It’s the budget first It is the board’s responsibility in approving the budget to exercise due diligence in such a way as to ensure it effectively allocates, controls and uses the community’s resources. Only when that is accomplished can or should the board establish assessments levels. However, a deliberate and careful budget process on the merits of budget has been ignored to engage in a public relations campaign to raise the assessment ceiling.
The proposed ceiling increase won’t work As has been the practice over the years the 2008 budget includes 2 income line items that are not recognized as revenue in the annual audits. “Assessment Collection Fees” and “Fixed Price & ala Carte for Administrative Facility” are accounts which are offsetting income and expenses transactions are not income. These are bookkeeping entries and not actual MVF revenue.
When these budget transactions are included as income in any budget draft or financial statements, the total income is inflated and misrepresented. When adjustment are made to the 2008 budget proposal eliminating these non revenue bookkeeping entries and not changing the expense budget a projected deficit of $1,363,419 is created. Consequently, to balance the 2008 budget $1,363,419 in reduced expenses must be identified.
The expense budget for 2008 of $8,585,527 is $1,753,265 greater than the 2006 audited expenses. The 2008 proposed budget assessments of $4,825,785 is only $750,030 over the 2007 $4,075,755 assessments. To be preoccupied with the assessment ceiling and not the merits of the proposed budget makes no sense. And off course, neither does the 2008 proposed budget. (See schedule C)
History of Over Estimate Expenses and Underestimating Income The Board of Directors of the Foundation has a history of approving annual budgets that substantially over estimates non assessment income and under estimate operating expenses creating a severe cumulative budget deficit condition. (See schedule N)
Unfortunately, the board and senior staff live in the state of permanent denial, stubbornly pursue inadequate and poorly administered remedies, have not been forthcoming with the financial and property condition realities and are unwillingness to take prompt corrective action on any of the adverse financial and facilities condition problems facing the Village.
History of Loss in CM and MA Funds There has been history of losses and deficits over the years in the Community Management (CMF) and the Maintenance Activity (MAF) funds. These deficits were funded using money designated for capital reserves while neglecting maintenance and landscaping services to the public areas. (See schedule Q)
Arguments for Raising the Assessment Ceiling
Quality services will not be provided – When has the Village ever had quality service? For decades there has been general deterioration of the Villages’ parks, streams, and lakes’ natural resources. Can “Those people who are close to the organization and who appreciate its value” see the crumbing walkways; dying, crippled and diseased tree life; eroding and inadequate turf coverage being conquered by invasive and wild plants? Have they not noticed eroding soil washing into the adjacent lake and streams? Have they been aware of the temporary and inadequate stop gap shore line repair measures
It’s not about the ability to continue providing quality services it is about why these conditions exists, what happened to the millions of dollars collected from past assessments to maintain and preserve Village assets and how to create awareness of these conditions on the part of the board and senior staff so we take corrective action and do a much better in the future.
Reserve funds will not be available for need capital “Reserve Contributions from Assessments” (The board of director’s approved policy mandates it be equal to the annual depreciation cost) and “Reserve Interest” (Interest on reserve investments) are required budget line items that equal the annual funding source for the Reserve Fund. A small fraction of assessment and interest income budget for capital reserves has been credited to the Reserve Fund.
In addition, other than capital expenditures on Landscaping and Public Works equipment, there is little evidence that capital expenditure from reserves were ever spent to improve common property assets. Assessments and interest income designated for capital reserve have funded deficits in other fund types.
The embezzled funds don’t count The June 6th edition of The Gazette reported “There were 21 other fraudulent transactions from the summers of 2004 and 2005 ranging between $75 to $3,500 for 7 employees, for whom Buttry created false payroll accounts in years when those employees did not work and deposited the wages into her personal account. A former lifeguard who was being audited by the IRS for wages supposedly paid to her in 2005-a year she did not work put investigators on the path that led to the $86,000 theft-scheme charge”.
In managing and operating a multi pool facility department it is incredible that MVF has never had a workable and effective payroll administrative control system. The ease, consistency and skill which Laura Buttry could steal substantial funds from the payroll system and go undeterred for so long a period is just one example of MVF’s long standing and continuing out of control financial and personnel staffing operations.
If you don’t favor the increase; good governance, Village activities, effective management control systems and the appearance of the public areas are unimportant to you and
No Lois, Pat, Gerald, Richard and Keith, it’s not those who oppose the raising of the assessment ceiling who should go. We need to stay to clean up the mess!
