Winter 2013 - CCI Huronia

Your Condo Voice
Show Case - Vernon Towers
A New Approach
A Big Little Case
The Running Green Man
The View From Here
Cci Huronia-Looking Back
P AGE 2
I SSUE N UMBER 8
P AGE 3
I SSUE N UMBR 8
IN THIS ISSUE:
B OARD
President’s Message
Page 4
Showcase - Vernon Towers
Page 5
A New Approach
Page 7-8
A Big Little Case
Page 9
Liability Insurance-How To Handle
Providers of Products & Services
Page 10-11
The Running Green Man
Page 12-15
The View From Here
Page 16-17
CCI Huronia-Looking Back
Page 18-19
Government Relations
Page 20
OF
D IRECTORS
H URONIA C HAPTER
C ANADIAN C ONDOMINIUM I NSTITUTE
PRESIDENT:
Sonja Hodis, BA,(Hons), LL.B
VICE-PRESIDENT:
Patricia E. Elia, B. Comm., LL.B., ATC
BOARD MEMBERS:
Andrew Ain, LL.B
Brian Antman, C.A.
Carmelo Colangelo, R.C.M., A.D.R
Michele Farley, CCI (Hon’s)
Jonathan Juffs, C.E.T., A.C.C.I.
Richard Murray
Trisha Niemeyer, P.Eng.
Janice Pynn R.C.M., FCCI, ACCI
Robin Rudolph, R.C.M.
Mina Teserris, P.Eng.
Joanna Tomaszewski, R.C.M.
.
,
CCI Huronia—Inception
Page 21
Municipal Regulations
Page 22-23
Condo Conference-AGM
Page 24
Director’s Course
Page 25
Advertising Rates
Page 24-25
CCI HURONIA
YOUR CONDO VOICE
P.O. Box 95
Barrie, Ontario L4M 4S9
Phone (705) 431-5213
Fax (705) 431-5213
Email [email protected]
Website: www.ccihuronia.com
ADMINISTRATOR:
Robin Rudolph, R.C.M.
I SSUE N UMBE 8
P AGE 4
F ROM T HE P RESIDENT
President’s Message:
Happy New Year to all CCI Huronia Members! 2013 is shaping up to be an
exciting year for CCI Huronia. I start off my second term as President on the
heels of our Chapter of the Year Award received in November. While we have
spent much time celebrating our accomplishment, CCI Huronia has also been
hard at work planning events for the upcoming year. As the theme for this
newsletter, CCI Huronia is continuing to build a legacy.
Mark your calendar for these upcoming events. More details and registration forms can be
found in the newsletter. Our Annual Condo Conference and AGM will be held on September
11, 2013 at Liberty North. This year we are including live entertainment during dinner. We
have also put together an accommodation package which includes attendance at the conference, dinner and hotel. We are planning on expanding our exhibitor’s hall and increasing
our attendance. However, in order to have a bigger more successful conference we need your
help. If you are interested in being a sponsor, exhibitor or attending the event don’t forget to
complete the registration forms found in this edition of the newsletter. For those of you that
attended last year’s event, you will recall that the dinner and food during the event was amazing. I am looking forward to another great event this year. I hope to see you there!
Our education committee has organized our annual 2 day Director’s course scheduled for April
13 and 14th in Barrie. Registration forms can be found on our website (ccihuronia.com) or in
the newsletter. A special accommodation package is available for members only. Don’t miss
this opportunity to participate in our first “Meetings” workshop. This will be an interactive workshop on how to run meetings from beginning to end.
The President’s Club is looking for condos to host our President’s Club this year. We need
one condominium for our May meeting and one for our October meeting. If you have a meeting space that can host 20-25 people and you are willing to be our host, please contact me at
[email protected]. Condominiums that host the event are given the opportunity to showcase their condo and have their directors attend the event for free.
CCI Huronia is dedicated to bringing our members together and providing them with educational events to keep them better informed. We are always interested in your feedback and
suggestions for upcoming events and seminar topics. If there is something we are doing that
you really like then let us know. If there is something that we need to improve on also please
let us know. We are here to serve our members. We need to hear from you on how we are
doing. Drop us an email at [email protected] or send a letter to P.O. Box 95, Barrie, Ontario L4M 4S9. Help us build our legacy.
Sonja Hodis
President, CCI - Huronia Chapter
P AGE 5
I SSUE N UMBER 8
S HOWCASE - V ERNON T OWERS (H UNTSVILLE )
Vernon View Condominiums, a 36 unit condominium corporation in Huntsville is a very
charming, quaint example of the typical condominiums in Muskoka. The site was developed in 2006 by a local builder, Goodfellow
Construction Inc, and being the 5th of their
condo projects in Muskoka, you can detect
the pride that this developer puts into their
work.
Although it is a small building, there are still
the typical managerial requirements such as
administration of the Landscaping, Snow Removal, HVAC, Elevator and Fire Protection
Contracts along with the Reserve Fund Study
updates and all the day to day operational requirements of multi-residential complex. As
with other condominium corporations which
have a smaller number of units, the Board of
Directors are much more involved in the day
to day operation of the property. With a part
time superintendent, Managements’ presence
is also required more often as the Board is
relying on Management to educate and guide
them.
