12th AGM on 29th Mar 2014

Management has proposed that the Management Fund be increased from $68 to $73,  and the Sinking Fund from $8 to $10, per share value per month.

Thiis comes after a $6 per share value per month increment approved during last AGM. When and where will it end?
Do they know what they are doing?

Do not give your proxy votes away easilly. Try your best to attend the AGM in person. Otherwise you may end up having to pay more and more for more years ahead.


Mr. Ng Kien Aun

Attached is a spreadsheet to track the actual and budgeted expenditures.

Several questionable big increments in the budgeted expenditure.

What a shock/ More increments in the maintenance fund. This time sinking fund also increased.

Last year, someone already predicted that there will be another increment this year.

They will have to give good reasons for the big increment in several of the expenditure items

While we are told to pay and pay, more and more facilities are taken out of use or demolished.

No hot shower after a cold swim.
Visitors cannot use the back gate.
The store is demolished.
A pavilion is demolished.

Btw, Mr. Ng thks for pointing the questionable increments but where is that basic error you mentioned?

Sorry, on closer examination. there is no error on the Management Fund calculation on Pg 2 of the AGM doc. I have edited that post.

Thks.

Mr. Ng, there is also an error in your spreadsheet - the amount for the actual electricity used.


What is this council doing? Pay to demolish facilities and then ask for money to have them re-built.

Taking facilities out of use. How much is electricity is saved by depriving swimmers of a hot shower after a swim?

M.A. fee is always on the increase. Is it worth it? Does its performance keep improving?
Now it is proposed that “the incoming council be empowered to appoint a Managing Agent”. This is a departure from all the past years when this was left to the Subsidiary Proprietors. There is a good reason for this. It is to let the M.A. know that it is ultimately answerable to the Subsidiary Proprietors, not the council. In this way, M.A. will work for the interest of the Subsidiary Proprietors, not the councilors or the dominant few among them.

toomuchlah, thks for pointing out the mistake. It has been corrected.

I wonder. Whose idea is it to let the council, instead of the General Assembly, decide on the re-appoint of the M.A.? Is it the M.A.? Or the council?

$27000 a year for water and it is budgeted for $30000. Too much.
Water is a precious national resource. Its priority use is for drinking, not
cleaning. I hv seen the car park being hi-jetted quite frequently. Is this
necessary? How long can you keep a car park clean? Just after you hv hi-jetted
it, a car carrying dirt fr the outside will drive over it. Besides, I hv seen
cars being splashed with dirt fr the hi-jetting.

How about collecting rain water for the main cleaning and the tap water used only for the final rinse?

Good to see that this forum is alive again. Just in time for the AGM.

The expenses for Professional Fee has gone from 0 to $5,760 and budgeted for
another $5,800.

Is this for dispute with a SP over water leakage? I remember reading about it
the Minutesoc Council Meeting. This is a waste of our fund and bad for
community spirit. This gives the condo a bad reputation. People may think twice
before buying a unit here.

Agree.
Beside that, how long will the case last? The aggrieved party may want to
appeal to higher court. It may cost the MCST a fortune if it finally lost the
case. Council itself should not decide to take a case to court. It should
be left to a General Meeting.

The 12th AGM.

There was an unexpected twist to the ending of the proposal to increase the Maintenance Contributions to $73/share/value month. After much time and efforts were spent on discussion the proposal, the votes were cast and counted with two witnesses. It was announced that the proposal was defeated. But later on, it was announced that there was a miscalculation of the share values of the votes cast and there would be a recount. Meanwhile, the meeting progressed to further items in the agenda. The recount was set aside. Towards the end of the meeting, when many of the attendees had left, the recount took place, again with two witnesses. This time the result was reversed. The proposal was passed due to a big block of proxy votes Those who were still around were stunned. They tried to argue against what had happened but to no avail.

If the recount had been done right after the mistake was discovered, the
decisive power of the big number of proxy vote held by one SP would be
known. There could then be a call to re-vote without the use of proxy votes or
to stop the use of proxy votes for subsequent resolutions. As it had happened,
those big number of proxy votes were used througout all resolutions. The whole
AGM had been one big fuss.

Hi. Does anyone know what is being done to the squash court glass?

Heard that it was broken by one SP's son. How did it break? Is the SP paying for the damage....

Rgds.