Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2013 14:00:45 GMT -5
Here is the long-awaited proposed budget. Isn't it nice that we have 1 1/2 whole days to look it over? These documents were scanned from copies and are therefore attached in pdf form. As I have mentioned before, GUESTS do not have access to all features of the forum and cannot Enlarge Views or Download attachments. That means that GUESTS are limited to tiny thumbnails. I have been trying to find a way to overcome this and finally came up with a solution. I have created an open member account for the use of all guests. Pages 1-3 are on this post. Page 4 is on next post. (Posts are limited to 3 attachments each--sorry but it's a Free Forum!) Username is "saddleviewer" Password is "123abc" This username/password will be posted in various postings to that all guests can be aware of the ability to view and download attachments. Attachment DeletedAttachment DeletedAttachment Deleted |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2013 14:01:49 GMT -5
|
|
Guest of Christmas Past
Guest
|
Post by Guest of Christmas Past on Dec 27, 2013 21:24:53 GMT -5
I don't know what all the hubbub is about the Budget & Reserves , when Management first came in the were up front and honest when they said "We are here to EXCECUTE YOUR RESERVES" , was everyone not paying attention to that ?
I suppose if they has said "You hired us to waste all your money and cause SLR to shut down in the near future because that's what we do" we would have the same result .
|
|
|
|
Post by FJ on Jan 2, 2014 7:18:44 GMT -5
Let me see if I understand this Budget stuff////
Last year Management changed the FISCAL YEAR END from April to March
So we end up voting on a new budget BEFORE we have a chance to see how Management did with the previous one .
Call me crazy but that seems very subversive , they claimed changing it was to coincide with the Manager and Management contract. That makes no sense whatsoever, they get paid regardless . After all IT IS OUR MONEY !
And we hired them ! But They changed OUR FISCAL YEAR END to suit their needs ?
How can we vote on a new Budget in FEBRUARY when we don't see the financials for the year until APRIL ?
SOMETHING STINKS can you smell it ?
|
|
|
|
Post by FJ on Jan 2, 2014 7:36:51 GMT -5
Let me see if I understand this Budget stuff//// Last year Management changed the FISCAL YEAR END from April to March So we end up voting on a new budget BEFORE we have a chance to see how Management did with the previous one . Call me crazy but that seems very subversive , they claimed changing it was to coincide with the Manager and Management contract. That makes no sense whatsoever, they get paid regardless . After all IT IS OUR MONEY ! And we hired them ! But They changed OUR FISCAL YEAR END to suit their needs ? How can we vote on a new Budget in FEBRUARY when we don't see the financials for the year until APRIL ? SOMETHING STINKS can you smell it ? I may be in error on the Month from when the Fiscal Year End was changed. If someone knows please correct me, I don't like to be one who puts out inaccurate information . It just doesn't make any sense to have the Year End Financials come out when all the non full time people have either left or are in the process of going back up North where ever they are going . |
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jan 2, 2014 8:51:48 GMT -5
Actually, the Fiscal year was changed when the 3 year Management Co contract was approved by the BOD two years ago. The Bylaws permit the BOD to do this (see below). We are entering Year 3 on April 1 2014 of the Management Contract, which no one has ever seen except for a few selected pages on CHUG which try to convince everyone that the is under the control of BOD. Right. The contract was for 3 years so it will expire on March 31, 2015--supposedly. Who knows what this board has agreed to? We do know they agreed to a increase for the of 5% this year--while owners are getting 1.5% on SS.
That's a 19% increase since they took control (Year 1 $73,800-Year 2 $84,000 and now proposed $88,000).
BOD changed SLohA's fiscal year because recommended it. I know I heard comments by owners that "this makes sense!". It doesn't--unless you are MANBOD! Now, we are voting on a proposed new budget with only 8 months of spending history-April-Oct (proposed budget is prepared "as of" Oct 31). SLohA had been doing just fine under the "old system" but BOD has taken 's recommendation on everything and turned SLR upside down.
Here is what the Bylaws say:
If I were queen, I would change the fiscal year BACK to the one specified in Bylaws --and-- Management contracts would be for ONE year and ratified yearly on the Ballot with a majority. The ratification outcome would require BOD to call an immediate Special Meeting with members and BOD would be required to act according to a vote at the Special Meeting, much like the process is for recall of directors. All voting would be electronic and unavailable for manipulation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 2, 2014 20:53:13 GMT -5
@most Owners:
The math does not support your belief that the extra assessment is for the sewer project costs. As you no doubt know, this expense is NOT an Operating Cost; it comes from Reserves.
The current contribution amount allocated to Reserves for Water/Sewer is $125,145
The proposed contribution to be allocated to Reserves for Water/Sewer in 2014-15 is $126,665
The difference is $1520.00
The estimated cost of the sewer repair is $189,000.
If BOD anticipates an outlay of 189,000 for sewer lateral repairs, the logical and reasonable thing would be to allocate the entire increase of $100/yr to the Reserve for Water/Sewer, a total of $78,600. This would reduce the drain from Reserves, after the infusion of new assessment contribution, from $189,000 - $78,600 to $110,400 which would leave a mere pittance in Reserves ($126,665 - 110,400 = $16,265). If the future is anything like the past, the Actual cost of the sewer repairs will far exceed the estimate.
Since the Reserves has only been budgeted for an additional $1520 this year, it is obvious that there was no intent to add the extra assessment to the anticipated sewer expense.
The manipulation of expected useful life of assets does not enter into this; it is a theoretical premise of constructing a Reserve fund mandated by statute. Our Reserve contributions remain the same; while some Useful Life assets are being newly depreciated such as the Spa, Boat Dock and Annex, others such as the Water/Sewer and are probably beyond Useful Expected Life and we should be allocating a LOT more money!
Instead, the trend is to increase the Operating budget, Increase Assessments and Decrease contributions to Reserves.
Since the fairy tale of the purported "reason" for the increase is not supported by the facts of the proposed budget, where is the extra $100/yr really going? It is going to increases in the Operating Budget--including $41K increase in Maintenance, $11K for Grounds & Signs, $4200 raise for the Management Company, $6K for pool & recreation costs, $20K for Legal Fees, $5K for vehicle & crime insurance--well, you get the idea and you have a copy of the budget.
The point is, the increase in fees is not FOR the sewer lateral costs. If they were, the extra assessment would be allocated to Reserves--Water & Sewer--not Operating.
The fact that D thought you were "spot on" with your comments is very disturbing since BOD "made" the budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Mar 15, 2014 9:29:03 GMT -5
Street noise says the 2nd-round ballot on the proposed budget will fail. Reasons mainly:
1. Members too busy now getting ready to go home
2. Members angry and "getting back" at the Board about the original illegal ballot (and perhaps other issues)
3. Members indifferent
4. Two directors who voted AGAINST the motion to ratify the budget "knew something" that Members do not. The logic is obvious; if 2 out of 9 directors do not support the proposed budget, maybe there is a serious flaw Members are not being told about.
|
|
