Budget Comparison 2010-Proposed 2014

Speaking about this budget, where in the income section of this budget is this board hiding the money SLohA received from the sale of #102 Silversides AND #30 S-bag Trail South?

I'm wondering if it could have anything to do w/the $37K called "Transfer from Prev Yr"

Anyone know?

This practice is a part of HOA property management that owners are not told about.  Good management companies disclose the practice of "discounting" which is a nice word for "gratuity" in their management agreements with the HOA.  The discount is described as an earned gratuity for extra service rendered to an HOA.  

The word "kickback" is not used and most good management companies will avoid this illegal activity. 

If the income statement is showing no discounts, then SLohA is either not getting discounts or the discounts are not disclosed on financial statements.  Given the generous and multiple no-bid contracts handed  to TXXXXX, SLohA should expect volume discounting.
 
Management company fee is currently under $100K/yr and from that, the so-called "manager" is paid and the bookkeeper is paid.

(PS. The salary range for a property manager is estimated from a low of $59K to 96K in the Brandon, FL area (which is the most comparable to Lake Wales).

It is my understanding that, as a not-for profit corporation under FS617, SLohA cannot return income to any member in any form--discounts, rebates ...or reduced assessments.  SLohA cannot show a "profit" from income at the end of the tax year.  Our Bylaws specifically say:



The reduction in the assessment fee 2011, funded from a Contingency Fund carried over from a 2010 surplus, was improper and started a chain of events where people were "so pleased with Management Company and how well they must be managing resources".  (That was the 's intent!) Now, the original 2010 surplus that set this mess in motion is pretty much gone; the operating budget is hugely inflated by IT's mismanagement and flagrant spending and assessments are being increased to pre-reduction levels two years later and are still insufficient to fund the budget recommended by the Management Company (little birdie tweet). 

Prediction:  we will see regular budget overages and another assessment increase next year. 

MANBOD cannot just roll excess income over into the Operating Budget; it must be held aside as "general surplus".   The reasonable course would then be to determine the reason for the overcollection of assessments and adjust accordingly the next budget year.   In the case of SLohA, I would hazard a guess that the $37K was remaining Slush Fund/Contingency Fund monies unspent from the original PLUS the newly-funded $25K last year that MANBOD rolled into the new budget.  If membership had been polled, there probably would have been significant member support for paying back the loan made to the Operating Fund a few years ago and which is STILL unpaid and reducing the SBA loan balance with this money.  But, it is going back into the pot to support what will be an under-funded budget in 2014-15--according to recommendation.

Fact is all this is speculation; despite several requests over the years, we still do not get full disclosure of our financial records from MANBOD.  There is no detail given in writing and no discussion of overages by the Treasurer.  There is smoke and mirrors in proposed budgets and the attitude on MANBOD's part is "keep 'em in the dark" and on members' part is "Why fight 'em anymore?".  MANBOD does not want owners to understand their budget.  All we can do is make a reasonable guess.

BTW--This is yet another reason that the internet fee is illegal--it plans to use income (from assessments) and distribute it back to a member (owner of KCN).  This is clearly contrary to the law as stated in FS617.  The only entities that are exempt from this are distributions to other not-for-profits or governmental agencies with tax-exempt status--and K C N is neither.  This is all tortuously described in FS617 and will probably give you a headache if you decide to read it.  Merlot helped.

In the bigger picture, it is but a technicality during this pending phase, but at some point, it will become yet another legal fee for SLohA when the the tax person from the Dept of State wants to see the records from the past 5 years and possibly penalize, back tax or even alter SLohA tax status.

Some of us who are aware of our surroundings and know the tactics of this BOD knew exactly why there was a reduction in fees .

The only reasons for the reduction in Fees was to BUY VOTES and to BUY the BUDGET .

The 5 other people running for BOD seats in 2011 were a major problem for the current BOD (2011) we had that were appointed and wanted to get things done no matter what the cost and with favored contractors by circumventing established bidding processes used in the real world .  

Its amazing none of "the other 5" got the votes to win a seat . NOT ONE ! And that it was announced that SLR had the "Highest Voter Turnout in the history of SLR." And, that when the votes were tallied by residents the numbers didn't add up .

BOD Prez. KL stated when the current BOD (2011) and with a renewed contract for management co. that "The Stars are all in alignment" was stating that basically they would have no opposition to the way THEY wanted to do things and that THEY had complete and total control of SLR and that THEY could in essence hide all their dirty little secrets .

When you have skeletons in the closet sooner or later someone will open that door .

That time is at hand .

Snidley Whiplsh
       2013