It's kind of cumbersome now to go through all the postings and
comments, unless you are new to the blog and want to catch-up with
the discussions so far.
From what I can see the topic on the list of resumees - "YCC 244
owners who sent resumes for nomination to the board of directors" - (
from Thursday, November 4, Posted at 10:19 AM ---- with 22 comments )
is the most discussed of all but there are some other topiscs that
attracted many comments as well.
Don't Vote for Catherine
ReplyDeleteHer current board is asking for a 28% rate increase!
28% rate increase on what? On maintenance fee? So from $700 one should jump to $900? This is INSANE!
ReplyDeleteyes and no
ReplyDeletetake your 700 fee, cut 22% off.
hydro represents 50% of your fees.
So that leaves 28%
From 700 to 900, that is the difference you probably will pay once the true costs of hydro is calculated. Hopefully you get the idea.
Your math is good but the assuption that hydro is 50% of the fee is wrong .
ReplyDeleteCurrently is about 38% so we still don't get anywhere better.
Also wrong is how you put it "Her current board is asking for a 28% rate increase! "
Should be "The current 22% proposed fee reduction leads to a total cost per unit increase of 28%" -- but it's not 28% if hydro is not 50% of the condo fee (based on my assumption of 38% would be a 16% increase in the total cost , which is a LOT too).
To break it down so those who are NOT too math savvy can understand:
This is per month:
Current fee (and also the current total cost per unit) = 700
New fee (without unit hydro) after taking 22% off of 700 = 546
Unit hydro (based ob 2009 budget) 38% of 700 = 266
New total cost per unit 546 +266 = 812
Increase in cost after new system kicks in 812-700 =112
Percentage of increase in unit cost 112/700 = 16%
So basicaly the units that pay now 700/month will pay 812/month (16% more).
This is in average, becuase some will pay less and some will pay more based on what the meters will read.
NASTY!
From the above calculation one should see the reduction should be AT LEAST 38% to not create in average any increase in unit's cost. Take this calculation with you at the AGM and ask them to expain why 22% and not 38%.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing they can pretend is that the 16% represents hydro for common area (pool, garge, etc). But that's 16/38=42%. So 42% of all hydro is for CEA which is exagerated. Or is not?
ReplyDeleteDon't have the figures with me but if you post all the income ...should be around $1,600,000.00 including reserve fund I will attempt to show you what my opinion is..O.K.
ReplyDeleteC Building
It's in a comment bellow:
ReplyDeleteThe numbers for 2009 came in with yesterday's Taft package containing the budget to be discussed at the AGM.
So :
- Total revenue: $1,658,094
- Total electricity cost:$599,000
- Total common expenses: 1,103,853
These are the actual numbers (previous were the budgeted numbers)
ReplyDelete2009 Common Expenses
210336 operating expenses
120652 admin expenses
19042 onsite personnel expenses
827184 utilities:
584463 hydro
121484 water
30094 waste
91143 tv
Total 1177214
Owners assessment (CEA fees) 1644456
Transfer to Reserve fund 557241
These are the actual numbers (previous were the budgeted numbers)
ReplyDelete2009 Common Expenses
210336 operating expenses
120652 admin expenses
19042 onsite personnel expenses
827184 utilities:
584463 hydro
121484 water
30094 waste
91143 tv
Total 1177214
Owners assessment (CEA fees) 1644456
Transfer to Reserve fund 557241
Ok here goes I will try to explain in my way...
take your $1,177,241.00 addyour reserve fundof
$ 557,241.00
Total $ 1,734,482.00
In that total is our hydro $ 584,463.00 approxamently 1/3 of the total money. Approx. 15% of that is common element that leaves you with approx $ 496,871.00 that is what each and every one of us are personaly resposable for as use in our units. and it is based on those figures as a persentage of the total budget and that persentage is what each owner should get back. we pay our assesment buy the square footage so larger units still get the same persentage as everyone . everyone now gets the same % ..I think about 22% this could be increased next year BUT I think they have calculated it this way so you would not get an increase next year But because of not having an increase in over 4 years ...Catherine and her board (Dan and others )by not doing what was required under the law with the reserve fund a suddenly spending over $ 1,300,000.00 at one time and what they are now doing has probably left our reserve fund well below what it should be ( ask this question at the meeting) yoy may be looking at an increase to top up our reserve fund soon unless we build up our reserve to where it should be. Any extra money saved by sub metering I would think ( suggest ) should be funneled into the reserve fund to lessen this possible increase.
Don't know if this helps but I think it is very close to what it is.
By the way this board is now acting it seems in the same way Catherines board did...Election time spend...spend others will have to answer if we are not here... I sincerly hope not...Please vote and if the people you vote for don't listen and continue the way others have by not doing as they should and ignoring the law..REMOVE THEM..
Thank you for explaining my idea further. They gave us such a bad taste at the last meeting regarding this sub metering I'm assuming they are only wanting to give us a rate increase!
ReplyDeleteQuestions to Catherine and Dan Hu at our AGM
ReplyDeleteThis is the Condo Act Section--- 32
Conduct of business
32. (1) Subject to subsection 42 (5), the board of a corporation shall not transact any business of the corporation except at a meeting of directors at which a quorum of the board is present. 1998, c. 19, s. 32 (1).
Quorum
(2) A quorum for the transaction of business is a majority of the members of the board. 1998, c. 19, s. 32 (2).
For our YCC244 the board member of 5 ,the majority must be 3+. That means any transactions done by only 2 board members is illegal. Even if there were 3 Board members if the 3 rd one was appointed by the left 2 Board members.
So we must ask Catherine and Dan Hu and verify :
1. How many Board members were there on the Board when you signed the contract with the contractor NAN BEI for the swimming pool?
2. How many Board members were there on the Board when you signed the contract with NAN BEI for the stucco project of Building A & B?
3. Why did you sign such big projects with the same contractor NAN BEI and let NAN BEI to sub-contract the stucco project some one else?
4. Was it worth $100,000+ to do the swimming pool? Was it worth using out our Reserve Fund before you step down to do the stucco?
5. Did you guys get money from NAN BEI and other of your contractors, if yes how much? How much per unit owner?
6. Do you want to continue doing crazy things like that by running the Board again?
PLEASE ENOUGH WITH THIS ...YOU ONLY NEED TO POST ONCE NOT A THOUSAND TIMES...AND REMEMBER...IF YOU SLANDER ANYONE YOU WILL BE IN TROUBLE ...BE SURE WHAT YOU WRITE THAT YOU HAVE PROOF .IF NOT YOU ARE LIABLE...
ReplyDeleteTO EVERYONE ELSE PLEASE VOTE REMEMBER THE PAST BOARD ( CATHERINE/ DAN ) AND THE REST OF HER BOARD. WE DO NOT WANT TO GO BACK TO THE DARK AGES.. GOOD LUCK BON CHANCE TO THE WHOLE COMMUNITY