2017 March Financials

Unknown.  Bingo, by law, must have its funds in a separate account with its own EIN number.  Its funds cannot be commingled in SLohA accounts.

Toneesha's Accounting reports are derived reports.  For all anyone knows, they are complete fiction.  You would need to see the raw reports (bank account statement) to validate that Bingo is in a separate account.

Maybe Toneesha has a reason for putting them in SLohA's Accounting statements.  SLohA is the custodian of the account, but I fail to see why they are "accounted for" in SLohA's finances.

I admit I was a bit shocked to read  Assessment Receivables:  $36,273.92--about 5 years worth of quarterly fees.  That's a LOT of unpaid assessments!  We know that a portion of that is unpaid assessments from 2 Pink Lady and 32 S-bag Trail N.

S-bag budgeted $10,000 last budget year (the fiscal one ending now) and did not spend one penny?  Why not?  Obviously, there were Uncollectible Assessments outstanding on the above two properties probably in the neighborhood of $25,000.  This next budget year S-bag has budgeted $12,100.  Why?  Is this all the assessment money that they reasonably believe will be uncollectible?  SLohA has THREE TIMES that amount reported as Uncollectible at the fiscal year ending 3/31/17.

The Budget Meeting Proposal stated that the Liens/Foreclosures Line was being funded in anticipation of "resuming collections once revitalization was approved".  Is this line item a waste of money paid to lawyers to attempt to "collect the UNcollectible"?

Are there more zombie properties in S-bag?  By that I mean, properties that have been abandoned or so distressed that there is zero chance of collecting anything?  There is more I would like to know about the likelihood of future financial income expected from SLR owners.  There is a world of difference between an owner who gets a little behind but is expected to recover and catch up...and properties that the owners/heirs have no interest in supporting and allow the state to take over.

I'm just spitballing here but I may have an answer to that $20,000+  operating loss. I seem to recall that the Board had used money from the Reserve Fund to cover the difference between budgeted expenses and projected revenues. That is a definite no, no. You can't use an asset to cover an operating expense. If you do, you are technically, operating at a deficit. The auditors may have caught that and advised the Board/Management that, unless the ledgers were amended to recognize that fact, the auditors would have to issue a "finding" in their opinion letter attached to the 2016 financial statements.
I am not a CPA but I did serve as City Administrator/Treasurer for the City of Onalaska, Wisconsin. As such, I received a lot of on-the-job experience with how to properly present financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Yet I have great difficulty making sense of SLohA's financial statements.

Although I don't believe that it is illegal to operate at a deficit or not to maintain accounts in accordance with G.A.A,P. standards, it has a huge impact upon an organization's creditworthiness. , The SBA has a strict policy whereby organizations who operate at a deficit or who do not abide by G.A.A.P. standards are ineligible to participate in the 7A loan program. To clarify, the SBA does not lend money itself. Rather it provides loan guaranties on bank loans to eligible businesses (up to 90 percent of the loan amount). Obviously, if the bank cannot get a guaranty from the SBA, it is highly reluctant to make a the loan. Even if the lender would approve the loan, it will charge the borrower a "subprime" interest rate.

Regarding your question about how this might affect individual home sales on S-bag, that is -as the saying goes - above my pay grade. I have had very little experience with HOA's  during my career in government However, I remember one event which may have some bearing. While I was working as a Planner for the City of Milwaukee back in the 70's, we were approached by a condominium association seeking financial assistance from the City for the purpose of making much needed repairs to the complex. This condominium had been built under the old FHA- Section 235 Program, which was designed to provide home ownership opportunities for low-to-moderate income families. Unfortunately, the developer was a scumbag who used shoddy building materials and substandard contractors. The association's application for capital improvements financing  had been turned down by several conventional lenders due to concerns over collateral securititization. Due to the deteriorating conditions many unit owners had simply "walked away" from their homes, as well as from their mortgage loans. Thus created a huge mess with mortgage foreclosures on individual units, as well as an insufficient revenue base for the condominium association to cover operating expenses, let alone much needed capital improvements. I wish I could say there was a happy ending. I wish I could say that I pushed to get them government help. But, in the end, the City fathers went with my recommendation to allow the complex to fall into receivership. I was convinced that the City would simply be throwing good money after bad.