A 1.8792% fee increase

I received my invoice for January and the new board applied the approximate 1.88% fee increase. But they failed to do the arithmetic and my note to them and to management was ignored.

2018 monthly fee = $354.41
2018 monthly fee = $361.07

Actual percentage fee increase = $361.07/$354.41 = 1.018792 = 1.8792%

So what will the assessment income for the association be in 2019?

2018 Budget Assessment income = $1,349,277
2019 Budget Assessment income = $1,349,277 x 1.018792 = $1,374,632.61

Additional Assessment income = $25,355.61

Applauding for a fee increase

At the December meeting when the board announced the decision to proceed with the fee increase, a few owners broke into applause.

I'll let that sink in.

I'm sure the same people will dance in the streets when a special assessment is announced.

Tight security and a Lawyer

The board decided to hide behind a security guard and an attorney during the most recent association meeting.

The board made no attempt to answer any questions about the budget surplus, apparently pretending it doesn't exist.

I'll make this observation. This is the first BLMH HOA meeting where the board arranged for an attorney and a security guard to hide behind.  It makes me wonder about the mental state of one or more board members. Second, the board spent a lot of money needlessly rather than address owners who disagreed with the board position.

I did receive the "official" 2019 budget. It indicates an "approximate 1.88%" fee increase. From my experience at BLMH most owners don't pay attention to the budgets. They think of the budgets in terms of "I can (or can't) afford the proposed fee increase."

I think management is probably laughing about all of this. To quote the current president "Stupid is as stupid does."

A Board Hell Bent on a Fee Increase, no matter what the numbers indicate

I've been contacted by owners who were confused by the budget presented by the board.

The board acknowledged in the letter sent to owners that "increases to reserves" aren't necessary. Yet, that is what they are doing. The board has options of how to use annual surpluses. The automatic one is to send annual surpluses to reserves. Other options include using surpluses to pay for costs in subsequent years or it can return the money to owners. This board did not acknowledge a potential surplus exists. The board budget indicates a surplus in income and Operations & Maintenance (O&M) budget.  That would indicate they intend to keep the money, particularly in view of the proposed fee increase.  Some board members may be unaware of what will happen to the surpluses or that the board does have options at its disposal.  I conclude there is a personal agenda on this board.

My best assessment is that we have one or more very greedy board members who are voting for an increase because they can personally afford one, and intend to funnel any surplus surreptitiously into reserves. When discussing the negative impact of fee increases on owners during a budget meeting a couple of years ago, our current president retorted "We should not cater to the lowest common denominator". When asked by a current board member "Is this fee increase necessary" during the November budget meeting our current president responded: "It is absolutely necessary."  Whereupon the entire board voted for a fee increase. So much for independent thinking, simply follow orders. Jawohl!

The source of owner confusion
The major source of the confusion for owners who did look at the budget involves the 2018 surpluses and yet the board is promoting an "approximate 1.88%" fee increase. Furthermore, the numbers indicate it is really a 1.66% increase.

I guess the new board can't handle arithmetic. I'll bet not one board member even brought a calculator to the budget meeting. Our former president ( a CPA) would bring his laptop. When I became president I did the same, and crunched the numbers under discussion. LOL. This is not surprising as the president insists she doesn't use a PC. That's pretty lame considering we have a very large community college adjacent to our HOA; she can see it from her patio. LOL.

One thing I don't understand is "Why didn't the board ask management to use "YTD 10/31/18" numbers? That would have provided a better idea of the projected surpluses. Apparently they didn't ask management to do this. I suspect they didn't want to know.  Having better information is unnecessary if one has already made their decision. The three "locksteppers" on the board had already made a decision. Their leader always insists upon a fee increase.

Another thing I don't understand is why did the board send these numbers to owners? These numbers indicate a fee increase is unnecessary.  My best guess? We have some arrogant board members, the board is hell bent on making a fee increase, doesn't give a damn about surpluses and has no interest in what the owners think about this.

Case in point: Income though 9/30/2018 is $17,691 greater than the budget; that money is already in the bank. Yet the board ignored it when making their decision for a fee increase. We really don't know what the 12/31/2018 numbers will be, but it is likely income will increase further over the remaining three months.

That $17,691 additional income already in the bank will pay for all but $4,724 of  the identified 2019 cost increases in the O&M budget.

But it gets more interesting. The board "cherry picked" the data and ignored all potential sources of O&M surpluses.   Using only that data which supports one's position is intellectually dishonest. I've spoken to "the locksteppers" about this during previous budget sessions. Which is why I assert they are doing this simply because they can and they are greedy.

How greedy? About $128,012 greedy!

I would be the first to say that good budgeting means one must be cautious when using "projections." They certainly aren't guaranteed. However, large surpluses should not be ignored when making a decision.

What should one do? First, I would only use income above the budget as of 9/30/2018. What that give us is a surplus of only $112,198 at year end.

We've had surpluses most years from 2012 to 2017; some small, some large. I was involved in those budgets and I and the "finance committee" were the chief architect of the most recent budgets, including 2018. None of the current board were on the finance committee. That provides some idea of their capabilities. The president is not quite computer illiterate; these days even three year olds can browse. But using spreadsheets is way beyond the skillset.

