Multi-million dollar levies, and the years that preceded them.

The article gathers examples that have circulated widely: a $4.2 million assessment split into roughly $30,000 to $42,500 per unit; a 321-unit Toronto building carrying millions in debt alongside visible deterioration, with a 15-day payment window; and an 86-year-old owner in Abbotsford facing a share of more than $44,000 for balcony, window, and siding work on a 33-unit building.

One line in the piece deserves more attention than the dollar figures. An owner describes a building that voted down a $400 per unit repair to address water getting behind siding, on the reasoning that the problem could wait. The reported outcome years later was a project in the millions.

Large levies rarely come from a single failure. They come from a sequence: a small defect goes unrecorded, the repair is deferred because nothing visible is wrong, the damage moves into structure or interiors, and the eventual scope requires engineering, permits, and full access. Each deferral step multiplies the cost of the next one.

In BC, a special levy needs a three-quarters vote at a general meeting, and the resolution sets the amount per strata lot and the payment dates. That threshold sounds protective, and it is not much protection once a building is in crisis, because by then the alternative to voting yes is worse than the levy.

The $400 vote is the decision point worth studying. Owners were asked to fund a repair they could not see, on the recommendation of a report most of them did not read, with no evidence of what waiting would cost. Under those conditions a no vote is a rational response to bad information.

What changes the outcome is not a stronger argument at the meeting. It is a record: dated photographs of the affected area, the same area documented again six months later, a written note that the condition moved, and a ranked urgency assignment that says where this sits against everything else on the building. Owners approve work they can see the case for.

A depreciation report sets the long-range funding picture and is typically updated on a multi-year cycle. Buildings move faster than that. The gap between reports is where small conditions become large ones, and it is the gap a SENTiNEL Asset Protection Program is built to cover: recurring documented inspections across the eleven building systems, findings ranked Priority 1 through 4, and the same locations revisited so change is visible rather than remembered.

That record does three things for a council. It converts opinions into evidence at the AGM. It lets contingency planning use current conditions rather than a report from several years ago. And it gives owners a reason to fund a modest repair now, which is the only reliable way to avoid the version that arrives with a 15-day deadline.

To be clear about scope: SENTiNEL is not an engineering firm, does not issue engineering opinions or depreciation reports, and does not manage strata corporations. We document condition and maintain the record council and its consultants work from.