computer settings. If you require  further assistance, please contact your internet service provider.

In yet another unduly influenced measure to reduce residential services, the board has advised recently and at the last general meeting, that as some residents are able to use their televisions in place of a monitor, the Corporation will not service, maintain or replace residential security monitors. Obviously, this suggestion is unreasonable in that it is neither possible nor practical for many residents.This is of course, a most disrespectful inconvenience to residents.

Once again, the Handbook (updated in 2012) as provided to each resident, clearly advises residents of the building`s security system which includes the montiors as a necessary component to this system. This system has proven to provide vital security to the building since its inception. The following is an excerpt from the handbook of the building:

b)   SECURITY

For the residential section, an electric door lock at the lobby is connected to each unit by telephone and viewed on a 9” monitor located in each unit.

For security purposes, ensure you know the person entering via your monitor. At the door, do not allow entry to any one you do not know without their having contacted a resident.

c)   ENTRY SYSTEM

The front entry door lock is operated from your telephone. A visitor dials your number as listed on the directory in the vestibule. If your phone is not in use, the call will ring as two short rings. Answering your phone allows you to make contact with the visitor.

To unlock the door, press ‘6’.

Voice contact with people in the lobby is only possible if they dial your listed number. If you are not home and have an answering machine, they can leave a message.

If your phone is in use when a visitor dials up, a short beep will be heard on your phone. Dial ‘3’ to retain the phone caller and answer the visitor. Dial ‘6’ to open the door. After the door tone stops, resume your telephone call.

To refuse entry, do not press ‘6’ after answering the phone. Simply hang up.

Always use your monitor to check calls from the lobby. DO NOT OPEN THE DOOR WITHOUT MAKING VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE CALLER.

For security purposes, ensure you know the person entering via your monitor. At the door, do not allow entry to any one you do not know without their having contacted a resident.

This security system, is included in the registered plan, and has clearly been relied upon and considered by residents as an essential service since the inception of the building. The registered plan of the building, clearly illustrates this inclusion within the security infrastructure of the building. Any such suggestion of change to the registered plan requires a special resolution.

To simply remove the monitor as part of this security system infrastructure, because NON RESIDENTS have suggested it as a cost saving measure, is simply not acceptable to residents.

The board is hereby requested to respect and in turn address the interests and entitlements of residents as per the bylaws, regulations and the registered plan of the Corporation.The undue influence of non residents in such matters and their obvious bias, will not be tolerated by residents.

Residents are certainly questioning the residential members of our board who apparently are yet once again, prepared to simply follow along with this most inappropriate suggestion of non residents for the removal of a most vital and long established security service to their fellow residents.

It is time for a clear demonstration by board members to respect these entitlements of residents. All residents, must be assured that they have in fact purchased a unit subject to established  services as per the registered plan of the Corporation.

Immediate repair or replacement of any faulty component of our security system including monitors, is hereby requested of the board. Security will remain in jeopardy until this has been completed.

Residents will be pleased to know that one of Saskatchewan’s largest and well respected concrete construction companies, Vector Construction Ltd., recently provided a proposal on repairing the surface of the parkade including a sealant over the entire surface area. Concrete work is their specialty and they have advised that this option is highly recommended versus removing and replacing the entire surface area as has been proposed by others. They are very familiar with the parkade structure and the scope of the required work.

This proposal has included a cost estimate where the project can be completed for less than $50,000 versus costs of $650,000 plus for the option of removal and replacement. A product and workmanship guarantee is included.  Should this proposal be accepted, the contractor has advised that it may be able to complete the project this year.

This proposal has been submitted to the board requesting their review. They have been asked to inform residents of this proposal as well. Should the board decide by the end of June to proceed with this option, this work can be completed yet this year. Time is of the essence. This very cost effective option is certainly in the best interest of all unit owners.