The CCI Directors' Courses have been imperative in assisting the board to understand
their roles and responsibilities as well as their
expectations of their management company.
They are relentlessly searching for ways to
improve the lifestyle of the residents, maintain
the beauty of the property and minimize the
financial burden while maintaining the highest
standards possible.
Therefore, when the new Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act came into place in
2012, the Board had taken the initiative to investigate the options and commence the process of upgrading the building. Although the
upgrade was not required immediately, the
Board felt that installing handicap operators,
with a combination of a keyless Access System, would not only enhance the lifestyle of
the residents but it would raise the security
level as well and increase the value of their
investment.
Vernon View is managed by Gabriela Shand,
RCM from Around The Lakes Property Management. She can be reached at (705) 7883556. Email: [email protected]
P AGE 6
I SSUE N UMBER 8
P AGE 7
I SSUE N UMBER 8
A N EW A PPROACH
The Ontario Government has introduced a new concept in legislative review. They have decided to
approach the review of the Condominium Act, 1998 through a multi-facetted viewpoint. They have, in
their wisdom, come to see that viewpoints of all sectors and all stakeholders will give them the best
chance at successfully leading Condominiums into the future. The marketplace needs to continue to
evolve to meet the growing and changing needs of the purchasing public. Builders need to be able to
continue to bring new concepts to market to meet those needs. Legislators need to recognize that
Condominiums represent the most affordable, yet most diverse, form of housing in our ever growing
market. Condominiums meet many of the planning needs for densification in the urban centres in Ontario. Condominiums represent the future of the housing market in Ontario, and therefore need to be
guided with great vision, great diversity and great legislation. Condominiums are more than just building, they are a lifestyle choice. We need to make the changes needed to help everyone find balance in
this complex lifestyle, without making things more complicated. We need to make the dispute process
simple, and affordable, so that minor issues can be resolved before the fabric of the community gets
torn. We need to enrich the lives of the people who choose the condominium lifestyle, and keep condominiums a viable form of housing and community for years to come.
The surprising thing that has happened though, is that despite the model of inclusion and cooperation,
certain stakeholders have taken this opportunity to cast disparaging light on others in the hope of bolstering their own futures. This activity completely defeats the spirit of cooperation and the multi –
facetted viewpoints that are necessary to lead the Condominium world into the future. The review process will be a long, arduous process, and negative posturing will only make it more difficult to get the
best legislation assembled for our future condominium owners and residents. It is imperative for everyone who is involved in the review process and all of those who are simply commenting from the sidelines, to keep the comments positive and focused on building a better Act. Not everyone is going to
agree on the best approach, nor are they going to have the same perspectives, yet they should all have
the same goal in mind. Build a better condominium!
Our whole structure in Canada is based upon commerce. It is no secret that people get paid to go to
work, nor is it a secret that services cost money. There is no connection between making money at
something, and having the wrong perspective, which seems to be a common thread in many of the
negative comments that are prevalent amongst the detractors.
Builders build condominiums in order to make money. That does not mean that they are bad builders,
nor does it mean that they are good builders. Each builder needs to create a reputation that defines
their role in the industry. Some have built sparkling clean, progressive, caring reputations, while others
have built less desirable reputations. It is their business model choice, and along with that model
choice come the costs of supporting that model. It is no secret that a clean, clear professional reputation costs more to maintain than a less than stellar one, and therefore the costs of the product will reflect that. Purchasers choose which builder to purchase from, and therefore drive the market. The
same can be said of every industry that supports the Condominium world, or for that matter, any business in Canada. Purchasers choose who thrives, who survives, and who goes out of business. That is
a fair, equitable marketplace where the buyer has choice and ultimate control.
Every day in CCI chapters across the country, professionals and trades support decisions to improve
the condominium industry. Sometimes that support will come at some cost to their personal livelihood.
An example of this came recently when a group of more than 30 stakeholders were assembled by CCI
to review the problems with the current dispute resolution model in the Act. Some of the stakeholders
were Owners, Board Members, Property Managers, and others who live and work every day in Condominiums. Some of the stakeholders were Lawyers and ADR specialists who made a portion of their
living from these disputes, but brought needed expertise about the system that we needed to work
I SSUE N UMBER 8
P AGE 8
A N EW A PPROACH
within. Throughout the whole process, there was never any resistance to finding ways to reduce the
legal costs to solve a dispute. There was no protection of the status quo. There was no voice louder
than any other. There was simply a wide open dialogue to find a better way for Owners to resolve disputes. Having witnessed first-hand the fair, transparent and cooperative process in action, it never
stops shocking this writer to read the accusations levelled at those professionals who have given so
freely of their time, their talent and themselves for the simple betterment of Condominium living.
