|
Post by Admin on Nov 19, 2015 10:01:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 19, 2015 10:22:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 19, 2015 10:24:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 19, 2015 10:30:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 19, 2015 11:05:24 GMT -5
Another great question and another cross post: Nov 19th Questioner noted discrepancy i.e. if our Treasurer says SLohA is underbudget on all line items except for Contract Services, why is the assessment increased by 7 1/2%?
A closer look at the proposed budget showed:
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Nov 29, 2015 2:14:24 GMT -5
I would like to see these words used more: "Cost Containment"
Tid Bits from the: "BOD Meeting April 2008"
"Cost Containment" by Lindie Keil
Lindie reported on several "new cost containment efforts". Lindie reported that current cost containment efforts put into effect since February, 2008 add "up to over $170,000". This figure is based on savings over a 12 month period.
Lindie will request Progress Energy to come in and do a energy audit.
This is back when we had Board Members that used:
A Little Bit of Common Sense !
"Two Years Later It All Changed"
Question? When is the last time you heard a Board Member or a Management Person use the words, Cost Containment !
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2015 13:03:24 GMT -5
Got my Social Security Statement and it said there was no increase in the cost of living for 2015 so I will not get a cost of living increase in my benefits.
D u k e En_ ergy wrote me a nice note and said they were DECREASING electrical costs by an average of $4.53 per month.
I got the proposed budget from Stmbug Ixx Inc and they said they have to increase my cost of living in S-bag by 7 1/2%.
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Jan 9, 2016 6:06:00 GMT -5
This discussion of the proposed budget gives me an opportunity to bring up an idea I have been mulling over regarding the management of SLohA’s recreational amenities. I’ll start with a little story about my first experience as a homeowner. Back in 1973 we purchased a townhouse in a condominium complex. The complex included a clubhouse with a swimming pool, gymnasium, bar and restaurant. What I quickly found out, however, was that my HOA dues did not entitle me to use the clubhouse facilities. For that privilege, I had to purchase a clubhouse membership – an expense over-and-above my HOA fee. It is actually a common practice for condominiums, apartment complexes and residential subdivisions to have separate charges for use of amenities like swimming pools. Would it be worth consideration, therefore, to alter the S-bag’s operating paradigm such that the cost of operating the swimming pool, billiards room, sauna, fitness facility, etc. be borne by those who use these facilities? Harkening back to my days in local government, there is a similar phenomenon going on lately with counties, cities and villages. More and more, local governments are employing user fees for certain municipal services in order to keep down property taxes. School districts are beginning to do the same with respect to certain extra-curricular activities like inter-school sports. These trends are also very popular among political conservatives, who see having to pay taxes for things they, themselves, don't use as "socialistic". So here’s how it might work in S-bag. Take the swimming pool, for example. S-bag would “rent” the pool to a pool club for $1/year. The rental agreement, however, would require that the pool club be responsible for all operating costs, repairs and insurance on the pool (including an indemnification clause on the club’s liability insurance policy by which the insurer will defend any personal injury suit brought against SLohA). In order to cover its costs, the pool club would sell annual memberships. The cost of each membership would be based upon the cost of operations but I estimate it would be between $75 and $100 per year. The club would also offer the option for those who do not want a full membership to purchase a “day pass”. Base upon my research these day passes typically go for around $5 per person – thereby encouraging frequent users to purchase a more economical annual membership. Then, like a mutual insurance company or a Sm all business cooperative, any funds remaining at year’s end (including the revenue from sale of day passes), are distributed among the members as a dividend. Again, it is difficult to precisely estimate how this would affect our HOA dues without additional information (including how it would affect SLohA’s liability insurance premium). My S.W.A.G., however, is that such an operational change would reduce our HOA fees by approximately $25 per year per S-bag owner. I’d be interested in hearing other opinions on this idea. If there is enough interest we could form a special committee to further investigate the legal and financial feasibility. And, since I’m the nerd who brought this up, I guess I better volunteer to serve on that special committee.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 9, 2016 13:26:54 GMT -5
jimherbst posted:
An interesting idea. A proposal could be put together if the numbers crunched. Among those numbers: how many memberships could the Pool Owner/Lessor reasonably expect? How much is the true expense of operating the Pool Complex? How much more investment in infrastructure to partition/secure the Pool Complex off from the common areas and to meter Elctc and water utilities separately from common expense? Those numbers would be pretty easy to come up with. Pool attendance could be validated using the spycams to randomly count usage. How many owners are at the pool during each month of the year? How many guests? It gets a lot more action from snowbird visitors but will owners renting their units agree to pay a membership fee or require their renters to buy daily passes?
