DURHAM CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 139
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
1400 The Esplanade North, Pickering, Ontario, LIV 6K2
MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE UNIT OWNERS of Durham Condominium Corporation No. 139 held on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 in the Pickering Public Library at 1 The Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario, LIV 6K7, at 7:00 p.m.
Representing the Board
Marcus Dickinson President
Robert Brown Treasurer
Gideon Exeter Director
Andre Gillezeau Director
Hugh Pearce Director
Representing Property Management
Leona Lott Property Manager, ICC Property Management Ltd.
Akhil Desai Regional Property Manager, ICC Property Management Ltd.
Guests
Warren Kleiner Solicitor, Miller Thompson
John AbedRabbo CPA Auditor, Polyzotis & Co. LLP. (departed at 7:28 p.m.)
Amy Catney Recording Secretary, INaMINUTE Ltd.
Katlyn Armstrong Recording Secretary, INaMINUTE Ltd.
1.0 OPENING OF MEETING AND QUORUM QUALIFICATION
Marcus Dickinson, President of Durham Condominium Corporation (DCC) No.139, presided as Chairperson and called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
The Chairperson noted that the Notice of Meeting, dated May 7, 2015, was sent within the required fifteen days to each registered Owner or Mortgagee, in accordance with the requirements of the Condominium Act, 1998 and the By-Laws of the Corporation.
The Chairperson reported that there were 67 units represented in person and 10 units represented by proxy, for a total of 77 units, which satisfied Quorum, in accordance with the Condominium Act, 1998. With a Quorum present and proper notice having been given, the Chairperson stated that the Annual General Meeting was duly constituted to conduct business.
2.0 APPOINTMENT OF SCRUTINEERS
The chair requested volunteers from the floor to act as Scrutineers.
With the consent of the meeting, the Chair appointed an Alan Wadsworth, (Unit 619) and Darla Peterson (Unit 607) to act as Scrutineers of the meeting, to report on the members present in person and by proxy, to count the votes of any polls taken in this meeting and to report the results to the Chair.
3.0 ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF LAST ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING HELD ON MAY 27, 2014
The Chairperson stated the minutes of the Annual General Meeting held on May 27, 2014 were duly mailed with the Notice to all Owners/Mortgagees of the Corporation and copies were made available at this meeting. There were no corrections or omissions noted.
On a MOTION by June Kay (Unit 310), seconded by Ruth Ann Lickley (Unit 111), it was resolved to dispense with the reading of the minutes from last year’s Annual General Meeting, held on May 27, 2014, and to adopt the minutes to record, as presented.
The motion was carried.
4.0 AUDITOR’S REPORT
The Chairperson announced that copies of the Auditor’s Report and the Audited Financial Statements were mailed to all Owners with the Notice of the Meeting. The Chairperson called upon Mr. AbedRabbo to review the Audited Financial Statements for the period ending January 31st, 2015.
Mr. AbedRabbo reported that the Auditor of the Corporation works for the Owners independent from the Board of Directors and Management Company. Mr. AbedRabbo stated that the financial statements fairly represented the financial transactions of the Corporation and provided a clean, unqualified opinion that may be relied upon.
The Auditor spoke briefly to the Liabilities and Fund Balances. He explained that three (3) funds exist for the Corporation: the Reserve Fund for the long-term savings fund, the Operating Fund for the short-term day to day funds, and the Contingency Fund for potential extraordinary expenses. He reviewed the balances for all of these accounts. The Auditor also reviewed the balance of the current cash and investments, and the cash and investments in Reserve.
The Auditor stated that in the Reserve Fund for year-end January 31st, 2015, there was a fund balance of $1,084,873.00 and an excess of revenue over expenses of $271,378.00. He noted that $17,415.00 was earned in interest and a total of $124,491.00 was paid in expenses. The Auditor stated that the most recent Reserve Fund Study was in progress with SPG Engineering Group. Lastly, the Auditor noted the Reserve Fund balance at the beginning of the year was $140,471.00.