C26-1

The balconies at Spadina Towers have received little if any inspection or attention following many and repeated requests from residents over the past several years. (Click on image for closer view)

The exterior facing above the front windows on a number of units is severely weathered to the extent that they require replacement of this material or a varied level of repair. Neglect of this repair and maintenance has in turn resulted in damage to windows which of course must then be replaced, at the expense of all unit owners. All units require painting of the facing above the windows. Certainly, all units require annual inspections of this adjacent common area along with whatever annual maintenance is required. Ongoing deferral of maintenance in this common area is simply not acceptable.

The side walls on a number of balconies desparately require painting. The stains on these walls are very unsightly when viewed from the balcony, inside the condo and from the street as well. This is with no question a very serious detriment to not only the personal enjoyment of the individual owner and his property, but is of grave concern to all residents as it relates to the negative impact on the value of their property.

Residents can no longer be expected to wait for action.This matter is obviously one of urgency and requires immediate attention. The board  is hereby requested to provide an immediate confirmation that all appropriate maintenance and repair will be conducted within this summer season.

The bylaws of the Corporation state the following:

Bylaw One Section 10.6 (e) Exclusive Use Areas

The Residential Owners and the Commercial Owner shall have the joint use of the parking stall designated as the first “P3” parking stall in the south-west corner on Level A of the Condominium Plan, for use by the janitor.

The caretaker does not park in this designated stall but parks in P1/12. Not only does he have a very large vehicle, but has installed  a  sizeable storage unit  behind his vehicle. This results in the vehicle parked in front of him to edge closer to the first corner turn after entering the parkade. This of course creates a traffic hazard where vehicles both entering and exiting the parkade, are at risk of unnessary collision. The size of the caretakers’ vehicle also creates a similar hazard for those parked on the north wall when attempting to park or exit their stall. A smaller vehicle must be parked in this stall (P1/12) and the storage unit removed in this very confined area. The bylaws must be enforced and the caretaker must park in his designated stall.

The SCC handbook of  2012 states the following:

Four residential guest stalls are available at the east end of the north driveway. These are for guests on a short term basis. If stays are extended other arrangements for parking should be made. The guest stalls are not intended for people living in the building. Misuse of these stalls can result in a parking ticket.

Three commercial stalls are located on the east end of the south driveway. These are commercial visitor stalls for short term visitor of tenants use (one hour). Misuse can result in a parking ticket.

There is no parking available for Contractors or service personnel either on site or in the basement. Permits for street parking are available from the City of Saskatoon.

As for building regulations relating to visitor parking, there is little if any enforcement in both residential and commercial designated guest parking. Contractors also continue to park in designated guest parking. Motorcycles are often illegally parked in the emergency zone immediately outside the south commercial entrance.The board and management have failed to ensure respect for the bylaws and the building’s regulations. Enforcement of these bylaws and regulations must begin immediately.

It is therefore requested that the board provide an immediate written notice to all unit owners that all parking rules and regulations will be enforced including the use of ticketing. (There has been no enforcement of this clearly stated provision in our handbook.)

Failure to provide this enforcement on the part of the board, management and/or the caretaker, may result in a request of the court to ensure appropriate enforcement.

The above photos (click to enlarge) were taken in the summer of 2004. Back then, the lawn was mowed twice a week, watered daily if needed, and kept clean of weeds, all clearly the responsibility of the caretaker. Hanging baskets, as seen in these photos, added so much to the patio for many years. The commercial owner at that time, provided the furniture and umbrellas. The patio was enjoyed by everyone. All unit owners took great pride in this most admired and respected street appeal of the building.

How things have changed!

Over the past several years, the front lawn has become, possibly the most unsightly on Spadina Crescent. The patio has become a deserted and forgotten place. The pride and respect of an owner is often judged by the street appeal of his property. In the case of a condominium, such judgement is based upon a reflection of management and the board of directors.

Now, we have apparently contracted a WEED SERVICE COMPANY to address our ongoing neglected weed problem. Residents are of course wondering, WHY IS OUR $60,000 PLUS CARETAKER NOT PROVIDING THIS SERVICE? Obviously, it is time to take a look at the caretakers contract. There are far too many questions of residents as to the provisions of this contract. A copy of this contract is hereby requested via email to any resident requesting this information.