Will the Members be willing to sell off this corporate asset in a vote, per the Bylaws? Are there any tax ramifications to the Association that would adversely affect the non-pool subscribers? What happens if the Owner/Lessor cannot support the pool and cannot sell it? Will the association re-acquire the complex or plant grass? I would think this could be subjected to straw vote on the election forms --or, if we had electronic balloting--anytime during the year, to see if there is potential willingness to further explore in more detail.
This is the kind of thing that Long Range Planning could be doing. Many owners have complained that more financial obligation should be shifted to the owners who lease their properties during snowbird season because renters and visitors place a disproportionate burden on the facilities that all non-renting owners have to pay for. With no relevant past or anticipated Covenants to address the actual status of S-bag as it exists today, there is no authority to add any kind of parameters to renting properties. So we are stuck: a rustic campground entity trying to operate as a mature, vacation recreational resort on the Potato Chip Business Management Model ("Let the chips fall").
Long Range Planning should also be researching the projected demographics of S-bag in the future. The results might require some reassessment of the extravagant recreational complex that has been built over the last 40 years that is used seasonally by relatively few owners and their lessees and now requires exhorbitant funds to replace, operate and maintain.
But, I know I am dreaming. S-bag does not yet have a rational plan to deal with its decrepit Wastewater Plant...
|
|
|
Post by tinman on Jan 9, 2016 13:44:01 GMT -5
This idea is enticing but would take LONG RANGE PLANNING! So much so that it makes my head hurt! I'm still struggling with the Bright Yellow "Vote certification and Proxy Card." Maybe I just have so much Distrust for current powers that be I'm Paranoid?
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Jan 9, 2016 14:58:40 GMT -5
I based my estimate for the cost of an individual pool club membership upon an initial membership of 250. I then divided the proposed $23,000+ budget for the pool by 250 members. That would come to $92 per year per member. The biggest unknown regarding financial feasibility is how much would the club's liability insurance premium cost. I presume the line item for the pool/jacuzzi in the proposed budget does not include an allocated portion of SLohA's total liability insurance premium. We would have to ask the insurance underwriter to provide an estimate which "breaks out" the swimming pool from the rest of the complex. With respect to "selling off" an SLohA asset, note that I have proposed only LEASING the swimming pool to a pool club. As such, SLohA would retain title to the pool property. That is also why the lease agreement would have to include a liability insurance policy which names SLohA as "additional insured as its interests may apply". That is a fairly common rider to an auto insurance policy. For instance, when I worked for city government, I was required to carry auto insurance that contained such a rider in order for me to claim mileage reimbursement for using my car on City business. As I recall, that rider cost me an extra $25 on my auto insurance. Swimming pools, however, are a much different kettle of fish (no pun intended). I have no idea what the premium might be. The lease would be on a yearly basis. If the pool club cannot fulfill its obligations, SLohA's legal recourse would be to evict the pool club for breach-of-lease. The pool club may also choose not to renew the annual lease if it is having financial difficulty. The reason for keeping the lease period to one year is because of the legal complications of multi-year real estate leases. According to state law, multi-year leases must be recorded and the lessee has greater property rights. It is much more difficult to evict a lessee who has a multi-year lease. With respect to monitoring pool use to assure it is only being used by club members and "day passes", that is really up to the club to decide. The simplest solution would involve the issuance of a pin to the regular members, to be worn on one's swimsuit. Day pass swimmers would be issued wrist bands or given hand stamps. That how I've seen it work at pool clubs I am familiar with. For my part, I do not use the swimming pool. Because of my physical handicap, I avoid situations that might invite gawking- especially by young children who don't know any better. I also find the "bathwater" of the pool disagreeable. I realize the pool is heated for the comfort and safety of our super-seniors but, as a denizen of the Frozen Tundra, I am used to swimming in the 55 degree waters of Lake Michigan (and that's in July) and I like things a little cooler.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 10, 2016 9:50:17 GMT -5