At the Canadian Condominium Institute, we applaud the Ontario Government for their vision and foresight. At CCI, we feel that this is the only fair approach to achieving balance in a lifestyle obviously ripe
with differing needs and segregated viewpoints. CCI has made this exact thought process its model
since inception in 1980! Our Chapter Boards are filled with experienced local people from the condominium sector who represent all areas of Condominium, from Directors and Owners, to Professionals
and Trades who service the market. Our National Board helps to tie all of the local chapters together
and share knowledge, experience, resources and contacts. All of these efforts are done by a volunteer
force of thousands across this great country of ours. We have worked diligently to find cooperation from
the industry stakeholders for the betterment of Condominiums all across Canada. CCI has tried to find
the balance for more than 30 years, and will still be pursuing that balance 30 years from now!
Bill Thompson has been in the property management industry since 1985. He has a Bachelor of Arts
degree from York University. He attained his R.C.M. designation in 1988. Bill attained his ACCI designation from the Canadian Condominium Institute in June 2000, and was honoured by his peers with the
FCCI designation in 2010. Bill served on the Board of Directors of the Association of Condominium
Managers of Ontario for three years, and has been an active member on many of its committees
throughout his career. Bill instructed the Administration Course in the Humber College Property Management course for two semesters. He currently serves as Past President of the Toronto & Area Chapter Board of Director. In addition, Bill serves as a Vice President on the CCI National Executive Board.
In his career, he has held positions ranging from Property Manager, to Vice President, to President at
three different management companies. Bill is the President of Malvern Condominium Property Management, which is an "ACMO 2000 Certified Company" that has exclusively managed Condominiums
since 1972.
P AGE 9
I SSUE N UMBER 8
T HE B IG L IT TLE C ASE
Legal counsel for a condominium corporation is very often consulted on a common element renovation/refurbishment and what form of approval is necessary. Counsel’s response is to lead the board
through various definitions in the Condominium Act, the three different approval processes of section
97 of the Act, and ultimately in grey areas, the case law.
It is well known that repairs and maintenance of common elements is a duty of the corporation and
that does not require unit/owner notice or approval. There is much debate and disagreement as to
whether common element alterations that are part of a repair project should be separated out and require the section 97 approval process.
A very useful case on point is Little v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. No. 590.
The decision was made by Superior Court Justice Marrocco .
Maintenance and repair necessarily includes replacement. Mr. Little objected to the replacement of
exercise equipment with different and better machines and the replacement of a security system with
new cameras and new digital technology without compliance with s. 97 of the Act. In both cases Justice Marrocco ruled that the upgrades were part of reasonable maintenance and repair, and did not
require notice to owners nor vote of approval pursuant to s. 97.
The stickier issue in the Little case was the replacement by the condo of its canvass entrance canopy
with a glass and granite canopy, and whether this upgrade constituted an improvement requiring a
section 97 owner notice or approval process.
In paragraph 9 of the decision, Justicee Marrocco made the following useful comments:
“The change from a canvas canopy to a glass and granite canopy was simply the substitution
of a modern canopy for what had once been a modern canopy. The canvas canopy was at one
time stylish. Today, one modern equivalent is a canopy made of glass and granite. There is
nothing in s. 97(1) of the Act that suggests that it was intended to be a cultural straitjacket. The
canopy that was at the entrance was simply replaced by a more contemporary version.”
Thus Justice Marrocco expanded the definition of maintenance, repair and replacement of common
elements to include a rather significant element of upgrade, i.e. modernization.
The judgment also noted that the board had agreed that upgrading the lobby was subject to a vote of
owners, and although improper procedures were used, Judge Marrocco declined to issue a compliance order because the board acted in good faith and with the strong support of owners.
Accordingly the Little case is a “big” help to efficient condominium operations.
John Deacon is Lawyer at Deacon, Spears, Fedson, Montizambert and serves on the Condominium Cable Communications Committee making submissions to the CRTC to encourage competition for the provision of cable
and satellite dish service to condominiums, and served on the Condominium Sub Committee of the Canadian
Bar Association that recommend changes to the new Condominium Act, 1998. He is a frequent writer and lecturer on condominium legal matters and he has been a speaker at numerous community college condominium
courses, at various regional and provincial condominium association meetings, and conferences in both Canada
and the U.S.A. He is the author of "Law Lights" a regular column on legal affairs in the "Condominium Manager"
magazine, and a frequent contributor to the Condo section of the Toronto Star newspaper. Mr. Deacon practices
in the areas of condominium corporate law and residential real estate law. Mr. Deacon further acts as a Mediator
of disputes under the Condominium Act, 1998.
P AGE 10
I SSUE N UMBER 8
LIABILITY INSURANCE - HOW TO HANDLE PROVIDERS OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
Wm. Mark Shedden FCIP
President and CEO
Atrens-Counsel Insurance Brokers Inc.
Understanding the unique nature of condominium insurance and the obligations unit owner’s have to the
Corporation from an insurance point of view, can be confusing to say the least.
The obligation to insure property of the Corporation and property of the individual unit owners is fairly
clear. The corporation will insure the Common Elements and the interior of all the units up to builder
specifications, or up to the value of that property which is described in the standard unit definition should
a standard unit by-law have been passed.
