To those of you who do not have the pleasure of knowing Joe Walsh, he is the current secretary of the Conquistador Condominium Board of Directors.
After the tumultuous Conquistador budget session which has just concluded with over 50% of the condo owners voting for a pooling method of funding reserves, Joe was kind enough to sit with me for an informal interview. The following questions and answers were addressed during this session.
Joe Walsh showed up prepared to make a presentation at the Budget approval meeting held on Saturday January 10th and was denied the opportunity by his own Board. I asked him what he had hoped to accomplish. Mr. Walsh's answers are highlighted in bold type.
"It would not have made any difference in the vote but I wanted the homeowners to be better informed"
He wanted to demonstrate, using the paving spread sheet that he had created previously, that a budget can be underfunded.
"There are actually 5 different ways that a budget can be underfunded. Some are deliberate and others are through error. One way is to miss the need for a task."
Walsh went on to further explain that adding the need to replace siding and railings is what caused the "big hole" in the budget.
I went on to ask what these 5 different ways were.
"The first one is the need to add a task as I described with siding and railings. Second would be not properly defining a project and cost. We have underestimated the cost of such items as painting and paving. Third would be overestimating the life of the item."
The other two examples consisted of miscalculations or just bringing a vote to the people to underfund the reserves.
We also discussed the $325.00 fully funded reserves versus the approved pooling method which held the line at $215.00 per month.
"At this meeting some owners felt coerced by the threat of a $325.00 per month fee unless we approved the pooling method. Our attorney stated that we could not offer homeowners the option of not funding the siding and railings. I even sent an email to the attorney stating that this approach may be legal but I find it to be unethical. I never even received a response! If we maintain these 2 items properly, they may last 50 years!"
As we were concluding our interview Joe mentioned that he would be curious to see what the results would have been if the option was given to vote for a fully funded reserve with the exception of these 2 items.
How many of us will be here in 50 years when they need replacing and should we be worrying about it today? Regardless of the outcome, at least the budget debate has ended for another year!
Keith Goldstein, Editor