Good news/bad news. The $8/month assessment ceiling increase FAILED! Then the reps approved a compromise that raises the ceiling $3.14/month, up from the advertised $2.62/month (ostensibly to cover the cost of mowing the medians). Bottom line is that those who pay assessments to the MVF Fund and DU Fund (which is uncapped and will be increased by $3.82/month) will have an additional $83.52/year taken out of their wallets. So I better not hear any crocodile tears from Pat and Lois about how they didn't get their ceiling increase!
ReplyDeleteDid Surly Perley from Whetstone vote for the 50% increase? He is trying to raise my Whetstone assessment as well. He is so nasty! I won't give him a penny. I hope he moves soon. Too bad he's so awful, because his wife is very nice.
ReplyDeleteWith no incentive to improve operations, these people will expand the losses and keep demanding more money from the residents. Has ANYONE looked at the waste and poor business practices up there at the MVF. Thanks for a great newsletter and blog - You ARE CORRECT!
ReplyDeleteSo they got $3.14 sure better than $8.00 a month. But will that board really take the time to look at the books and straighten out that place. Then I hear about a pool being enclosed. That costs big money, don't you dare. That is like the fence in my area and now legal fees, just wasting our money.
ReplyDeleteI am still laughing about "Surly Perley." Boy, does that shoe fit!
ReplyDeleteI doubt if they would respond but I sure would like to see what those people would all have to say about all this mess they have put us in. That goes for most of the homes corporations like East Village and MV.
ReplyDeleteWho may I ask is Surly? Most people at MV at that way.
Linc Perley voted FOR the $8 ceiling increase. When it didn't pass he made a stink about it. His rude and obnoxious behavior (arguing with and interruping another rep who was trying to ask a question, standing up and walking toward the front of the room to see the numbers on the projector screen as they were tallied while blocking the view of everyone else behind him) drew a very negative reaction from the many residents in the audience. His behavior was remarkable in that everyone else was very polite and civil. He ultimately voted FOR the $3.14 compromise.
ReplyDeleteNo surprise on the Linc "Surly" Perley vote or his obnoxious performance. He is a yes-man going back many years. I do not believe he is capable of independent thought. He is incredibly rude to any Whetstone resident who attends the meetings.
ReplyDeleteHow did the Pontificating Pygmy President of Patton Ridge vote? He is raising my PR assessment big time.
ReplyDeleteWhat no one at MVF seems to realize is that a fair number of our residents are professionals who deal with this sort of financial responsibility issue day in and day out. The attempt to achieve the increase by blanketing the issue with the rhetorical fog machine results in no more than people detecting a foul vapor on the rise.
ReplyDeleteHow about transparency? How about looking at the assumptions that are clearly fatally flawed? How about adjusting the budget to reflect reality rather than this "Fantasy Island" version where you think you're living in the 70s (the 1870s, I fear) and trying to keep the "rabble down"
That noise, good sirs and true, is the sound of a very dissatisfied set of stockholders in this corporation, and unless some serious changes are made, you can rest assured that those stockholders will be looking for a new set of governors posthaste.
Bad news is that the assessment is going up at the MVF and most of the Home Corp and Condos as well. They all want our money and what do they give us? Nothing. MVF gets embezzled but all is safe then more money is missing, Whetstone just look at their reserves, Stedwick would rather save the woods behind my house than worry about our security, East Village is running up legal fees over a fence the majority don't want, Patton Ridge is planting trees on somebody elses property. Nobody cares about the owners. We just pay the bills.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge is power. This blog contains a lot of important information and excellent analysis. I hope everyone will share the link to it with their families, friends and acquaintances in the Village. I have sent it out once and will do so again. My eyes have been opened.
ReplyDeletePR president supported 50% increase in a letter to the village paper (for what it's worth). I assume that means he voted for it.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the Gazette article today, I see why he's call Surly Perley. His comments are idiotic. How embarrassing for the village to have him quoted.
ReplyDeleteNot only was Surly Perley extravagant in predicting the downfall of the Village if the $8/month increase did not pass, he directly challenged some poor lady (I do not know who she was)as to whether she was actually voting the wishes of her constituents. If I recall correctly, he wanted to know how many of her constituents backed her. The poor lady was quite taken aback and didn't know how to answer. After a few minutes, Mr. Hydorn pointed out that as a representative, she did not have to justify her vote. I thought he should have said that much earlier.
ReplyDelete