The Surfside collapse and the resulting loss of life is tragic. In addition to dealing with the far-reaching impact of that collapse, many occupants, owners, and managers of most buildings are now asking whether something similar could happen to their building. The answer is that the structural health and future of any building depends on many variables including age, climate, maintenance, structural materials used, renovations that have occurred, quality of construction, original design, and much more. No building will last forever.

The Surfside collapse has shined a bright light on building inspections, maintenance, reserve funding, and management. CAI task forces created in the wake of the condominium collapse—there were two that I served on including the Building Inspections Task Force and the Reserve Studies and Funding Task Force—will release public policy statements and best practice guidelines. Among the objectives for the CAI task forces efforts was to help guide public policy and legislative action toward reasonable and responsible standards since we should all expect widespread legislative action—no one wants a repeat of Surfside. (See side bar article on the Task Forces work on page 40.)

PLANNING FOR THE DEMANDS OF AN AGING BUILDING

In what I call Stage 2 aging, which takes into account the long-term deterioration of a building, when a building reaches 25 to 30 years old, there are more things to consider than those that are common to most reserve studies.

Many components such as roofs, paint, and HVAC equipment have predicable useful lives; their condition is visible, and they fall within the minimum 20-year (we use 30) study period recommended in the CAI Reserve Fund Guidelines. However, some expensive components such as underground piping and structural components (balconies, exposed framing, water intrusion related corrosion, or rot) have a longer expected useful life but will still need attention. What do you do about those conditions?

IDENTIFY AREAS OF CONCERN

First, the board should identify the areas of concern, then investigate, then plan for addressing the information revealed by the investigation; out of sight, out of mind does not mean those conditions can be ignored—aging and deterioration is inevitable.

For structures, deterioration is typically a slow process; severe weather events or seismic activity can accelerate the deterioration, but it still may take many years before a healthy building starts to show evidence of structural illness. In my opinion, all buildings of more than five stories should be thoroughly inspected by well-qualified individuals for structural soundness regularly: every 10 years for buildings less than 50 years old and every 5 years for buildings more than 50 years old.

CONDUCT STRUCTURAL INSPECTIONS

The structural health of most buildings must be determined by a structural engineer with the right combination of experience and expertise, and the qualifications to be accountable for their work. The presence of cracks in concrete, for example, does not mean much until you consider the location, pattern, size, and character of those cracks. Even structurally healthy buildings often have cracks. Age almost always matters, however, being young doesn’t mean that building is structurally sound. Every building is unique, and the structural inspection of that building should respond to that uniqueness. Age, location, and structural materials are big factors in guiding inspection priorities and procedures.

For inspection protocol, we recommend a two-phase approach:

• Phase one is a visual examination for evidence of significant structural distress, and then, depending on the results of phase one,
• proceed with phase two, a more in-depth investigation, possibly including destructive testing.

When possible, the original construction drawings would be reviewed as part of phase one.

INCLUDE FINDINGS IN RESERVE FUND STUDY

The structural inspection report (or other in-depth investigation such as elevators or video examination of underground piping) should then be provided to the Reserve Specialist who would include it in the Reserve Fund Study done for that building, including estimated costs. Reserve Studies should be done (or updated) at least every five years. Reserve Fund Studies are projections for repair or replacement of existing assets. They are a budgeting tool; they are not an in-depth building evaluation.

All of this means more work for the board or management company that should identify systems or components that deserve in-depth investigations and then retain appropriately qualified experts to conduct those investigations. Consultants familiar with buildings and building systems (such as some engineering companies and Reserve Specialists) can assist the board or management company with identifying the investigations that are needed. The resulting reports should be shared with the Reserve Specialist to include in the Reserve Fund Study to assure that the recommended reserve contributions include the results of those investigations. That may mean a significant increase in reserve contributions.

TAKING ACTION

Unfortunately, condo boards are often the roadblock in the process. They get important information from qualified professionals and don’t act on it. My personal experience includes many similar situations.