The building, known as SPADINA TOWERS for many years, is lacking identity and requires prominent marks of recognition. Prominent quality signage displaying SPADINA TOWERS would provide this recognition and also much needed decor to the front patio.

It is obvious what must be done. It is up to all unit owners to voice the need for immdediate action on the part of management and the board.

The SCC Board of Directors at the last Annual General Meeting held on October 3, 2012, refused to permit discussion or recognize a motion to appoint an auditor. This apppointment is a requirement of the bylaws as follows:

ARTICLE EIGHT
THE AUDITOR FOR THE CORPORATION
Section 8.1 Appointment of Auditor

The unit owners and first mortgagees entitled to vote shall at each annual meeting of unit owners appoint an auditor to hold office until the close of the next annual meeting. If, however, in successive years an auditor is not appointed at an annual meeting, the incumbent auditor continues in office until his successor is appointed.

Notwithstanding the above, the unit owners, first mortgagees or other persons entitled to vote may, by special resolution, resolve not to appoint an auditor. Such resolution is valid only until the next succeeding annual meeting of unit owners.

Considering that the board incurred total costs on behalf of unit owners of approximately ONE MILLION DOLLARS for the new heating system installation, hundreds of thousands more than necessary, residents are fully entitled to a formal written report from the Auditor providing confirmation of detailed and final costs of this project.

Further, the board has yet to provide residents with an analysis of actual versus projected related operating costs following this installation. This information must be also be included and confirmed in this Audited report.

Residents have paid the majority of these much higher than necessary capital and operating expenditures and are subject to the potential liability for further unnecessary costs. If the board expects residents to be responsible for and participate in any further such costs, it must demonstrate at least some form of accountability. That of course must start with an audited financial report for the year ended June 30, 2013.

The board is hereby requested to ensure that accountant Gerry Robinson provide an Audited financial report for the year ended June 30, 2013, as per the bylaws of our Corporation.

In the Condo News report of March 14, 2013, the following was stated: “Window replacement policy will follow that of the Condo Act, which means owners will replace their windows at their own cost”.

The board has clearly misinterpreted the provisions of the Condominium Act in this regard which read as follows:

C-26.1 CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY, 1993 (2) With respect to condominium plans registered before the coming into force of this section, the common boundary of one unit described in a condominium plan with another unit or with common property is an imaginary line drawn equidistant between the two lateral surfaces of the floor, wall or ceiling, as the case may be, unless the condominium plan stipulates otherwise. 1993, c.C-26.1, s.8..

The condominium plan does in fact stipulate otherwise: Unit Boundaries and Areas For Levels 1-13

(B) Horizontally

” From the Unit Side of exterior concrete masonry walls, block surfaces or INSIDE EDGES of the glass windows of walls separating a unit from the adjacent balcony common area, to the unit side of concrete masonry walls, block surfaces, or center lines of walls (where indicated)”.

In other words, place your hand against the window. Whatever is beyond your hand is common property and the responsibility of the Corporation.

On the registered plan of the building, these front window walls are clearly illustrated. Window walls are very common in high rise buildings. Over many years in this building, the Corporation has always respected the bylaws and the Condominium Plan whereby windows have been replaced by the Corporation as a common area expense.

The minutes of the August 30, 2005 board meeting clearly outline expenditures from the Common Expense Fund including one commercial and five residential front windows. The cause of damage to the commercial window was vandalism whereas the damage to residential windows was deemed to be stress related.

Shortly after this board meeting, the Annual General Meeting was held on September 26, 2005. In the Chairman’s remarks, the following is stated:

“The building’s front windows are repaired by the condominium corporation”.

At the board meeting of July 15, 2008, the following was stated under general business: “There was discussion on caulking the balcony windows. Board feels that any capable contractor should be able to perform this job. Board requested that Colliers call Lydale, Regal and Wells construction companies to obtain quotes. Ten floors need caulking.”

Further building committee reports specifically reiterating the need for management to attend to the repair and preventive maintenance of the front windows and above facing, were presented over the following year. Unfortunately, no repair or maintenance has taken place since.