Unit Owners are responsible for insuring their contents (personal property), betterments and improvements, and any additional costs incurred in moving out of the unit should the unit become inhabitable
because of damage caused by an insured peril (Additional Living Expenses).
From a liability standpoint however the unit owner’s obligations to the corporation become less obvious.
The corporation protects the owners from legal liability stemming from Common Elements and the regular day to day operations of the Corporation. Unit owners need to be protecting themselves under their
own unit owner’s policies for legal liability stemming from the interior of the unit or from their own personal day-to-day activities. The Board of Directors on behalf of the Corporation and all individual Unit Owners need to take the time to understand and consider their own “Exposure” to potential liability.
Diligently the Board of Directors should consider all exposure to potential liabilities stemming from the
maintenance, or lack there of, of common elements. The Corporation should furthermore consider the
exposure which increases proportionately from amenities such as children’s playgrounds, swimming
pools, tennis and squash courts, golf simulators, elevators, car washes, etc. The list goes on and on!
While amenities expose the Corporation to potential liabilities, the introduction of owner services such as
exercise classes, wood working classes, organized excursions, maintenance providers, valet parking,
etc., further present Liability Exposures to the Corporation and all the owners involved.
Condominium living has become more than a place to hang ones hat or a simple place we call home.
Condominiums present lifestyles to owners that are increasingly satisfied through the introduction of
greater amenities and services. While this enhanced lifestyle creates fantastic opportunities for owners,
these increased amenities and services not only put the Corporation at greater risk, from a Liability
standpoint, but also the owner’s who have an insurable interest in the complex.
So how does the board of directors protect the Corporation and all the owners from law suits stemming
from the services provided, some of which the owners may or may not even participate in? The answer
is simple - Transfer the Liability!
Anyone providing a service or product to the Corporation should have insurance. Not only should the
Board of Directors make sure a service provider forwards a Certificate of Insurance prior to providing the
product or service, the Certificate should always name the Corporation and all the resident unit owners
as additional insured’s under the policy of the provider. The limit of insurance under the Providers Poli-
P AGE 11
I SSUE N UMBER 8
LIABILITY INSURANCE - HOW TO HANDLE PROVIDERS OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
cy that will be acceptable to the Corporation will largely depend on the exposure generated by the particular product or service. However, in this writer’s opinion, the limit of insurance on the Providers certificate should at a very minimum be no less than $2,000,000.
Providers Policies are usually very inexpensive but serve a most critical function of transferring Liability
away from the Corporation Policy. Furthermore a Providers Policy takes the pressure off the owners
who potentially may become obligated to the corporation for lawsuits where the defense cost and damages exceed the policy limits under the Corporation policy.
Many residents enjoy Condominium living because it presents a carefree lifestyle, or as close to it as
possible. Simple steps on the part of the Board of Directors, encouraged and understood by the owners
at large, will help to maintain proper insurance and hold third party Providers accountable for the products and services they provide. This will give everyone the additional peace of mind that is necessary
to further enjoy the Condominium experience.
Mark Shedden is President and CEO of Atrens-Counsel Insurance Brokers Inc. which manages the insurance programs of over 3000 residential condominiums in the Province of Ontario.
P AGE 12
I SSUE N UMBER 8
THE RUNNING GREEN MAN: EMERGENCY EXIT SIGNAGE , THE NEW STANDARD
As Canada inches closer and closer to the International Fire Code (IFC) – slated to come into
effect from 2015; changes are slowly being implemented in the existing National & Ontario
Building Codes (NBC & OBC).
How many times have we been stuck in an underground
garage while helplessly looking for signage to indicate a
way of egress? I’m sure it has happened to most of us at
some point of time or the other. Well don’t be surprised if
instead of the familiar red EXIT signs, you see the ‘Green
Running Man’. He’s by no means a superhero comparable
to the Green Hornet or Green Lantern, but he will safely
lead to an exit if you follow him! In fact, he can already be
spotted in many American airports, or in our very own Union Station in downtown Toronto. The new signage goes
beyond lingual limitations as it is simply a pictorial depiction of a man running through an exit door.
So what exactly does this new code state? Let’s have a look:
National Building Code 2010
3.4.5.1. Exit Signs
2 b) except as permitted in Sentence (3), consist of a green pictogram and a white or lightly tinted graphical symbol meeting the colour specifications referred to in ISO 3864-1, “Graphical symbols – Safety colours and safety signs –
Part 1: Design principles for safety signs in workplaces and public areas,” and
c) conform to the dimensions indicated in ISO 7010, “Graphical symbols – Safety colours and
safety signs – Safety signs used in workplaces and public areas,” for the following symbols (see
Appendix A):
i) E001 emergency exit left,
ii) E002 emergency exit right,
iii) E005 90-degree directional arrow, and
iv) E006 45-degree directional arrow.
Most probably, the following questions arise:
When does this code come into effect?
How does this new amendment affect property managers and their buildings?
How will this affect my bottom-line?