Why? When the studies and investigations reveal needed work that will require increased funding from the owners, that information may not get past the board to be shared with the owners, or, if it does reach the owners, it may get defeated by a vote of the owners. In some states, associations can even choose not to fund a reserve. CAI is aware of some state and federal legislation that is being considered to mandate structural inspections, assure adequate reserve funding, and mandate action to address the issues revealed.

Being a board member is tough! It involves fiduciary responsibility, accountability, and liability. It means answering to your constituents and it’s a “highly paid” volunteer position. A good management company will make good recommendations, but the board must make the decisions, and that may mean being unpopular with the owners, some of whom may be your friends and neighbors. I have been a president of an HOA board, so I understand the challenge.

Full disclosure and good communication are best. Our buildings are getting older, and we are being challenged to plan for that effectively. A better understanding of your building is the best place to start.

Article written by H. Alan Mooney, P.E., R.S., Criterium Engineers Founding President
Published in Condo Media October 2021 edition
Download a PDF version of this Condo Media Article

Addressing Building Issues With Caution

Have you ever noticed how fashion and entertainment trends seem to start on the “Left Coast” and work their way across the country before finally arriving in Maine? I call this the “End of Route 95 Syndrome.” Of course, YouTube and other digital social media has sped things up a bit, but the general premise holds true. The same may be true for residential/commercial construction codes and building science. This can make it difficult for condo boards to make an informed choice regarding building maintenance issues, not to mention prospective condo buyers assessing the condition of the unit and the community in general. Who do you call?

Maine Building Code Questions

It often takes a Surfside, FL, disaster for building codes and maintenance practices to change. Elevated deck and balcony structures must now be structurally inspected in California every five years following the horrific collapse of the raised deck on a multi-family building on the UC Berkeley campus in 2015. Exterior building façade failures in cities such as Chicago, Cleveland, New York, and Boston have resulted in those cities enacting mandatory structural evaluations of building exterior façades depending on the inspection cycle dictated in the ordinance and the height of the building.

I am often asked by out-of-state buyers of Maine condo units or condo boards of whether the building meets “code.” After a Maine history of a patchwork of building codes throughout the state, a Maine Unified Building Code and Unified Energy Code was adopted in 2015 following a suite of model international codes. As most buildings in Maine’s real estate inventory were built under a variety of building codes over the years, the question should be: “Does the building meet suitable standards of safety, health, resiliency, and energy efficiency while keeping to a reasonable maintenance schedule.” But who sets those standards, especially for existing buildings?

Licenses and Certifications

Maine does not license or certify its residential or commercial general contractors. Some of the skilled trades are licensed but not the general contractor who is ultimately responsible for the quality and safety of Maine’s homes. Legislative measures to license Maine’s contractors have been successfully defeated by various construction industry lobbying efforts in the recent past. Undoubtedly, someday, this situation will change, but Maine’s self-reliance traditions can be difficult to overcome.

Maine does not license or certify its home inspectors. This fact is often confusing for out-of-state buyers as the inspectors in their state are all licensed by the state. In addition, the home inspection brochures they pick up at a local Maine real estate office or web site have words such as “licensed” or “certified.” Under closer review it will be found the referred licenses are for radon or pest inspections, but not the home inspection itself. Maine does not have the “lemon laws” protecting home buyers in neighboring states, such as Massachusetts, with regard to undisclosed issues affecting the quality of a condominium. Maine’s real estate motto should be Caveat Emptor.

The term “certified” is even more misunderstood. The state certainly does not certify home inspectors, so a good question to ask is, “Certified by whom?” There are many home inspection associations across the country that “certifies” their dues paying members. They are not all equal. The joke in the industry is that in Maine one can be a hairdresser one week and a home inspector the next. The joke, of course, is that a hairdresser needs a license.

So, condo buyers in Maine, as well as condo boards, are typically advised to hire professional engineers (PE) or registered architects (RA or AIA) when they have concerns about structural integrity or other serious building science matters. Similarly, the Community Association Institute (CAI) recognizes the importance of professional competency in preparing reserve studies with the designation of “Reserve Specialist” (RS) for some members.