With regards to the Operating Fund, the Auditor noted the excess of revenue over expenses for the 2015 Budget (-$20,000.00) and the 2015 Actual (-$41,196.00). The Auditor briefly reviewed the expenses budgeted for 2015 in comparison to the actual amounts spent in the following accounts: service and maintenance contracts, repairs and maintenance, utilities, administrative expenses, on site personnel, and shared facilities.
The Auditor then opened the floor for questions.
Darla Peterson, Unit 607, asked what expenses were included in account “ICC Property Management, Inc. of $90,000.00
The Auditor explained that this expense includes the Property Manager, back-office and accounting expenses.
Bibi Shareefa Imran, Unit 206, referred to Schedule A of the Audited Financial Statements and asked why the Heating and Air Conditioning expense was so much higher than what was budgeted.
The Chair advised the floor that the heating and air conditioning expense was over budget because of the broken garage door and also the vent cleaning.
Bibi Shareefa Imran, Unit 206, asked whether the Heating and Air Conditioning expense should drop for next year, considering the above-noted explanations.
The Chair stated that this expense should drop for next year.
Theagarajan V. Mosur, Unit 403, asked why it took so many months (approximately three (3)) to fix the garage door.
The Chair explained that the Board had every intention of having the door replaced within two (2) weeks, by one of the three (3) contractors that they acquired quotes from. The contractor the 3 Way Board issued a PO to, cashed the cheque and then asked for more money. Over a few months, the 3 Way Board fought with the contractor, which nearly ended in a legal battle. The contractor finally refunded the 3 Way Board and a new contractor was chosen. It took nearly a month to have the right door installed. The Chair insisted that the 3 Way Board acted with due diligence in all matters.
The Chair thanked Mr. AbedRabbo for attending and he departed the meeting at 7:28pm.
5.0 APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR
The Chairperson called for a motion to reappoint the Auditor for the fiscal year ending January 31st, 2016.
On a MOTION by June Kay (Unit 310), seconded by Marilyn McConnach, (Unit 316), it was resolved that in accordance with Section 62(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998, Polyzotis & Co. LLP be appointed Auditor of the Corporation, to hold office until the close of the next Annual General Meeting of the Owners, or until their successors are appointed at a remuneration to be fixed by the Board and that the Board is hereby authorized to fix such remuneration at a duly called meeting of the Board.
The motion was carried.
6.0 DISCUSSION AND VOTING ON PROPOSED BY-LAW No. 11
Warren Kleiner, Miller Thompson, briefly reviewed the Proposed By-Law No.11. He stated that the By-laws required updating because the Condominium Act was updated and the by-laws need to be updated in order to benefit from some of the changes in the Act.
June Kay, Unit 310, asked whether the Proposed By-Law No. 11 is an amendment to the previous Standard Unit By-Law.
W. Kleiner stated that this By-Law update does not replace the Standard Unit By-Law, it replaces the previous General Operating By-Law. He continued to review highlights of the General Operating By-Law to the meeting.
June Kay, Unit 310, raised a concern regarding the new requirement for Board members to have access to electronic communication to sit on the Board.
W. Kleiner stated it may be a benefit for members of the Board to be able to communicate via email especially in emergency situations. Furthermore, electronic methods of communication expedite decision making on tasks that need to be completed.
Cathy Lambert, Unit 416, asked for clarification on whether children are counted towards the occupancy count.
W. Kleiner stated that only adults (aged 18 years and older) are counted towards the occupancy standards in the by-laws.
June Kay, Unit 310, asked whether the Corporation is in breach of the occupancy laws with the units that are considered a two (2) bedroom plus a den, versus the units that are considered a three (3) bedroom if six (6) adults live in the unit.
W. Kleiner noted that a den may be considered a “sleeping room” in accordance with the building code in which case those units would not be in breach.
