Discussion on the Resolution to increase the Maintenance Contributions

It's time to discuss each Resolution in detail. Let's start off with the Resolution to increase the Maintenance Contributions.

5.1 To consider and if approved, to resolve that Maintenance Fund contributions be increased to S$73.00 per share value per month (see Appendix I) or any other amount as may be determined by members with effect from 1 July 2013 and payment of such contributions be made quarterly in advance due and payable on the first day of July, October, January and April every year without demand.

Note: Current contribution is S$62.00 per share value per month

Explanatory notes: Our estate is approaching 15 years old. There will be higher wear and tear and the costs of repairing and replacements will also increase. We have never increased our maintenance fund but we are running on deficit every month. Whilst Council endeavor to keep costs down, it has been obvious that we have been drawing from our surplus for the past 6 years and the deficit on average is $29,966 per year. Estate management is not only to ensure the environment is clean and safe but also to prevent it from looking dilapidated.

Current maintenance fund/sinking fund
3 shares: $186/$24
4 shares: $248/$32

Proposed maintenance fund/sinking fund(total)
3 shares: $219/$24 ($243 per month) ($729 quarterly)
4 shares: $292/$32 ($324 per month) ($972 quarterly)


My views:

Please read the attached. You will be surprised at how our Management Fund changed throughout the past six years.

For guests who cannot download attachments.

I refer to the Notice which was pasted on the mirrors of the lifts and now still being put up on the Notice Board and the explanation for the Resolution to increase the Management Fund.

The Notice mentioned an average yearly deficit of $26,000 but the Resolution to increase the Management Fund mentioned a figure of $29,000. Which is which? Besides looking at the average over a 6-yr period, let's look at the actual yearly numbers. They will reveal more.

The Management Fund over the last six Financial Years.

FY...................Amount in fund(S$)......Surplus or (Deficit)
2007................360,098
2008................250,972......................(109,126)
2009................259,048...........................8,076
2010................245,527........................(13,521)
2011................235,900..........................(9,627)
2012................200,852........................(35,048)

The two biggest deficits, (109,126) in 2007/2008 and (35,048) in 2011/2012, occurred under the chairmanship of Doris Cheong. If we were to take away these two big deficits, the average for the other three years would be only 5024! Based on reserve as at Nov 2012 of 200,000, it will last us for another almost 40 years!

I will leave you to make your own conclusions.

One of the reasons advanced for increasing the Maintenance Contributions is to prevent the estate from looking dilapidated. Over the three years when the deficit on the Management Fund was small, the estate's look-and-feel not only did not deteriorate but was improved. A row of ixora was planted along the whole stretch of the front slope of the estate. The big fish pond looked so much more lively after the koi fishes were transferred from the small pond to the bigger one, with more koi fishes added in. The small fish pond was turned into one for goldfishes and other smaller species of fishes. All these were done without any cost to the MCST.

The Notice recognized the cafe and the mini-mart as a sources of 'revenue'. I was the one who decided to turn the Reading Room to a cafe. Not only did I not get any co-operation from Doris, she tried to thwart my effort all the way. I had to make sure the water and electricity was properly installed, the ventilation fan was working. I had to look for the first tenant but it did not last more than a year. Neither did the second and third ones. I persisted until this present one, which is the fourth tenant, and it is on its second year of tenancy. Similarly, I was the one who looked for new tenant for the mini-mart when the first tenant decided to end the tenancy.

Mr. Ng Kien Aun
Blk 88 #10-05

nka wrote:It's time to discuss each Resolution in detail. Let's start off with the Resolution to increase the Maintenance Contributions.

Please read the attached. You will be surprised at how our Management Fund changed throughout the past six years.

The conclusion is obvious. Whenever Doris takes over the chair of the council, the deficit increases and our maintenace fee has to be increased.

seems like it. coindence, correlation or it reflects a lack of ability of the person concerned?

nka wrote:It's time to discuss each Resolution in detail. Let's start off with the Resolution to increase the Maintenance Contributions.

Please read the attached. You will be surprised at how our Management Fund changed throughout the past six years.

umh, so the Notice has not been telling the real truth. personally, i don't agree to the increment. we don't need more contributions to the fund. we just need someone who can manage it properly.

That Notice doesn't say much accept to counter Mr. Ng's letter. They even got the start date of the present council wrong, 2013 instead of 2012. It seems like this council cannot get even simple thing right.
Now we know further that they try to lie to us with an average number.

Not anyone can be a good councilor. Councilors must have sufficient knowledge to deal with contractors and vendors. Contractors will recommend the expensive method to solve a problem. That's how they can make more money. Similarly, vendors will recommend the expensive products. If councilors don't have the knowledge, the MCST ends up paying more than is necessary for work and products and we SPs end up having to pay more for our maintenance fees.

That Notice reflects the poor IQ of the councilors. If they join the council to do this kind of work, they are wasting their own as well as everybody's else time.

nka wrote:It's time to discuss each Resolution in detail. Let's start off with the Resolution to increase the Maintenance Contributions.

Please read the attached. You will be surprised at how our Management Fund changed throughout the past six years.

For guests who cannot download attachments.

I refer to the Notice which was pasted on the mirrors of the lifts and now still being put up on the Notice Board and the explanation for the Resolution to increase the Management Fund.

The Notice mentioned an average yearly deficit of $26,000 but the Resolution to increase the Management Fund mentioned a figure of $29,000. Which is which? Besides looking at the average over a 6-yr period, let's look at the actual yearly numbers. They will reveal more.

The Management Fund over the last six Financial Years.

FY...................Amount in fund(S$)......Surplus or (Deficit)
2007................360,098
2008................250,972......................(109,126)
2009................259,048...........................8,076
2010................245,527........................(13,521)
2011................235,900..........................(9,627)
2012................200,852........................(35,048)

The two biggest deficits, (109,126) in 2007/2008 and (35,048) in 2011/2012, occurred under the chairmanship of Doris Cheong. If we were to take away these two big deficits, the average for the other three years would be only 5024! Based on reserve as at Nov 2012 of 200,000, it will last us for another almost 40 years!

I will leave you to make your own conclusions.

Can these figures be reproduced in the AGM? They would cut the argument short.

I will vote against any increment in the Fund.

It seems we don't have to pay-and-pay afterall. Those actual yearly numbers have to be brought up in the meeting.

gangnasai wrote:seems like it. coindence, correlation or it reflects a lack of ability of the person concerned?

The last possibility is the most likely one.

Tomorrow will be the day. Will we end up having to pay more?