The greatest advantage of the board having a licensed engineer or architect is the condo board does not have to wait for an ordinance or new code to be approved to make an informed maintenance decisions for its community. A Maine board can utilize their engineer’s or architect’s experience and research done in other parts of the country to make informed maintenance decisions.

Taking Action

If a high-rise condo board thinks it is a good idea for its building façade or elevated balconies to be structurally evaluated every five years, the board does not have to wait for Maine to pass legislation. The board can budget for it in the association’s reserve study as a line item budget where replacement costs are allowed to include related expenses such as structural studies. This is also true for the evaluation of other major systems such as underground infrastructure, plumbing, or other long life common elements. The adage holds true for buildings too in that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Article written by Jack Carr, P.E., R.S., LEED-AP, Criterium Engineers
Published in Condo Media October 2021 edition
Download a PDF Version of this Condo Media article

Reserve Study Guidelines

Are you aware of the significant changes in the Community Association Institute (CAI)’s recommendations for best practices in future reserve fund studies? If you are not, you are not alone. In July 2023, the Foundation for Community Association Research published its Best Practices – Community Association Maintenance manual. Let me explain why this 68- page ‘Maintenance’ manual should be a must read for every condominium or HOA board member. It is available in printed form and the no cost digital version can be downloaded from CAI’s website.

Most reserve fund studies in the recent past have used CAI’s Best Practices – Reserve Studies / Management manual published in 2007 as a guideline on how to perform a quality reserve fund study. Though this guideline is still relevant, things have changed with the new 2023 ‘Maintenance’ manual. No longer is a reserve fund study’s primary focus budgetary but rather future reserve fund studies should expand to incorporate both safety and preventive maintenance needs. As CAI states, CAI “…recognized need for greater clarity in the role of maintenance planning and programming in communities”.

Following the June 2021 tragedy in Surfside, Florida with the collapse of Champlain Towers South and the loss of 98 occupants, CAI commissioned a special committee of reserve fund experts contributing to the Condominium Safety Public Policy Report (October 2021). Among other points of emphasis was condo boards’ life-safety responsibilities and duties of loyalty and care. The special committee’s ‘Maintenance’ manual further recommends expanding typical reserve components to include preventative maintenance in future reserve fund planning as well as infrastructure inspections when warranted.

This is a departure from prior reserve fund guidelines where preventive maintenance and infrastructure inspections were not included or funded as reserve component line items. It is now recommended the judgement of the reserve study provider determines the inclusion of these types of component items when based on a degree of engineering certainty. It is further suggested the community’s historical pattern of maintenance expenses should be considered in determining if any of these expenses should be included in the reserve budget. Other historical reviews should include any work performed on the reserve components since the prior study was performed. In fact, all available service provider reports and information regarding the physical components should be reviewed.

What’s Included

While reserve studies will now reflect the board’s life-safety responsibilities, reserve studies will continue to evaluate information regarding the physical status and repair/ replacement cost of the association’s major common area components using component inventory, a condition assessment, and valuation estimates. Some of the new ‘Maintenance’ manual’s recommendations are subtle while others are not, such as decreasing the recommended period of site inspections from five to every three years.

Another significant recommendation is components are not restricted to physical items. This could include professional inspections, evaluations, or related building services when additional expert advice is needed, and an asset’s deterioration is in question. Therefore, common area preventive or corrective maintenance projects qualify as reserve components if they otherwise meet the definition of ‘component’. Thus, a reserve component is not required to be a cyclical replacement. Now a periodic structural inspection could be reserve component.

In the past component replacement was estimated as a ‘like kind’ of component. It is now recommended consideration should be given to logical upgrades to an existing asset or system now viewed as obsolete or inefficient in meeting the needs of the association. Judgement on these upgrades can be based on ongoing preventive maintenance costs and an evaluation of energy costs using higher efficiency equipment. Selection of components and their estimated useful life and remaining useful life may consider energy usage and ongoing maintenance costs with the resulting impact on total budgetary expenses and total life cycle costs.

