ECA Reserve Study: Remarks of Concern

[This paper, dated October 10, 2009, comes from Ted Ariev. Text in bold is strictly the author's emphasis. Mr. Ariev is a long time resident owner at the Elizabeth and has a strong background in engineering, architecture, and construction.]


In January 2009, Reserve Advisors, Inc. submitted a Full Reserve Study of The Elizabeth to the Board of Directors. This Reserve Study was based on a visual, noninvasive inspection conducted in November 2008. The study included an assessment of the condition of the building structure, systems and equipment; and the estimated useful life, remaining useful life and the replacement cost of these items.

The purpose of the Reserve Study is to provide a budget planning tool to address anticipated future major expenditures. This Study does address most of the major building elements and equipment. However, either at the direction of the Board or through oversight the Study did not address the exterior concrete and balcony issue or the replacement of the McQuay fan-coil units. Further, due to limited observation of existing exterior conditions only, Reserve Advisors, Inc. did not fully appreciate the necessity for replacement of the windows and sliding doors.

The following addresses these issues with the intent that funding be added to the Five Year Plan in order to accomplish the work necessary to assure an adequate environment and life style for the residents of The Elizabeth.


EXTERIOR CONCRETE AND BALCONIES

Recently, the noise and disruption at the Willoughby brought to mind a long standing and potentially very serious problem. In the 1970’s, the concrete used in buildings incorporated a type of cement that caused deterioration of the concrete when exposed to moisture and subsequent rusting of the reinforcing steel. This problem is endemic. It is only necessary to look at the Willoughby and our own experience in the garage. Prohibiting the use of floor coverings, and painting the concrete on the balconies will not prevent this problem from occurring. There are simply too many chips and cracks that allow the concrete to be exposed to moisture. The exterior concrete on our building, most of which are the balconies, will deteriorate and will require extensive repair, similar to that implemented in the garage and at the Willoughby.

A significant number of the balconies in the building were built with the slope of the balcony floor either flat or sloping towards the sliding doors, rather than away from the building. This causes wind driven rain on the balcony to either stand on the balcony slab, or much more seriously, pond against the door. Occupants presently sweep the standing water off the balcony causing staining on the brick and a great deal of dirt and refuse on the balconies below. The water allowed to stand against the door will eventually migrate through the sealant into the concrete slab (please see previous paragraph), and into the unit damaging any finish flooring, wood, carpet, etc. A few years ago, this problem was acknowledged and remedial work was included in the Five Year plan. It was not implemented, nor is it included in the present Five Year Plan.

It is essential that funds be provided in the Five Year plan to address the exterior concrete and balcony issues without further delay.

REPLACEMENT OF THE McQUAY UNITS

The age of the building and the condition of the McQuay fan-coil units indicate that the units will fail at an ever increasing rate and require replacement. The drain pans are rusting, and the coils, valves and piping in the units are subject to leaking. The humidification system was turned off years ago to prevent damage within the apartment units.

Apparently the issue is not whether the fan-coil units need to be replaced, but by whom and how it will be paid for. The Board of Directors believing the replacement of the fan-coil units a direct responsibility of the owners; choose not to include the cost of replacement in the Reserve Study. This is disingenuous. The owners will pay for replacement of the fan-coil units, whether it is included as part of an overall building maintenance program, or done individually and at different times by the owners. The issue then becomes what is the most cost effective and technically prudent way to proceed with this work.

Recognizing that the units do require replacement, accomplishing this work as a coordinated effort would certainly be more cost-effective (the bigger the contract, the less expensive it will be), but would also permit providing an upgraded system consistent with present technology. It would permit the new system to address heating, cooling, and ventilating requirements that replacing the units on an individual basis would not.

There is no question that replacing the units on an individual basis is possible, and has in fact been the process for accomplishing this work to date. However, continuing this process will result, when all the units have been replaced, with essentially having exactly the same heating and cooling system we have now, a 1970’s system.

We would be seriously remiss if we did not take the opportunity to address the ventilating, humidification and controls systems that we are presently lacking. We would also be able to better coordinate the new fan-coil units with an upgraded and more efficient overall building system. Lastly, approaching this issue on an integrated and overall basis would also be much less expensive than replacing the fan-coil units individually. We should start this effort now.


WINDOWS AND SLIDING DOORS

The existing windows and balcony doors are original to the construction of the building, and although they appear to be in fair to good condition, are nearing the end of their expected useful lives. The Reserve Study addressed the issue of window and sliding glass door replacement. They concluded that the windows and doors would need to be replaced starting in 12 years. This conclusion was based on a limited observation of existing conditions.

Although they are not about to fall from their frames, a significant number of sliding window units are presently inoperable. There are occupants of the building who cannot presently open their windows, or choose to cover them (making them inoperable) in order to control cold, wind and rain infiltration. The failure of the windows in this manner will increase. The inability to open windows combined with the absence of any ventilating system in the units has an extremely negative impact on health and environment issues for occupants. The mold issues are a prime example of this problem. There is also the less critical, but nevertheless, significant issue of aesthetics. The condition of the window and door frames appreciably diminishes the appearance of the building and thus the property value of our units.

The Reserve Study estimated an escalated cost of $8,138,460 for replacement of the windows and doors. More significantly, they note the current cost for the replacement at $5,641,600. This amount, $5,641,600 apparently compares to a cost of $2,394,800 estimated by the Energy Audit consultants.

Maurice Trebach has met with two window subcontractors to gather additional information. These meetings have resulted in confirmation that high-quality; double-pane, insulated, aluminum frame replacement windows and sliding glass doors with thermal breaks are available and would be effective. The subcontractors have offered estimates of the costs, but they are based on different products, and incomplete available information. However, based on his conversations, it is reasonable to assume the cost for replacing the windows and sliding glass doors now would be approximately 3.5 to 4 million dollars. This is consistent with the estimate included in the Reserve Study. It is somewhat lower than that provided in the Reserve Study, but is based on better information and experience.

Based on the present condition of the windows and doors, improved heating and cooling system effectiveness, energy cost savings, reduced noise transmission, proper ventilation system balancing, and improved property values, a program to replace the windows and doors should be implemented without further delay.

Funds to retain an architect to assist the Board in developing an implementation program; there are a number of ways to proceed, and then to prepare bid documents, should be authorized now.


FUNDING AND SCHEDULE

In a building of this age and condition, there are innumerable calls for funding for long-term maintenance issues. The Reserve Study generally addressed them. The three issues noted above were either not addressed in the Study or not assigned adequate urgency. “Deferred maintenance” is the most expensive and least desirable way to approach maintenance issues.

The issues of repair of the exterior concrete and balconies, the replacement of the McQuay units, and the replacement of the windows and doors must be addressed in the Five Year Plan.

Sooner is always less expensive than later, and funding will never again be cheaper.

If a resident of The Elizabeth were living in a single-family house, there would be equally significant financial issues to be addressed. After 35 years, the house would have had a couple of roof replacements, the siding, if not masonry, would likely have been replaced, there would have been some structural repairs, the heating and cooling system would have been replaced or upgraded, the windows and doors would have been replaced or this work would be imminent in addition to whole series of expensive maintenance projects. There would be little question of funding. This work would be done or the resident would be living in squalor.

Do the residents of The Elizabeth want to live in squalor?