Letter to the Society Managing Committee on Proposed repairs to buildings.
February 16, 2011
The Chairman and Members of the Managing Committee,
Saket CHSL, Saket Marg,
Thane (W) 400601
Dear Sirs,
Sub : Proposed Renovation of Saket Complex, Strut Report and related matters…
This has reference to the joint meeting the Managing Committee had with the Repair and Beautification Sub-committee on February 5, 2011 and the subsequent minutes circulated to all members thereafter.
I want to bring to your notice that the following points have been missed out in the minutes and should be incorporated:
1. While speaking out on the R&B Sub-committee, I had pointed out that as our sub-committee was a purely advisory committee, we should not make any recommendations as regards to appointment of Contractors and leave it to the Managing Committee to take a call on the same.
2. Mr Gautam Mazumdar had spoken that with the submission of the Report the task of the R&B Committee has ended and that it had ceased to exist automatically, as the terms of reference have been duly complied with.
As regards to the subject matter, I believe that there was an MC meeting thereafter and in that meeting it was decided to refer the R&B Committee Report to the General body.
My observations in this regard are as under:
1. As explained in the joint meeting by the Convener of the R&B Committee, the society shall have to spend around Rs. 10 crore on the Rehabilitation and Beautification program.
2. This is a huge amount and a project of such an outlay has never been undertaken in our Society so far.
3. This would mean that on an average every member shall have to contribute at least Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the funding of the renovation project. This is by no means a small amount, given the nature and composition of our society.
4. Besides contributing the aforesaid amount, whether one time or in EMIs, members shall have to continue paying monthly maintenance also.
5. The Convener had proposed an EMI ranging up to 18 months- which for Rs. 1.5 lakhs works out to Rs. 8300/- appx per month. This plus Monthly maintenance means a member shall have to shell out around Rs. 10,000/- per month for a minimum of 18 months.
6. How many members can afford this type of contribution?
7. Another fact to be considered is that this project is one where we shall have to first generate the funds and then spend it. So are we going to wait for 10 to 18 months to start the project? If yes, what about cost escalations in the interim period?
Now I come to the Strut Report.
1. On perusing the Report, especially the Structural Audit part of it, I find that the recommendations made by them are very superfluous and surface floaters.
2. There are no concrete observations about the status of each building.
3. All observations have been clubbed together and have been generalized. For example the report says while commenting on the Structural Status,” the structural frame of the building of the building exhibits MODERATE degree of structural deterioration” – this comment indicates / confirms that the wear and tear is normal for a 20 year old structure.
4. Strut’s observations’ after the Core Test state “the above results show that the average compressive strength is of acceptable limits”. (This clearly means that the life cycle of our buildings is very much within the expected norms).
5. Contradicting its own report, Strut ends the report by recommending “Structural Rehabilitation needs to be done in spite of economic constraints”.
6. On closer examination of the report, we find that there are many clauses which are strikingly similar to observations made by M/s. Epicons Consultants – our earlier consultant in the 2001 program, e.g. Epicons had recommended ‘patchwork plaster’. Strut also recommends the same. Epicons recommended usage of small chisel and to be used at 45 degrees angle- Struct states the same.
7. We all know what happened that time – and with Indian labour, how can we assure that it will happen this time?
8. Strut Report is silent on the ‘Life Audit’ of the building. Has it not been done?
I read the report in its entirety only today and hence am writing this letter. Question may be asked as to why did I sign the R&B Committee report to which my answer is it was done in good spirit with a dissent I have mentioned in the beginning of this letter.
Sirs,
To sum up I have the following to say:
1. I fear that in spite of members contributing such heavy amounts, we may still face problems after the work is done due to the patch work plaster, incomplete study by the present consultants, and lackadaisical approach towards the issue in the name of shortage of time.
2. Haste makes waste. I have said in my earlier communications to you also and I repeat again that it is impossible to start the Repair program before the onset of this monsoon – if we have to observe all procedures properly.
3. Hence, I feel that with the problem of top floor leakages over bearing our minds; let’s try to find a different solution to that problem for this monsoon rather than rushing in to a decision on the R&B report – because even if we rush through, still we will not be in a position to do anything of any consequence before monsoons.
4. Let us treat this Strut report as an eye-opener but I request that the Managing Committee get it whetted out by taking a second opinion. You may have to spend a few lakhs more but they are a drop in the ocean, considering the size of our project.
5. I also want to point out that if we give and members opt for an EMI plan, and suppose there is a delay (which is normal for a project of this magnitude), leading to costs escalation, this will trigger off a perpetual EMI trap-meaning members will have to contribute a huge sum every month for at least 4 to 5 years because the present contribution to Repair Fund @0.33 ps is fetching us appx. 20 lakhs per anum, whereas as per Strut’s report, the requirement is 1 crore per anum at constant prices, which in other words means, we shall have to increase our contribution to Repair Fund by 5 times, making a 20 year old society’s outgoing at par with a modern day complex like Rustomjee.
6. Considering all the above, why does the Managing Committee not consider other options like going for Redevelopment?
I have spoken on the matter to Mr. Sanjay Patel of Wescon and his response is positive. And imagine, a consortium of Wescon and Rustomjee - if they are interested - will do wonders for Saket..
7. PLEASE HAVE AN OPEN MIND – IT IS POSSIBLE.
Regards,
Dayanand Nene
A7/303, Saket CHSL.