In the “Building Management and Operations” report of May 15, 2009, the following statement is made:

“The following are some current matters requiring the immediate action of management: A quote should be obtained for repair to facing above the front windows and related work in a number of units”. Again, nothing has ever been done. This deferred maintenance will prove to be very costly.

In May of 2012, unit owners were provided with an updated handbook. The following statement is included in this handbook:

“Common areas including the lobby, hallways,exterior walls, doors and WINDOWS, hallway doors, balcony floors and walls, laundry rooms, elevators and stairwells, indoor parking garage and the building structure, are owned by the Condominium Corporation and are the responsibility the board”.

As is the case with this building, many window wall systems still rely on a prime seal (caulking and tape) to keep out the weather and minimize deflection. The problem is sealants crack and deteriorate over time, causing moisture problems and the potential failure of the window unit.

Finally, the following excerpt from a recognized Canadian legal publication, clearly endorses and supports this common practice in other provincial jurisdictions as well.

By: Gerry Hyman Condo Law Columnist, Published on Fri Apr 22 2011

Q: My highrise condo has a large double glass window. The interior pane cracked and a contractor advised that the crack was not due to misuse but to building stress. Our declaration states that the maintenance and repair of windows is the obligation of the corporation. The board maintains that the broken window is my responsibility because the crack is in the interior rather that the exterior pane. Is the board correct?

A: The two panes are part of the window and in virtually every highrise building windows are a common element and repairs are the obligation of the corporation. The fact that the crack is in the interior pane is not relevant.

In conclusion, the board must recognize the Corporation’s responsibility and obligation to provide regular maintenance on these front window walls. This maintenance has been deferred far too long and must be addressed immediately. Any required maintenance, repair or replacement is clearly the responsibility of the Corporation.

In a report to unit owners in April of 2009, a recommendation was presented to unit owners for the installation of a new hot water heating system versus new steam boilers. It was stated that the installation would result in annual operating cost savings of $35,800. With these substantial savings, it was projected that a recovery of the investment or “payback” would take 7.35 years.

Unfortunately, the board adopted this recommendation, and proceeded without an appropriate resolution of unit owners. This installation did in fact proceed without any respect or recognition of the proposal previously approved by unit owners which did in fact receive the necessary support as is required by the bylaws.

As we now know, this “alternative proposal” did in fact NOT result in promised annual savings of $35,800. In fact an ANNUAL INCREASE of approximately $17,000 in energy costs has been incurred in each of the last two calender years, 2011, and 2012.

There will obviously be no opportunity for the promised “payback” or recovery of this investment. In fact, Spadina Towers has incurred an accumulated increase in energy costs since the installation of the new hot water heating system of approximately $50,000 .

It should be of interest to residents that in April of 2012, this unfortunate decision was challenged in a court of law. The court wrongfully accepted this misleading position of the board of directors, that the corporation saved $42,000 in total net energy costs in the first year following installation of the new hot water heating system. Even with a submission of all monthly energy cost receipts supporting the ACTUAL and most dramatic cost INCREASES, the court proceeded without review of this factual evidence and accepted  the purported savings endorsed by Mr. Goldstein. In fact, the court dismissed the case with a judgement accepting this false and misleading information provided by the Spadina Condominium Corporation and its board of directors.

It is hoped that residents will recognize this injustice and support a request for a detailed analysis of energy costs from the board including receipts substantiating this declared saving of $42,000. Hopefully, some of our astute, responsible and principled residents are prepared to support this request.

Had this project proceeded as originally approved, not only would residents have two thirds of their cash contribution still in their bank account, but they would of course be realizing substantial savings in operating costs. There would certainly have been no need for such a large cash contribution, a depleted reserve fund, and an increase in condominium fees.

There are very obvious lessons to be learned from this most unfortunate fiasco. The board must only be permitted to proceed with such projects after demonstrating that they have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the matter and of course, must obtain the required support of unit owners as is stated in the bylaws of the Corporation.

Further, the board must be held accountable for the serious impact of the unneccessary cost burden placed upon unit owners. An audited financial report is an obvious starting point.