tinman posted: Proxy cards are intended to ONLY be counted toward a meeting quorum UNLESS a matter of business arises at the Special Meeting that requires a vote and was not placed on the ballot. For instance, if there are NO changes to the balloted issues to come before the membership, the proxy card counts ONLY towards achieving the required Member quorum. FS720 mandates that HOA's quorums are 30% of the entire membership--but FS720 no longer applies to SLohA since the Covenants have expired. That means that SLohA is a voluntary association and the corporate documents are the only thing that applies (as well as FS617). Bylaws specify SLohA's quorum at 51% of the entire membership. If there is a new matter to be voted on that was not previously placed on the ballot, the proxy card can be used by the HOLDER ONLY IF the proxy card provides for a person to be named as a substitute. This Section 7 of the Bylaws (partial): My reading of the proxy card is that it is SOLELY to be used as a count towards the required quorum of 51% of the membership for the Feb 20, 2016 meeting. There is no place on the yellow card to name a substitute. This is necessary because a meeting cannot be held unless there is a quorum present either in person or by proxy per Bylaw. If a meeting cannot be held, new directors cannot be elected and any matters on the ballot, such as the budget, cannot be ratified.
I do believe that SLohA has always been able to achieve a Member Quorum and hold a legal meeting. Anyone read this differently? tinman: Do you have a specific concern or item of paranoia? Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the above is for informational and entertainment purposes. If you have concerns about executing a proxy, you should consult an attorney for legal advice.
|
|
|
Post by tinman on Jan 10, 2016 11:13:54 GMT -5
Admin, YES! I Don't trust the Secretary OR the Treasurer with MY Vote as I do not know them personally. I also do NOT LIKE the FACT that if I do not sign the Proxy card MY Vote will NOT be counted! I DO NOT think this is a LEGAL application of the Law. This is only an opinion. I acknowledge that I may be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 10, 2016 12:49:34 GMT -5
tinman posted:
I share some of your concerns; the board has broken trust with Members in many ways in the last few years.
Keep in mind that the yellow card is BOTH a Proxy and a Voter Certification. If you return the yellow card AND your ballot, then you have submitted a valid vote and the "proxy part" serves only to count toward the Meeting quorum. Remember, the yellow card serves to "legalize" the meeting. Without the yellow cards, you would have to have at least 394 owners show up AT the meeting (check my math 51% of 787) and many would have to cancel their golf games haha.
Despite the broken trust, if you don't have a meeting, then the board composition stays exactly as it is. There will be no change in directors until a director(s) resigns. In that case, the board appoints a crony and we get more of what we have had over the last 5 years-an inbred group of yes-men. At least, this way there is a chance for some new blood to add to a board. One can only hope for some future restoration of trust if something changes.
This is only an opinion!
|
|
saddlebagger viewer
Guest
|
Post by saddlebagger viewer on Jan 11, 2016 7:10:52 GMT -5
S-bag Lake Resort is changing. More full time residents and a much larger budget to oversee. For that reason alone having Board members who are here in the Resort for only a few months means that they are not only not available to members it also means that they are not getting full feed back on what is happening here. For that reason alone we are voting for full time residents first.
|
|