1. In a perpetually price-conscious industry where stakeholders are forever looking for ways
to avoid spending and investing, the quasi-good news is that this code comes into effect as of
2013 in Ontario and will be applicable to new construction or large renovations. While the ex-
P AGE 13
I SSUE N UMBER 8
THE RUNNING GREEN MAN: EMERGENCY EXIT SIGNAGE , THE NEW STANDARD
isting red EXIT signs will still be permitted, the OFC has always provides a certain period to
adapt to new code changes (for e.g. in-suite audibility upgrades, Fire Safety Plans,
CO2 Detectors, etc.) - and the same can be expected in this case.
2. As Canada pushes towards globalism, and more and more immigrants of various ethnicities populate our condos & office buildings, the Green Running Man transcends barriers of
diverse nationalities and languages and automatically elevates him to the status of an international personality capable of being understood across the world - no matter which country
he appears in! It can be expected that the federal and provincial buildings will be the first
buildings required to adapt.
3. To avoid the upsurge expense to change all the existing red EXIT signs in your building, a
suggestion would be that when an EXIT sign becomes defunct, instead of paying to install/
change/repair the soon-to-be obsolete red EXIT signs, start replacing them one by one with
the new Green Running Man signage instead. This may lead to an imbalance in certain aesthetically mindful buildings, and occupants may not appreciate having 2 ‘styles’ of signage
converging in the same common area. In the case, the suggestion would be to do a floor by
floor upgrade to make it less apparent.
Electricity-fed signage can be expected to flood the market in the coming months. Currently,
a green (no pun intended), economical option is already available. These signs are made of
photoluminescent material and require NO electricity or electrician to install them. In fact, this
signage will help you save precious budgetary funds as the ROI is estimated to be under 1
year.
National Building Code 2010
Division B 3.4.6.3.
3 b) where illumination of the sign is not powered by an electrical circuit, be constructed in conformance with CAN/ULC-S572, “Photoluminescent and Self-Luminous Signs and Path Marking
Systems.”
4) Externally illuminated exit signs shall be continuously illuminated and be constructed in conformance with CAN/ULC-S572, “Photoluminescent and Self-Luminous Signs and Path Marking Systems.”
Photoluminescent signage must comply with, and must be ULC-approved for both luminosity and duration of illumination. The Green Running Man must indicate either the direction of
the nearest exit or the actual egress itself. Thanks to the fact that photoluminescent signs
are environmentally friendly and electricity-free, conforming to the new code sooner rather
than later will help save precious dollars on parts, repairs, and electricity consumption! Let’s
take a comparative look together:
P AGE 14
I SSUE N UMBER 8
THE RUNNING GREEN MAN: EMERGENCY EXIT SIGNAGE , THE NEW STANDARD
Type of Exit Sign
(Cost Per Unit)
Est. Cost
to Power
Per Year*
Est. Cost to
Maintain Per
Year**
Total Est.
Costs Per
Year
Est. 30 Year Life
Cycle Cost
Incandescent ($80)
$52.95
$60.00
$112.96
$3,628.38
(3 replacements)
Fluorescent ($120)
$34.05
$30.75
$67.80
$2,378.48
(4 replacements)
LED ($80)
$7.03
$15.75
$22.78
$957.84
(4 replacements)
Photoluminescent ($135)
$0
$0
$0
$135.00
(No replacements)
* 0.115 Cost per KWH ** Replacement bulb & battery cost + labor
Challenges:
Electric exit signs, whether they use incandescent, fluorescent or LED bulbs, have to be on at
all times. They will always use electricity and are an on-going maintenance cost. Property managers are now looking for green energy efficient products that use ‘free energy’ for power.
Looking at strategies to decommission electrically-powered emergency exit signs and replacing
them with photoluminescent exit signs is a viable way to reduce electricity use and associated
maintenance costs.
Solution:
Photoluminescent exit signs are ULC 572 compliant for 50, 75 foot and 100 foot visibility and
provide a green substitution for electrically-powered signs. Their signs are charged with available ambient light so there is no electrical wiring required and no direct electricity expense. Since
these exit signs do not require replacement bulbs or batteries, the maintenance costs associated with these items are eliminated. These signs have a minimum 30-year life cycle and only
require the occasional cleaning to perform according to specifications. Compared to electricallypowered exit signs, photoluminescent signs reduce 30-year operating costs by over 90%! Let’s
take a closer look at the real upgrading of a condo to photoluminescent signs:
ROI Analysis: A 22 Storey Condominium Tower
Cost to Maintain 66 Electrical Exit Signs over 30 years: (LED)
Electricity:
$13,919
Maintenance (replacing batteries, bulbs & signs):
$31,185
Cost of 2 signs (15 year life)
$10,560
Total Life Cycle Cost:
$55,664
P AGE 15
I SSUE N UMBER 8
Cost to Replace and Maintain 66 Ecoglo ULC572 Green Running Man (Exit) Signs:
Purchase & Installation (66 x $140 per sign):
$9,240
Maintenance:
$0
Electricity:
$0
Total Life Cycle Cost:
$ 9,240
Total Savings:
ROI:
$ 46,424
502%
Note: The analysis was conducted in 2009 where the cost of electricity was 11.5 cents a KWH while estimating the
average rate for an electricians to be $45/hr.
