Scaffolding and construction wrap surrounds one wing of a north Edmonton condo building, where owners forced out by the risk of collapse are now facing a hefty special assessment.
“It was a complete shock. We had no idea,” said unit owner Rebecca Gillis, who said her special assessment came in at just under $12,000.
She knew a cash call was coming, but the amount was nearly four times higher than expected.
“We thought that the special levy was going to be assessed with $200,000 but then we were surprised with $750,000 — pay by January 8th.”
Chantal Piché owns a unit on the second floor on the side where the fire happened and her special assessment is $8,500.
She said owners previously rejected a motion to dip into the reserve fund to cover the $200,000 cash call because the board couldn’t explain to owner’s satisfaction how the money would be used.
Getting a special assessment multiple times that amount was a slap in the face.
“We didn’t get a heads up that the numbers seemed to have magically jumped from $200,000 to $750,000, divided by the unit factors for the condo owners,” Piché said.
A huge source of frustration for Gillis and Piché: that cash call also came with no detailed breakdown of where the money is going. A letter from property manager Simco Management sent to residents, which Global News has also read, stated the assessment was for two purposes:
- Payment of unexpected and urgent maintenance, repair, or replacement of the common property or managed property, and
- Covering expected shortfalls in the operating account. The letter stated that was due to higher than expected insurance premiums, site security, legal fees, expert fees, and expenses incurred to carry costs while awaiting insurance proceeds.
“They haven’t given us an exact breakdown of what it is and why it’s so much. But they expect us to pay by January 8th, which is a very short period of time for a significant amount of money,” Piché said.
“They have not been answering our questions when we have specifically asked for specific stuff,” Gillis said of inquiries to the condo board and property manager.
“That is not okay. We are not we are not talking about mat cleaning for the condo —we are talking about everybody’s future and everybody deserves to know exactly where money is going to make an informed decision.”
Now, Gillis said she faces financial ruin.
“Even if we pay the levy on January 8th, that doesn’t even touch the cost of potentially rebuilding the building — or, we have an option to also sell the building.”
Gillis said fixing Castledowns Pointe is expected to cost around $7 million. But that doesn’t include more levies for lawyers, condo fees and security.
“People in the building that aren’t able to pay and would have to go bankrupt — that would be what I would have to do,” she said, adding that would then just transfer the onus onto others.
“Then it would be up to the other owners to take on that burden of what I can’t pay.”
“It is literally an impossible situation.”
Gillis, along with the other residents of the 83-unit Castledowns Pointe condo building (12618 152 Ave.) in the Baranow neighbourhood in the Castle Downs area, have been out of their homes since the beginning of September.
Some, like Piché, have been evacuated since a fire in March.
The order to vacate from the City of Edmonton came after several inspections following the March 12 fire, caused by an unknown electrical malfunction, that resulted in more than $8-million in damages.
During the following inspections last spring and summer, engineers from Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. (RJC) revealed the building was not constructed properly two decades ago and could collapse at any moment. The condo was built by Edmonton developer Carrington Properties Ltd.
Gillis said her and several other owners have met to discuss the problems.
They want to have a special meeting next month to decide the their fate, saying a decision of this magnitude should not be left just in the hands of the people on the board.
Both women said holding an extraordinary meeting instead of the regularly scheduled one set for Jan. 17, 2024 would give each owner the right to vote whether to sell and move on — or rebuild.
“I think that’s a really important thing for every owner to be able to have a say because we’re not just voting on, you know, house cleaning or getting mats or snow removal.
“We’re voting on something that really impacts every single one of us and our lives like our financial futures.
“We’re at risk of losing everything. That’s my case — I’ll lose everything.”
Gillis noted, even if they do have a meeting to vote, only those who have paid their levy would be able to have a say.
“When it comes to decide whether to terminate or sell, I don’t even get to vote because I’ll be behind.”
Adding to the pressure — Gillis said in addition to mortgages and condo fees for homes they can’t live in, the building’s old insurance provider dropped the condo as a client and their new company is costly.
“It works out to about $3,600 a year — just for insurance. That doesn’t even include our condo fees that we have to keep paying.
“Those bills aren’t going to stop.”
Piché noted the 20-year-old condo building is not home to wealthy people: residents are seniors, people with disabilities, new immigrants and the like.
“That is not a building that is very expensive. It’s more lower-income persons like myself. And so that amount of money is significant.”
Piché said she will have to dip into her RRSPs in order to try and pay her special assessment by the deadline in three weeks. That, in addition to her existing expenses.
“We have second rents while still paying mortgages, while still paying condo fees. So it’s very upsetting,” Piché said. She’s staying with a friend, who she said is kindly giving her a reasonable rate on rent.
Gillis said the stress and emotional burden of the situation is untenable and wants to wash her hands of the place. She said most other owners also want to just cut their losses and walk away.
“The levies are just going to keep going and going and going up. Whereas if we terminate — we sell the building, we divide up the money and hopefully we are all less impacted financially.”
Gillis said she’s living cozy with her mom, aunt, husband, daughter and three dogs — and considers herself lucky. She’s heard of other owners living in hotels with their children. Requests to the province and city for emergency assistance have gone nowhere, she said.
Piché said it seems like the board won’t consider any option but to rebuild.
“On the one hand, it seems like a good idea, except that we just got an engineer’s report telling us that to rebuild is going to be $7 million and the insurance is not covering that. So that’s going to be about $70,000 to $80000 per owner, and that’s without other engineering reports that are still upcoming.”
Piché said she bought her unit for $130,000 with a $25,000 down payment, and still owes $100,000 on her mortgage. She said with her $8,500 levy now, and the expected cost to rebuild down the road, plus other yet-to-be-determined fees, the costs are only going to balloon.
“I will have essentially paid for another whole condo, and I’m never going to get that money back.”
Piché said the fire damage seemed fixable but the structural concerns are another beast entirely.
She understands the board is made up of fellow owners who are doing the best they can, but she also wants to cut her loses and sell.
“We’re sinking fast and we want the board to have a more realistic view on how to handle the situation, and give us the option that if we want it, let us vote to sell. Let us do that.”
Global News sent requests to both the Castledowns Pointe condo board and Simco Management for comment. As of publishing, we had not heard back.
There appear to have been critical discrepancies, oversight and errors in the original architectural and structural drawing that were not coordinated during the design stage or noticed during the construction and review of shop drawing, engineers from Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. (RJC) said in their reports earlier this year.
Piché is angry at the builder, Carrington, and the City of Edmonton, for allowing that to happen.
“There’s plans that are supposed to be followed. How were there all these structural deficiencies? How do they get by the safety codes?
“How did we get to this point?”
Comments