What would I do under the circumstances? I'd make a decision based on the data. While it is unlikely there will be a surplus of $112,198 at the end of the fiscal year, it is very likely there will be a surplus of $20,000 to $40,000. To that I'd add the extra income of $17,691. I'd be honest with the owners and use the numbers before I decided to push through an unnecessary fee increase under these circumstances. In fact that's what we did in recent years, which is why fees stabilized after 2011.

The current president was the motive force for those annual 7% fee increases which nearly doubled fees over a decade. She lost an election in 2008 but four years later returned to the board. Ever since she has been stridently insisting upon annual fee increases. The black line prior to 2009 and the blue line represents the trajectory of her boards.  New boards stabilized fees and eliminated the large maintenance backlog her boards had created from 2000-2008. Half of our owners purchased after 2009 and are unaware of this. Many of our owners struggled with the rapidly rising fees for which they had never budgeted. There were quite a few foreclosures, bankruptcies and evictions. Those earlier owners are the ones who paid the fees to run the reserves from $295,000 to more than $1 million in 2009. They were forced out and the new owners have benefitted as the staggering maintenance backlog was eliminated and the fees stabilized.

Is it possible there will be no surplus as of December 31, 2018? Not likely. For one thing, the  $17691 surplus accumulated through September 30 is already in the bank. It is worth looking at what could produce a $0.00 O&M surplus. Several things:

1. Gross errors in the preparation of the 2019 budget.
2. If management or contractors were holding invoices back as of 9/30/2018 that would be a problem. A board should instruct management to get all accounts current prior to determining a budget and it should have used 10/31/2018 data. I can guarantee no such request was made by the board.  Under these circumstances I would have used 10/31 data.
3. The board could authorize management to prepay 2019 expenses. However, if that were done to run the surplus down and prove that it was small, it would probably be fraudulent. 

Here are the numbers:

Why not move forward with the transition of the mains?

1.       I was asked why I didn’t move this forward with the city (write the letter).  I responded there were good reasons; primarily this is about a board acting as fiduciaries and operating as such.

2.       : 1) I’d done all of the work on this from 2013 to the present despite some stiff board resistance to the idea; 2) In 2018 the board was embroiled in a proposed rule change and it was clear that my initiative would be undermined when none on the current board were excited to see the letter from the City of Wheaton; and 3) I decided this was to be my gift to the new board. This would be a wonderful opportunity to perform. They could the take all of the credit for this wonderful accomplishment, and I am sure they will if they ever move forward. I told the owners that the new president has steadfastly insisted from 2012 to the present that “This will never happen” and that management also had doubts.  I agree that it will be easier to fail than to succeed in that endeavor. Nevertheless I convinced the board to allow me to try. I’ll never know if those pronouncements were about stonewalling, but I suspect they were and they are.  It will be easier for a board to fail than to succeed, and too many aren’t interested in doing the work.  That’s not in accordance with one’s fiduciary duties.

1.        

The board finally decided to let owners know who they are and their positions

I went to the official Association website and lo and behold the board finally directed management to post information about the new board and their assigned duties. It took 60 days, but it is better late than never.   I've had owners asking me about how to contact the new board. I've told them to go to the old newsletter or contact management.  The problem is, the board president doesn't use email with owners. Nor has she released a phone number to the owners. She's been on the board for decades, but for a three year sabbatical when she was booted by the owners. She returned in 2011 when she was appointed to the board by the board, and is now operating as she did prior to 2008.

To provide some insights into her skewed notion of the state of the association finances, she stated in the January 2012 newsletter that "...we are trying very hard to keep the fee increases to a minimum without decreasing services."  Well, now that she is again president that idea went out the window! We're back to the old "raise fees and to hell with the owners."  The pitched battles about all things began when I assumed the presidency in 2015. It was the lock-steppers versus the rest of the board.

Why the communications delay?  The new president has bizzare attitude about communications with owner. I told her repeatedly that if board members want to operate as far in the past, then they should consider riding around in a horse and buggy and communicate via telegraph.  Frankly, I would have pressed the board for improved minimum standard but that was not required according to the individuals who are the current president, and the vice-president and secretary all approached these things in lock-step.

You will notice some very important information is missing in this list. So what's missing?  There is no address or other contact information.That is not surprising as this president has a long history of arguing against communications with owners. She has gone so far as to state that  "If owners want to know what's happening they should come to meetings."  On the other hand, she doesn't like it when owners come to meetings. While I was promoting the newsletter I told her and other board members that if the board doesn't want large numbers of owners to come to the meetings then it would be more effective to put out good newsletters. Furthermore, boards are prohibited from creating sub-groups of owners. I was always concerned that the social club had an activist purpose, which it once did. In a group of 20 three or four board members participated. I cautioned the boards repeatedly against discussing HOA business during the club meetings or with supporters on the telephone. I instructed the boards to invite these people to board meetings. But they seldom came.  I was told repeatedly in all matters "This is not how I did things as president".