It is highly recommended that a company with experience in the evaluation of waterproofing details be retained to assess the building prior to painting. Identification of issues before money is spent on painting can save an association tens of thousands of dollars. If budgets allow for it, a sample of building openings to evaluate the underlying building conditions would be ideal, but is not necessarily required. It is also important to note that the preparation of a reserve study is different from performing an in-depth review of the weatherization functionality of a building.
Below are three examples that further explain the process:
Scenario #1 Approximately six years ago, an association painted 24 three-story buildings. The painting contractor inspected the beveled-cedar siding and determined that the substrate was sound enough to paint with a few minor repairs. Within two years the paint began to blister and flake off of the building. Noting that they had followed all of the manufacturer’s recommendations for surface inspection and preparation, both the contractor and manufacturer denied responsibility for the failure. The association was on the hook for the cost to repaint the buildings.
Fast forward three more years, and the paint failed yet again. It was not until this failure that the association opted to retain the services of an expert to inspect their buildings to address why the paint was failing. The inspection revealed high levels of moisture behind the siding from omitted flashing details throughout the complex. The high moisture content, which only occurred during the rainiest months of the year, compromised the adhesion of the paint, leading to the premature failure.
Scenario #2
A multi-building condominium with nearly 200 units spent almost $200,000 to paint the buildings as part of the association’s regular maintenance schedule. Following the paint project, a homeowner complained of water-stained drywall and swollen baseboards on their exterior wall. A consultant was hired to investigate the problem. Following an investigation that included opening the building envelope, it was discovered that there was a significant amount of framing and sheathing damage within the wall. At that time, the association requested a broader investigation to include the rest of the buildings. As it turned out, the damage was widespread.
Currently the association is in the process of securing financing for a large restoration project, which will unfortunately include spending another $200,000 to paint.
Scenario #3
An association was within two weeks of having its building painted when, at the advice of its management company, it elected to have a visual inspection of the property. It was discovered that the building was generally in good condition. However, there was a limited amount of damage identified at a roof-to-wall flashing (known as a diverter kick-out) that directs water from the roof into the gutter. The amount of damage and associated repairs was isolated, but occurred on every elevation of the building. If the association had gone ahead with the painting, all of the work would have been required to be redone. Instead, because of a visual inspection that cost less than $3,000, the association was able to save nearly $50,000 by avoiding duplicated efforts.
What steps should an association take to avoid paying for an expensive painting project twice?
1. Before contemplating a painting project, have periodic building inspections performed by experienced professionals as part of a preventative maintenance plan and/or to identify any problematic areas before the resulting damage becomes far worse.
2. Do not wait until the last minute to hire an expert to inspect your building(s). Save the sunny weather for the painting project, and let the inspector deal with inclement weather.
3. Have the inspector provide a separate opinion from the contractor with regard to the condition of the substrate to be painted.
4. Following the painting project, continue to have periodic inspections performed, including the performance of the paint.
5. Do not use painting as a means to avoid looking for what you fear you might find. Ignorance may be bliss, but a “bliss-tered” paint job is ugly.
www.wscai.org 19
Instead of being afraid of opening a proverbial “can of worms,” board members should view this process as taking a proactive approach to their fiduciary responsibilities to the association. What may be viewed by some as an unnecessary expenditure to perform an inspection, especially if there have not been signs of underlying issues, should in reality be recognized as a protection of association reserves. Further, periodic building inspections, when used as preventative maintenance rather than as a reaction to an identified problem, could save associations hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of dollars, by catching a problem before it necessitates a massive repair project.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32