F A L L

2 0 1 1

The

Accell Advisor
Flashing?...that is so wrong!...
By Bill Butler, PrimeCo Painting & Construction

The Real Cost of Bad Roofing Decisions

By David Susi, RSI Roofing

If I had to pick one article for a [Board of Directors] to read about how they could really make an impact on their bottom line, long term, it would be this. Your roof tends to cost more than any other investment on your property, which means you should really pay attention to the decisions you make for your roofs. A wrong decision in selecting a roofing contractor and/or the wrong roofing specification for your project is way more expensive than you can imagine. Most clients select a contractor based on price. I mean who wouldnt? If 2 or 3 contractors are bidding the same specification then it should be a matter of who can do it the cheapest, right? Well, maybe not! First buying a car or a washing machine, which are assembled in a factory, where
(Continued on page 2)

Unless youre talking about the metal strips that are often times found on roof edges, over windows, between sheets of siding and at other transitions on buildings. The purpose of flashings is to cover gaps in the building envelope so that there is not easy access for water penetration. They also direct water away from wood and stucco surfaces so that they are not frequently exposed to water. Cap flashing is typically found at the tops of walls that extend above the roof. These walls are known as parapet walls and the metal cap acts as an umbrella over the top of the wall. It helps to preserve the stucco and to keep it cleaner. Constant moisture on the wall would facilitate mold growth. The flashing along the roof edge is known as drip cap and its purpose is to protect what is typically a wood edge underneath it and to cause water to drip away from the fascia rather than on it. There are a number of other types of building flashings but they all serve pretty much the same purpose. It is important that they are installed right and properly maintained. Flashing is available in copper, stainless steel and most commonly it is galvanized. While some will perform better in different environments, if they are allowed to deteriorate, they will create other problems.

THE ACCELL ADVISOR

FALL 2011

The Real Cost of Bad Roofing Decisions

Continued from page 1

every one that comes off the assembly line is exactly like the next. Roofs are assembled on your building, and every building has variables, and frankly every roofer has variables. Therein lies the problem; well, one of them. What really is going to dictate the quality of your installation, begins with training of the installers, long term (verifiable) reputation, field oversight, follow up from management, and manufacturers score cards for the company. Yes, manufacturers keep a record of how well roofing company scores on final inspections, and they are expected to improve from them. Now lets talk about the specification selected. Again, the allure is price, and that may be OK depending on your long or short-term needs for the property. Also critical are the specific conditions of the roof i.e. drainage, unusual penetrations, the amount of unrestricted access by tenants or service contractors, and unusual debris issues, like trees, or other vegetation. What should really dictate the product used

on your roof should be two things: (1)-the length of time (term) that you plan to hold the property, and (2)-the conditions needing to be addressed on that roof during that term. Lets look at the costs of a wrong decision: First, is the original expenditure, lets call it $25,000.00 for a restoration system. You saved $7,000 over another contractor who wanted to put a different more traditional single ply membrane. Then leaking from ponding water in the near or short term causes damage to the interior of the building, which aggravates your tenant. What you dont see is that the leaking has also damaged the plywood deck, some structural members, insulation which has been saturated, ceiling tiles, damp carpet and the roof membrane itself. That was all from leak #1. A season later, the same issues occur, but this is an El Nino year and the water intrusion is even more pronounced, the damages repeat but are wider in scope. The contractor and
(Continued on page 4)

THE ACCELL ADVISOR

FALL 2011

Governor Brown signs SB 209 prohibiting HOAs from unreasonably restricting install of charging stations Property rights still an issue
By Skip Daum, President Association Headquarters of California & Capitol Communications Group

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed SB 209 by Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro) Common interest developments: electric vehicle charging stations. He accompanied this with a signing message that is included below or you can read the original on the official State of California site. CAI-CLAC worked diligently on this bill and it is much improved from the original but still does not address all of our concerns. Below we outline our appreciation for the work of all involved and note the work we still have in front of us. Governor Brown Signs Electric Vehicle Bill, Senate Bill 209 CAI-CLAC Continues Work Toward Further Protection of Property Rights Sacramento, Calif.-July 26, 2011- The California Legislative Action Committee of the Community Associations Institute (CAI-CLAC), www.caicalif.org, applauds California Governor Brown on his commitment to advancing the energy conservation goals of achieving a statewide 20% reduction in energy use by 2020. Governor Brown is moving toward this goal with the signing of Senate Bill 209, which takes effect January 1, 2012, prohibiting community associations (HOAs) from unreasonably restricting the installation of electric vehicle charging stations. Throughout the lawmaking process CAI-CLAC worked with the authors staff to improve the measure since it has numerous unresolved issues including: Whether an associations architectural standards would be complied with,

Who is responsible for paying for the installation, Who is responsible for energy usage, repair and removal, and Whether its installation shall be disclosed to potential buyers.

As all of these suggestions were accepted by the author, CAI-CLAC testified in multiple committees that we were working with the staff to fix these problems. However, a very significant problem remained unresolved in that the measure essentially condones an unconstitutional governmental taking of property that is commonly owned by all the members for the benefit of one. CAI-CLAC provided several longstanding case rulings that consistently safeguarded the ownership rights of these properties. The concerns raise by CAI-CLAC are reflected in the Governors Signing Message, a form of communication that is rarely used:

(Continued on next page)

THE ACCELL ADVISOR

FALL 2011

SB 209 Electric Vehicle Bill

Continued from page 3

To the Members of the California State Senate: Senate Bill 209 advances the important state interests of lowering vehicle emissions and decreasing dependency on foreign oil. These interests are advanced statutorily by removing unreasonable burdens in common interest developments to the installation of plug-in vehicle charging stations. Charging stations are part of the infrastructure that must be built to integrate electric vehicles into our daily lives by allowing plug-in vehicles to be recharged faster and to minimize impact to the electrical grid. I enthusiastically support this bill. This bill, unfortunately, contains language that could permit individual homeowners to unreasonably use or occupy common areas. They author has assured me that she will pursue legislation that clearly protects the right of the common interest developments to establish reasonable rules for any use of common areas for charging stations. CAI-CLAC will remain steadfast in its protection and preservation of owners property rights and will, again, work very closely with the Senator as another bill emerges, or as an amendment is made to an existing measure this session, which ends September 9.

Roofing Decisions
Continued from page 2

the manufacturer both claim that ponding water is an exclusion in your warranty (and they are right see the fine print). Your financial losses that you can quantify to date from both years are about $4,000, plus the homeowners have contacted their attorney because they are complaining that they are having respiratory problems probably due to mold; but the attorney wants an industrial hygienist sent in to take an air sampling to be sure. Cha Ching! This will usually prompt an insurance claim that will get denied, because roofers insurance has mold exclusions. So, you and the roofer go head to head most probably in arbitration. As you can see, the $7,000 savings isnt what you thought it would be, especially if you lost a tenant. What about the distractions it caused you? Did your reputation take a hit? These are some of the reasons why the decisions you make on your roofs are so important. This is not an investment decision that you want to be wrong on. The costs are too high.