At the last Annual General Meeting held on October 3, 2012, the board was asked if the Corporation held a membership in the Northern Saskatchewan Chapter of the Canadian Condominium Institute. Residents had requested this membership on many occassions. The response of the board was; some said yes, some said no, and the others didn’t know.

The fact is, the board has refused to purchase a membership in the association for a number of years. The benefits provided to members of this association are many. For example, members are informed of legislative changes to the Condominium Act whereas non members may never hear of these changes.

The “Sector” additions to the Act in 2009 were never made available to residents of Spadina Towers. This legislation was very relevant to the serious issues of the Corporation and could have not only helped resolve these issues, but could have saved thousands of dollars in the unneccessary expense of litigation. Serious questions remain.

Association members have also been advised  of  proposed changes to the Act regarding the new legislation requiring Condominium Corporation audits. Without a membership, SCC owners have relied on their board to provide this information. The SCC board however, has chosen to conceal this information and continue to reject the many requests for an audit of our year end financial report. Residents are obviously entitled to an explanation.

There are many other benefits including educational opportunities for board members to become more knowledgeable and effective in governance and responsibilities to their unit owners. There is certainly no valid reason for not obtaining this membership and must therefore be purchased in the interest of unit owners. Considering the provision of very useful information to unit owners by this assocation, it is clear that this membership is very much necessary.

At past Annual General Meetings of Spadina Condominium Corporation, requests have been made of directors to provide a written disclosure of any potential conflict of interest issues. On every occassion, the board has refused to do so.

It is the responsibility and obligation of all board members to respect all provisions of the Condominium Act, Interpretations Act and the Corporation’s bylaws regarding conflict of interest issues.

In order to ensure full transparency of this issue, a Directors’ Code of Ethics has been prepared and is attached. It is requested of each each director of the Corporation to sign this document prior to the next General Meeting and submit these disclosures to the meeting. Failure on the part of any board member to acknowledge and sign this declaration will of course provide validation of unit owner concerns in this regard.

Code-of-Ethics PDF 2013

For your convenience, a copy of the SCC handbook is attached.

Spadina Condominium Handbook.pdf

The cracks on the front patio of Spadina Towers (as shown in these May, 2013 photos), were repaired in 2010, in an attempt to address long term deferred maintenance. Obviously, both the product and workmanship has proven to be defective.

No followup to this work has been conducted since and the unfortunate consequences are obvious. There is of course the very same neglect of the required followup maintenance and followup treatment of cracks on other areas of the parkade surface that was conducted about ten years ago.

The recommended address to the problem at that time included a sustained annual maintenance program.  The contractor was VECTOR CONSTUCTION LTD. However, no such maintenance has taken place for a number of years. This is very clearly, a contravention of the bylaws as referenced below.

Section 10.1 Maintenance and Repair
The Corporation shall keep in a state of good and serviceable repair and properly maintain the common property.

What are “Capital Repairs”? A repair is considered to be a capital repair when it is undertaken to improve or extend the normal economic life of an existing structure. No deductions are available for a capital repair; it will instead be added to the cost of the property. A Capital Repair is really a subset of “Capital Improvements,” which are part of the larger category of “Capital Expenses.”

What is a “Capital Improvement”? Capital Improvements include Capital Repairs, but also the addition of a permanent structural improvement or the restoration of some aspect of a property that will either enhance the property’s overall value. Again, the cost of a Capital Improvement cannot be deducted from income. It must be added to the cost of the property.

IN ANY EVENT, THEY ARE BOTH CAPITAL EXPENDITURES.href=’http://www.retailrealestatelaw.com/archives/352′>CAM and Capital Expenses — Retail Real Estate Law Ruminations

Thus, the installation at Spadina Towers of the new hot water heating system and related components, was clearly a capital expenditure. The proposition of a replacement of the entire parkade surface structure, would of course also be a capital expenditure. A special resolution of unit owners would certainly be required to approve of such a project.

SCC Owners List.pdf

Condo-Policy-consultation-paper-2011.pdf

MWM_2011_CLE4B_Bardai_Smith.pdf

C26-1.pdf

C26-1R2.pdf