Long-life components (i.e., > 30 years) have long been a subject of debate on their presentation in reserve studies. Often boards ignored long-life infrastructure components, hidden electrical and mechanical systems and their associated replacement costs. In effect, if the component’s replacement did not occur within the reserve study’s 30-year window, the study ignored future funding needs and kicked the can down the road for a future board to address. The new ‘Maintenance’ manual recommends long-life components should not be ignored but made visible in the study. Methodologies for reporting long-term projects include:

• Inclusion of long-life components with funding in the study.
• Addition of long-life components with funding at the time when they fall within the 30-year period from the date of study preparation.
• Identification of long-life components in the component inventory, even when they are not yet being funded in the 30-year funding plan.

Despite this new emphasis on preventive maintenance, it should always be remembered a reserve fund study is not a preventive maintenance plan, and a preventive maintenance plan is recommended for all associations. A quality reserve fund study is a path to avoid deferred maintenance; special assessments; lower property values; and liability exposure for all. This is a plan to meet the board’s primary mandate to ‘Maintain, Protect and Enhance.’

Written by Jack Carr, P.E., R.S., LEED-AP, Senior Consultant Criterium Engineers
Published in Condo Media

Q: Over the past few months, I’ve heard a lot of discussion about reserve studies and condition surveys. Are these the same, and, if not, how do they differ, and why and when should our association obtain one?

A: This is a great question because it is not asked often enough. I cannot count the number of times I have responded to a condominium board’s request for a meeting to discuss their stated need for a reserve fund study only to find they actually needed something else. That something else could encompass a wide range of engineering services such as a full structural evaluation; a water infiltration study; and/or a plumbing or electrical system update.

Condo and HOA boards have a lot on their agenda for their periodic meetings. Issues regarding landscaping, by-law enforcement, assessment collections to name a few, so the need to spend money to update their last reserve study is not a popular item. Even though the Community Associations Institute (CAI) and the association’s property manager may recommend a reserve budget update every three to five years, the board members are not eager to look at the calendar.

In fact, most discussions about updating the reserve budget arises from some perceived maintenance problem and not the calendar. Perhaps it is the rise in complaints in water stained ceilings from leaking roofs, or poor curb appeal of the aging building facades, or the developing potholes in the roadways that create the agenda item requiring capital repairs and the analysis of the reserve budget.

With the guidance of an experienced property manager or knowledgeable committee member, the board will recognize the benefit of hiring a professional engineer (PE) and reserve specialist (RS).  These professionals provide the most complete review of the facility’s common elements and will develop a reserve budget reflecting the future scope of repairs and associated cost estimates. With this understanding the board can prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) and conduct interviews to hire a qualified firm—from there, things can start going wrong.

Common Misunderstanding

They go wrong because of miscommunication due to the lack of understanding of the industry’s language and terminology. Let us assume the condo’s primary concern is structural problems given the recent attention of the Surfside, Florida disaster. The communication problem starts with the engineer’s RFP interview during which the interviewee remarks to the board that one of the advantages of hiring an engineering firm to perform a reserve study is their structural engineers can comment on the potential structural distress issues found during the inspection of the building(s). This can be a point of communication disconnect and the beginning of unfulfilled client expectations.

In the engineer’s mind, he thought he was clear in telling the board his review of the structural elements would produce a report listing the structural problems found and the engineer’s recommendations of actions to be taken. What the members of the board may have heard was for the price of the reserve fund study they would receive an engineer’s structural evaluation of the condition of their facility with an estimate of repair costs to budget for their reserves and for a contractor.

A basic reserve study focuses on estimated remaining useful lives of existing common elements. When structural problems are known before or found during a reserve study, a condition study or assessment is needed to determine the soundness of the facility. This scope of work can be added to the reserve fund study or provided as a separate task. This study may call for inspection, material testing, engineering calculations, and more that are outside the scope of a reserve study. To avoid this, better questions and answers are needed on all sides of the issue.

Article written by Jack Carr, P.E., R.S., LEED-AP, Criterium Engineers
Published in Condo Media December 2021 edition
Download a PDF Version of this Condo Media article