In conclusion, thanks to the photoluminescent Green Running Men signage, we do have an
economical and eco-friendly alternative. Should you require more information in this regard, the
author can be contacted for further assistance.
About the Author:
Arnel has been in fire protection for close to 5 years
and is a Global Executive MBA graduate. He manages the Marketing & Sales at ProFire Safety Services
and has conducted numerous Fire Warden Training
seminars across Ontario. He formerly sat on the Associates Board of Directors of ACMO, and currently
sits on the committee revising building accessibility for
the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing.
YES, I WANT TO GO GREEN and receive my CCI HURONIA information including the newsletter electronically. Please use
the following email address:
EMAIL: ______________________________________
I understand that I still may receive mailings from time to time and that my personal information will only be used for CCI HURONIA information delivery and will not be transferred, sold or disclosed to any third parties. Please cut and mail to: (or bet-
ter yet Email Us With Your Information ).
CCI H URONIA
P.O. Box 95
Barrie, Ontario
L4M 4S9
Phone : (705) 431-5213
Fax:
(705) 431-5213
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.ccihuronia.com
P AGE 16
I SSUE N UMBER 8
The View From Here
This section is written by condominium board directors to provide you with the director’s
perspective to reflect the variety and practical realities faced by directors. We think that directors can learn from each other as well. Please let us know what you think of this series.
Five Keys to a Successful Condominium Board – by Richard Murray
1. Elect the best Board members that you can find. Ideally, You need a divergent
group with different backgrounds and areas of expertise. Look for people who are reasonable and ARE capable of working as a team. It is helpful to find people who have a
shared vision. A vision as to the corporation and the level of care that it requires. In my
experience, this must be equal to, or exceed, the expectations of the owners and residents. Even though it may be difficult to get new blood into the group, you need to do
this from time to time. The new people will see things differently and this will improve
your decision making longer term.
2. Find and Use the services of a good, and qualified, Property Manager. With the
added complexity and responsibility being placed upon condominium Boards, it is even
more important nowadays that you obtain the proper guidance from those who know all
the varied aspects of condominiums. Also, you need to ensure that you have proper
record keeping and budget controls in place. While it is legally permissible to be selfmanaged, being able to do so effectively is becoming increasingly difficult. Additionally,
the penalties for errors are quite punitive so this is another factor you should consider.
When choosing a new Property Manager, do your due diligence by checking references, do a Google search, check with the BBB, check with ACMO, and ask local suppliers if they have had dealings with the prospects. Getting a good Property Manager fit
takes time and effort but the results will be worth it.
3. Find and Use the services of a qualified engineer knowledgeable in condominium
issues to conduct your Reserve Fund inspections and reviews. Then, ensure that
you follow these recommendations. In my experience, minimum standards are just that,
the absolute minimum and not necessarily the best option for your corporation. As with
unknown suppliers and new Property Managers, do your research before making a
commitment.
4. Use an independent engineer to draw up specifications for major projects to be
cost effective and safer in the long term. All too often, relying on suppliers or trades
people to advise you as to the best way to solve an issue will not get you your best
strategy. Just as you are looking for your best solution at the best price, so too are suppliers who will have a natural tendency to sell you what they carry or what they can get
the best discounts on. This may include old or discontinued product where they can
make a higher profit margin and still remain competitive in pricing. Also, beware of suggested add-ons. You may not actually need these or the value ratio may be very poor.
In my experience, add-ons are where retailers make their most profit. Just keep this in
mind. An independent evaluation by your own engineer of what is needed is usually far
more accurate than one from someone with an opportunity to make a profit from a suggested solution.
P AGE 17
I SSUE N UMBER 8
The View From Here
5. Keep your owners and residents in the loop and Utilize the Golden Rule. . Communicate with them via e-mails, e-blasts or newsletters, a web site, a Facebook page,
community sign boards, or whatever. Just remember to communicate with them on a regular basis. Communication allows the owners, residents and the board to feel part of one
entity. It eliminates the “us vs. Them” mentality. Regular communication makes it easier for condominium communities to resolve issues in a reasonable manner with all parties
willing to compromise. You don’t want owners/resident to feel that they are being kept out
of the loop. The last thing you want to create is a feeling of WE-THEY. When this happens, owners and residents are far less amenable to compromise because they feel you
failed your duty to keep them up-to-date on regulations and other things related to the
corporation. You continually need to anticipate what they need to know. Prevention is
much easier than repairing a problem.
Richard Murray has been active in condominium Boards since 1990 and has been a Director
for over 15 years. He has additional experience as the Chair of an expanded condominium
committee overseeing the activities of a group of Boards involved in a multi-Board community. He is in his second term as a Director with CCI Huronia and has a particular interest in
the on-going education of Board members to achieve better decision making capabilities.
His daytime work revolves around sales and marketing in the dental industry and he has
been active in this for over 15 years.