June Kay, Unit 310, stated that the requirement for Board Members to have access to electronic communication sets up an additional obstacle for an already difficult task of finding volunteers to sit on the Board.
The Chair noted that the resident demographic is getting younger. Furthermore, he noted that surveys have been completed that reveal that the majority of residents do have access to electronic communication.
Frank O’Keeffe, Unit 823, asked whether the Corporation can lend the required electronics to a potential Board Member that does not have their own.
The Chair noted that this would be a possibility, but would ultimately be another expense. He noted that there are free email services available (Gmail, etc.) and facilities such as the library that are also free and accessible. The Chair offered his personal time to help set up an email account for a potential Board Member, and would show them how to use that account.
W. Kleiner noted that a vote on the Proposed By-Law No.11 by show of hands would be possible.
W. Kleiner asked if there was an owner opposed to voting by way of show of hands – one (1) hand was raised.
On a MOTION by Jean Lee (Unit 201), seconded by Margaret Pascoe (Unit 203), it was resolved to vote on the Proposed By-Law No.11 by show of hands.
The motion was carried.
The vote by show of hands revealed 89 were in agreement with the Proposed By-Law No.11 and 3 abstained. W. Kleiner noted that 91 votes in agreement were required to approve the By-Law. Following the informal show of hands vote, the owners requested that the vote be redone by a ballot vote. No owners objected.
The ballots were collected by the Scrutineers. The result of the vote was 89 in favour of the Proposed By-Law No. 11.
7.0 DISCUSSION AND VOTING ON PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS
The Chair introduced the Proposed Rule Amendments. He indicated that some owners opposed some of the changed to the Rules and requisitioned a meeting. A representative of the owners Lynne Mercer (Unit 407) revealed the specific rules that some of the owners disagreed with.
Lynne Mercer, Unit 407, requested that rather than prohibiting all dogs as pets, the Board consider instituting a weight maximum restriction of 30 pounds or less. They live in a townhouse complex and there should not be any restrictions.
The Chair noted that the Board’s decision on this issue has been thoroughly researched and discussed. The Board used the experiences of other Corporations in the area to supplement their research. Allowing dogs would mean increased traffic on the carpets and therefore a necessary increase of the cleaning contracts. The Chair also noted that other buildings have experienced problems with residents allowing their dogs to defecate and urinate in the underground parking garage. Moreover, with regards to a maximum weight requirement – monitoring this requirement will require time and money that could be spent in other places. If dogs were permitted as pets, a method of controlling dog messes from being left on the lawns would need to be considered. The Board looked into all options and considered “Doggie DNA” as the best option. The DNA of all resident dogs would have to be tested and registered to a specific unit. If waste was found on the premises, the waste would be tested and then the owner of the dog would be charged.
Cherie Henry, Unit 414, noted that by not permitting dogs it may lead to a culture of residents “spying” and “policing” each other to report the rule infraction.
Dawn Walcott Parris, Unit 406, noted that the Doggie DNA testing would be a waste of money and resources when the waste of dogs that do not live on the property is tested.
The Chair agreed with the owner, and said that nonetheless Doggie DNA is the best solution to a potential dog mess problem that Board has yet come across.
Francis Pelland, Unit 303, had a concern regarding the potential noise from dogs.
The Chair insisted that if dogs are to be permitted as pets, nuisance rules would need to be written into the rules and regulations. This would mean time and money spent on the Property Manager chasing down and enforcing nuisance rules.
Shannon Keating, Unit 215, asked whether the rule implemented in 2004 to disallow dogs was made transparently.
The Chair stated that this rule was made transparently; enough owners at the time did not want dogs permitted. The Board acted with the owners in mind, and a vote was held at the 2004 AGM.
An Owner asked whether the dogs living on the property at the time were grandfathered.
The Chair responded that any dogs living on the premises at the time were grandfathered in.