This is coming from not as a Board Member, but as a unit owner.
Here are the facts based on three separate reports. Please see the attached document which highlights the information below.
· In 2015 there was enough cause and concern with building stabilization and the foundation that a study was commissioned by the board and completed by an outside engineering firm. (Universal Engineering Sciences)
o A Geotechnical report provided to the Board of Directors states loose soils and substrates are a contributing factor to the building settlement and uneven settlement.
o States that there are two different foundation types between building 1 and 14.
o States that the engineering firm recommends three different support systems for the building foundation i.e., Helical Piers, Pin Piles or Micro Piles.
o Report is not disclosed to residents of building one. Word goes out that everything is good as Ken Kusen reiterated in his email just a few days ago. He was the president of the board at the time.
· 2019 nothing to that date has been done to building one.
· 2019 another report was done over the same concerns. This report is completed by another engineering firm, differing from the 2015 report. (MCR Professional Engineering)
o This report focuses on restoration and stabilization of the bank.
o Engineer on record states that yes riprap is an option but recommends using an upland retaining wall.
o Engineer is unaware of report from 2015
o Board goes against recommendation of the engineer and approves riprap.
· Fast forward to 2021, concern over the stabilization of the building and embankment rises again. Another study is issued by the board and paid for by the condo association. Same engineering firm as 2019 report. (MCR Professional Engineering)
o This report recognizes the 2015 study and the results of the soil boring.
o The Recommendations that foundation underpinning that was recommended in 2015 is not necessary but also that the upland retaining wall that was proposed in 2019 would not be enough. The recommendation is for a seawall with greater structural capacity to be installed to stabilize the embankment and enhance the soil stability to the adjacent building soils of Building 1.
o Also recommends roof drainage systems to be incorporated to the overall project.
· In Summary, the building itself belongs to the River Club of Martin County and as owners of the building it is the responsibility of the association to maintain the physical structural integrity of the building. We have had three reports of the building completed. Building supplies and labor are increasing the longer this takes to get this done the more it is going to cost.
Please Click to open the Attachment.
Building-1-Reports-and-Rebuttal.pdf