P AGE 18
I SSUE N UMBER 8
CCI HURONIA—LOOKING BACK
I SSUE N UMBER 8
P AGE 19
CCI HURONIA—LOOKING BACK
P AGE 20
I SSUE N UMBER 8
Government Relations Update
Local News
As promised when we set out at the beginning of 2012, CCI Huronia was going to continue to
build legacy by building connections with the City of Barrie. Here is a quick update on what we
accomplished:
1. A team from CCI Huronia, including a CCI National representative, met with the Mayor of
the CIty of Barrie, the Honourable Mayor Lehman to speak to him about the purpose of CCI
as a national and local organization for condominium corporations. This meeting was successful and created a great building block for our next goal: City Counsel.
2. In September of 2012, Michelle Farley, a director of CCI Huronia, spoke to City Council
briefly (and we mean brief we had five minutes) about CCI Huronia and CCI generally. A
short powerpoint presentation was given. The Mayor kindly spoke quite favourably about
CCI Huronia. HOpe you caught it on TV. This created a great building block for our next
goal: Speaking with the Planning Department for the City of Barrie.
3. We were thrilled to have the Mayor of Barrie as a our key note speaker for the 2012 CCI
Huronia AGM and Tradeshow and to have a member of the City of Barrie’s Planning Department attend the event.
4. In October of 2012 we spoke with a team from the City Of Barrie Planning Department. We
explained the role and scope of CCI Huronia and CCI National and then got down to discussing some practical development ideas that can help build better condominiums. By living we learn and as CCI representatives we were willing to communicate the learning that
we had collectively achieved over our years in the condominium industry. Members of the
Planning Department also shared some of their experiences to help our understanding of
what it is like to be planners in a growing city. This interaction was well received and we
hope to be a source of information on condominiums.
We have a variety of goals for 2013 to continue to build CCI Huronia’s legacy and we will keep
you posted!
Ontario’s Legislative Process
On a provincial note, the legislative review process is steaming full ahead. Canada's Public Policy Forum has released the Stage One Findings Report surrounding the review of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Both the complete report and an executive summary are available for perusal on the Ministry's
website, together with additional information surrounding the review process.
The Ministry of Consumer Services welcomes feedback and comments in respect of the Stage
One Findings Report through March 11, 2013. More information is available at the Ministry's
website.
As a chapter, we are doing our best to keep our membership up to date on provincial and municipal relationships. CCI National is also actively working to develop strong relationships with
all levels of government across the country. It is very busy and exciting time for condominiums!
P AGE 21
I SSUE N UMBER 8
CCI Huronia — Inception
Written by Gerritt Roosenbaum, Edited by Andrew Ain
Before even thinking of a Huronia Chapter, there were queries from various persons throughout
areas north of Toronto for seminars or courses as people found it difficult and time consuming
to attend the CCI courses in Toronto. As a member of the CCI Toronto board, I discussed the
possibility of scheduling seminars north of the GTA but it was found to be too difficult and never
materialized.
In and around 2001, I had started to consider retirement from my 40 years in the railway industry and decided to move to Barrie from Richmond Hill. Upon moving to Barrie I discussed the
possibility of creating a chapter in Barrie with my fellow directors of the Toronto Chapter. We
had some initial discussions to do a membership drive but it really was never considered to be
viable.
I advised my fellow board members in Toronto that I would arrange the start up myself. Interestingly a majority of my fellow board member on the Toronto chapter expressed their
doubts that creating a separate chapter would prove to be successful; noting that the target for
starting up a new chapter is at least 35 members. CCI Toronto and CCI National were willing
to help. One of the first was a regional manager with Brookfield Lepage who introduced me to
Howard Walker a member of the board of a condominium corporation in Barrie and also provided me the names of a number of property management companies in Barrie.
I was of the opinion that in cold calling to sell an idea, usually one could expect a 10% positive
response. So I started by dropping in on various businesses in Barrie and was truly amazed by
the quick positive support by about 90% of the people I visited. In short order we created a
steering committee and started planning. The first steering committee consisted of Howard
Walker, Milton Zwicker and Andrew Ain and later grew to 13 members.
We scheduled a full day seminar and membership drive in
April, 2001 in Barrie at which we were able to sign up 50
members and elected a board of 15. Interestingly we had
contemplating a board of 7 but I believe it was Milton
Zwicker who suggested that we accept all those who volunteered to serve to join the board. The first board of directors
in addition to the members of the steering committee listed
above consisted of Michelle Farley, David Montgomery, Mina Tesseris, Doug Bevan, Gary Bevan, Lesley burns, Susan Fitzgerald, Michael McAlear, Larry Readman, Gerry
Stone and Lou Natale.
Within a year we grew to 100!
P AGE 22
I SSUE N UMBER 8
MUNICIPAL RESPONSIBILITY
At last fall’s ACMO/CCI-T Condominium Conference, the question was raised as to the role of municipalities in creating healthy condominium communities, particularly given that condominium corporations are
becoming more and more prominent across Ontario. The City of Toronto’s recent launch of a consultation that seeks to engage condominium occupants to identify issues and develop recommendations is
indicative of a growing recognition that healthy condominium communities are important to develop or
sustain healthy municipalities. While not condo specific, the City of Toronto is also pursuing its “Tower
Renewal” initiative, which will, directly or indirectly, have an impact on condominium corporations.