The Chairman and Members of the Managing Committee,
Saket CHSL, Saket Marg,
Thane (W) 400601
Dear Sirs,
Sub : Proposed Renovation of Saket Complex, Strut Report and related matters…
This has reference to the joint meeting the Managing Committee had with the Repair and Beautification Sub-committee on February 5, 2011 and the subsequent minutes circulated to all members thereafter.
I want to bring to your notice that the following points have been missed out in the minutes and should be incorporated:
1. While speaking out on the R&B Sub-committee, I had pointed out that as our sub-committee was a purely advisory committee, we should not make any recommendations as regards to appointment of Contractors and leave it to the Managing Committee to take a call on the same.
2. Mr Gautam Mazumdar had spoken that with the submission of the Report the task of the R&B Committee has ended and that it had ceased to exist automatically, as the terms of reference have been duly complied with.
As regards to the subject matter, I believe that there was an MC meeting thereafter and in that meeting it was decided to refer the R&B Committee Report to the General body.
My observations in this regard are as under:
1. As explained in the joint meeting by the Convener of the R&B Committee, the society shall have to spend around Rs. 10 crore on the Rehabilitation and Beautification program.
2. This is a huge amount and a project of such an outlay has never been undertaken in our Society so far.
3. This would mean that on an average every member shall have to contribute at least Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the funding of the renovation project. This is by no means a small amount, given the nature and composition of our society.
4. Besides contributing the aforesaid amount, whether one time or in EMIs, members shall have to continue paying monthly maintenance also.
5. The Convener had proposed an EMI ranging up to 18 months- which for Rs. 1.5 lakhs works out to Rs. 8300/- appx per month. This plus Monthly maintenance means a member shall have to shell out around Rs. 10,000/- per month for a minimum of 18 months.
6. How many members can afford this type of contribution?
7. Another fact to be considered is that this project is one where we shall have to first generate the funds and then spend it. So are we going to wait for 10 to 18 months to start the project? If yes, what about cost escalations in the interim period?
Now I come to the Strut Report.
1. On perusing the Report, especially the Structural Audit part of it, I find that the recommendations made by them are very superfluous and surface floaters.
2. There are no concrete observations about the status of each building.
3. All observations have been clubbed together and have been generalized. For example the report says while commenting on the Structural Status,” the structural frame of the building of the building exhibits MODERATE degree of structural deterioration” – this comment indicates / confirms that the wear and tear is normal for a 20 year old structure.
4. Strut’s observations’ after the Core Test state “the above results show that the average compressive strength is of acceptable limits”. (This clearly means that the life cycle of our buildings is very much within the expected norms).
5. Contradicting its own report, Strut ends the report by recommending “Structural Rehabilitation needs to be done in spite of economic constraints”.
6. On closer examination of the report, we find that there are many clauses which are strikingly similar to observations made by M/s. Epicons Consultants – our earlier consultant in the 2001 program, e.g. Epicons had recommended ‘patchwork plaster’. Strut also recommends the same. Epicons recommended usage of small chisel and to be used at 45 degrees angle- Struct states the same.
7. We all know what happened that time – and with Indian labour, how can we assure that it will happen this time?
8. Strut Report is silent on the ‘Life Audit’ of the building. Has it not been done?
I read the report in its entirety only today and hence am writing this letter. Question may be asked as to why did I sign the R&B Committee report to which my answer is it was done in good spirit with a dissent I have mentioned in the beginning of this letter.
Sirs,
To sum up I have the following to say:
1. I fear that in spite of members contributing such heavy amounts, we may still face problems after the work is done due to the patch work plaster, incomplete study by the present consultants, and lackadaisical approach towards the issue in the name of shortage of time.
2. Haste makes waste. I have said in my earlier communications to you also and I repeat again that it is impossible to start the Repair program before the onset of this monsoon – if we have to observe all procedures properly.
3. Hence, I feel that with the problem of top floor leakages over bearing our minds; let’s try to find a different solution to that problem for this monsoon rather than rushing in to a decision on the R&B report – because even if we rush through, still we will not be in a position to do anything of any consequence before monsoons.
4. Let us treat this Strut report as an eye-opener but I request that the Managing Committee get it whetted out by taking a second opinion. You may have to spend a few lakhs more but they are a drop in the ocean, considering the size of our project.
5. I also want to point out that if we give and members opt for an EMI plan, and suppose there is a delay (which is normal for a project of this magnitude), leading to costs escalation, this will trigger off a perpetual EMI trap-meaning members will have to contribute a huge sum every month for at least 4 to 5 years because the present contribution to Repair Fund @0.33 ps is fetching us appx. 20 lakhs per anum, whereas as per Strut’s report, the requirement is 1 crore per anum at constant prices, which in other words means, we shall have to increase our contribution to Repair Fund by 5 times, making a 20 year old society’s outgoing at par with a modern day complex like Rustomjee.
6. Considering all the above, why does the Managing Committee not consider other options like going for Redevelopment?
I have spoken on the matter to Mr. Sanjay Patel of Wescon and his response is positive. And imagine, a consortium of Wescon and Rustomjee - if they are interested - will do wonders for Saket..
7. PLEASE HAVE AN OPEN MIND – IT IS POSSIBLE.
Regards,
Dayanand Nene
A7/303, Saket CHSL.
Comments
Post a Comment