At todays meeting, all speakers got three minutes on the clock to make their argument. Mine was simple and only took two minutes (a worlds record for me). Here's what I said: Numbers matter! At the board/member exchange a board director told me we didn't need to reinstate the long range planning committee. He claimed we had a long range plan that covered the next 5 years so why would we. I went home and pulled their budgeted long range plan. The total expenditures from 2016-2020 (5 years) came in at $18,299,097. During that 5 years we will collect a minimum of 5 million per year (the last several it's been between 6 and 7 million per). If it's only $25 million that is an excess of 7 million dollars still in the account. If it stays at 6 million per we have 12 million in excess. That doesn't take into consideration the K Hovnanian development which will net out an easy million dollars and the carryover from 2015 (who knows how much that will be?), suffice to say millions more. All I got from the gang of 5 was a deer in the headlights look. Best of all was the 4 board members voting no, to a person stating there was no need for the increase at this time. One of them was the treasurer and the other the treasurer from last year (board members who have a good handle on the numbers). Go figure...no I mean, really go figure.
At least we seem to be solvent. BTW. I understand it will take another month to repair showers in ladies room at Sun Dial. In the meantime I will be going to Lakeview. At least Snowbirds are gone. Tomorrow I will begin taking picture of the Hovnanian development and posting them.
Peg, I remember before I left the board, there was some news about the women's showers at Sundial. Started out to be a small repair, or so one thought, only to discover considerable damage in the shower area. I know this must be a huge inconvenience, but it really is for the health and safety of all using that portion of the facility. Thanks for all that you do for all of us here on this sounding board.
I have followed the issue of the $500 increase to the PIF with interest but not without some confusion on information I either missed, or maybe it was never stated? Bill P. told us the majority who voted in the affirmative said little or nothing at the meeting. That is unfortunate. I would have been curious about the delay of collection until October. Was the delay to notify Realtors and title companies, allow transactions in process to clear or for offers with contingencies time to be met--like needing money from the sale of the buyer's current residence? An easy way to meet the objections of those wanting to slow down the bus would have been to amend the motion to implement it February 1, 2016. That way virtually all "snow birds" would have returned and could have gotten their two cents in and/or to determine if the projected real estate slow down really did materialize. I say all that suspecting there would not have been much interest by the majority. Was there any discussion of implementing the $500 with a sunset provision which has become the norm for financing stadiums and other entertainment venues? The advantage would be to collect the additional funds to guarantee payment for Riverview, Willowcreek, Willowbrook, and for buying out the solar lease. The sunset could have been pegged to the month after the solar lease buyout with a reversion back to $3,000 if there were surplus funds as projected by Bill P. It would also give ample time to study and prioritize the eventual renovation or rebuild of Mountain View, Oakmont, and Lakeview. Cost projections could also be acquired, which would help determine whether the sunset should be allowed to expire or if there was a need for a new resolution to renew or adjust the $3,000 fee. If the sunset concept was not considered, I would certainly hope it would be among alternatives considered for the future by future boards trying to guess the size of the mechanism to raise sufficient funds to keep us as the country's most wonderful and affordable retirement community.
Quick story Big Red: I ran into a former board member (who shall go unnamed) and he told me he saw the headline about the change in the PIF in the Daily News Sun. He said his first thought was; "how much will they lower it?" He went on to read the article, only to see they were proposing a $500 increase it. Gospel truth. There was so little said about anything at the board meeting by those voting for it, it was shameful. In fact I was reprimanded by one of the board members who told me this wasn't an exchange. It was in response to the question I asked if the board knew how much the PIF budget was from 2016 through 2020. Of course Jan wasn't there to bail them out so I can understand the deer in the headlights looks I got. The funny thing is I sat on the same stage the last 3 years and often responded to questions from the podium during those kinds of meetings. We have no clue as to why the hold off on implementation and there was certainly no suggestion of sun setting it. They seemed to have a single mindset and it was to pass it, no matter what concerns people raised. I guess what really tweaked me was they didn't even suggest the possibility of reinstating the long range planning committee. If you read the lengthy piece I wrote for the board regarding committees, the whole point is/was to work more closely with community members. Involving stakeholders is just common sense if you want to encourage residents to become more involved in the concept of self-governance. Conversely if you tell people nothing and make all the decisions in spite of what people are saying, guess what that breeds? It makes no sense to me BR, especially from people who ran on campaign promises of better communication with the community.