To this end, municipalities can best serve their own interests, together with the interests of individual condominium corporations, by recognizing and appreciating the different “types” of condominiums, the optimal placement of each “type” of condominium within the municipality, as well as what can occur if longterm interests of both the municipality and the individual condominium corporation are not valued or promoted.
Very often, it appears to be that short-term interests are recognized and valued with little appreciation or
weight given to long-term ramifications.
For example, at the risk of sounding overly simplistic, one can imagine that municipalities value the revenues created through robust condominium development. Looking forward, municipalities should also
look favourably upon the long-term tax base that future development would bring, particularly to the extent that condominiums currently provide municipalities with property tax income at the same rate as traditional housing without the same degree of corresponding obligations/expenses (an issue being brought
to light by CCI’s Fair Tax Campaign). From the developer’s perspective, one would imagine that marketability is key, particularly from the initial cost point in terms of purchase price and expected common expenses. The developer builds, sells and moves on. In the short term, the interest of the municipality and
the developer will likely align; however to stop the analysis at this point is premature.
The municipality’s interests are, however, both short and long-term. Short-term revenue from the development process, long-term revenue from the newly established tax base. Accordingly, it seems only logical that municipalities would benefit by having a full understanding of the long-term interests of any particular condominium corporation that is being proposed for construction.
From the perspective of both the municipality and the condominium corporation, interests align if the condominium corporation is well maintained and well run, creating a community where people want to live
and move to, rather than one where people would rather move away from.
One of the most obvious examples relates to the popularity of common elements condominiums. In a
common elements condominium, there are no “units”; the individual “homes” are legally tied (as parcels
of tied land known as “POTL”s) to a condominium corporation consisting only of common elements. Consider a neighbourhood that surrounds a golf course: the golf course is the condominium corporation and
all the homes in the neighbourhood are tied to it and contribute to it, but are not technically part of the
condominium corporation.
The distinction lessens when one thinks about the more typical common elements condominium, specifically, a townhouse development where the interior roadways (only) form the condominium. This arrangement is difficult to distinguish from the more traditional “standard” condominium.
From the marketability standpoint, the attraction to common elements condominiums includes exceptionally low monthly common expense fees - as all aspects of maintenance and repair of the “homes” fall outside of the condominium. Similarly, from a purely “cost” perspective, the interests of the municipality are
P AGE 23
I SSUE N UMBER 8
MUNICIPAL RESPONSIBILITY
advanced regardless of condominium type involved. Development fees are paid and, to the extent that
the condominium corporation is responsible for snow clearing, road maintenance/repair, light standards,
sewers, water mains, etc., the municipality has effectively downloaded this responsibility onto the condominium corporation.
Thinking long term however, the condominium corporation is being treated as a fourth level of government, yet does not have the tools to sufficiently function as a fourth level of government.
Economies of scales are vital to the efficient operation of any government - municipal or otherwise. This
is no different in the context of a condominium corporation. Large municipalities have a larger tax base
and are able to put in place a bureaucracy with the necessary expertise and funding to efficiently run and
operate. In contrast, smaller municipalities may struggle due to a lack of resources (consider the Walkerton water tragedy of 2000). Condominium corporations are no different. A one hundred (100) unit standard condominium will have roughly the same challenges as a one hundred (100) unit common elements
condominium. The roadways, sewers, water mains and light standards must be maintained and repaired,
a property manager must be hired and paid and legal and engineering challenges will arise. However, the
common elements condominium is required to operate with ⅓ to ¼ of the budget of the standard condominium.
While a one hundred (100) unit standard condominium is typically professionally managed, and as such
can leverage the knowledge and expertise of its property manager, a one hundred (100) unit common elements condominium may not be able to afford professional property management. To compound this
problem, as one moves outside of the larger metropolitan areas throughout Ontario, the average size of
condominiums drops tremendously. In smaller common elements condominiums, professional property
management likely is not even considered and the Boards must wrestle with the pros and cons of not incurring costs associated, for example, in seeking needed advice from lawyers and engineers.
The result is a greater challenge to the community and to the individual owners who do want to be responsible participants within the community (Board members), notwithstanding the very large question mark as
to whether the long-term interests of both the condominium corporation and the greater municipality are
truly being served (or even can be).
Richard A. Elia, B. Comm., LL.B., LL.M.(ADR), A.C.C.I.
Elia Associates Professional Corporation, Barristers and Solicitors
92 Caplan Avenue, Barrie, ON L4N 0Z7
Tel: (705) 855 0400 x. 801
Fax: (705) 855 0404
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: CONDOCENTRIC.ca
Areas of Focus:
Condominium Law, Real Estate, Mediation, Appropriate Dispute Resolution
P AGE 24
I SSUE N UMBER 8
P AGE 25
I SSUE N UMBER 8
P AGE 26
I SSUE N UMBER 8
CCI HURONIA—ADVERTISING RATES
P AGE 27
I SSUE N UMBER 8
CCI H URONIA —ADVERTISING RATES