Crystal Shores 2016 Proposed Budget

[rpluskota]

Just opened the proposed budget for Crystal Shores....the increase in the Reserve fee is a 63.6% proposed increase. The proposed budget runs roughly from $2016 to $3154 for a three bedroom penthouse, depending on season per unit week.

I wonder if most resorts will see these large proposed increases again this year?

 

[rpluskota]

I found this in my annual budget documents for MGV........bottom line vote for the waiver.


The State of Florida requires condominium associations to fund reserves for capital improvements and deferred maintenance at statutory levels through annual contributions. However, the State permits the annual waiver or reduction of the statutory reserve contribution with an affirmative vote by the majority of those Owners voting by proxy or in person at a duly called meeting of the membership

 

[SueDonJ]

Remember that Florida is one of the states where "fully-funded" reserves are mandated but usually voted down by the owners at the recommendation of the board. Here's the thread from last year when Crystal Shores proposed budget elicited criticism until the issue was understood.

 

[DanH]

I haven't seen that at my resorts which are outside Florida

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Fairwinds]

Remember that Florida is one of the states where "fully-funded" reserves are mandated but usually voted down by the owners at the recommendation of the board. Here's the thread from last year when Crystal Shores proposed budget elicited criticism until the issue was understood.

If the reserve funding is voted down are owners asking for a special assessment down the road?

 

[SueDonJ]

If the reserve funding is voted down are owners asking for a special assessment down the road?

Based on history with our South Carolina (where there's also a fully-funded reserves mandate in effect) Weeks, I don't think so. Barony Beach and SurfWatch have both been maintained to a high standard as well as refurbished on 5- (soft goods) and 10-year (hard goods) regular schedules. They've also had periodic improvements to the common areas funded by MVW and not the owners. We've had no Special Assessments during our ownership and the reserves appear healthy from the annual Budget Reports. When the waiver has been on our ballots it's been voted down every time - but for SC owners it's not an annual voting item like it is for Florida owners, and the SC resorts don't issue proposed budgets like the FL resorts do.

"Fully-funded Reserves" as mandated means that expected repairs and refurbishments can be done to specifications with cash on hand. MVW recommends waivers because they're able to take into account warranties and extended life on existing items, as well as things like volume pricing and stocked inventory. It isn't that MVW recommends waivers to keep owners from complaining about high MF's; what they recommend is funding reserves based on the Operating Budgets/Projections rather than the state-mandated specifications.

If an Operating Budget appears to be short-changing the reserves then of course an SA could be in the resort's future - but I don't see glaring evidence of it being a foregone conclusion at our two resorts where "fully-funded" mandates are in play. Owners at other resorts can speak to those.

 

[pedro47]

Just opened the proposed budget for Crystal Shores....the increase in the Reserve fee is a 63.6% proposed increase. The proposed budget runs roughly from $2016 to $3154 for a three bedroom penthouse, depending on season per unit week.

I wonder if most resorts will see these large proposed increases again this year?

That is one huge increase for one year. Was the resort that underfunded for Reserve Fees?

 

[BocaBoy]

Based on history with our South Carolina (where there's also a fully-funded reserves mandate in effect) Weeks, I don't think so. Barony Beach and SurfWatch have both been maintained to a high standard as well as refurbished on 5- (soft goods) and 10-year (hard goods) regular schedules. They've also had periodic improvements to the common areas funded by MVW and not the owners. We've had no Special Assessments during our ownership and the reserves appear healthy from the annual Budget Reports. When the waiver has been on our ballots it's been voted down every time - but for SC owners it's not an annual voting item like it is for Florida owners, and the SC resorts don't issue proposed budgets like the FL resorts do.

"Fully-funded Reserves" as mandated means that expected repairs and refurbishments can be done to specifications with cash on hand. MVW recommends waivers because they're able to take into account warranties and extended life on existing items, as well as things like volume pricing and stocked inventory. It isn't that MVW recommends waivers to keep owners from complaining about high MF's; what they recommend is funding reserves based on the Operating Budgets/Projections rather than the state-mandated specifications.

If an Operating Budget appears to be short-changing the reserves then of course an SA could be in the resort's future - but I don't see glaring evidence of it being a foregone conclusion at our two resorts where "fully-funded" mandates are in play. Owners at other resorts can speak to those.

I think this is a very good and accurate explanation.

 

[dioxide45]

I had a big scare last year with Grande Vista and Harbour Lake and their proposed MFs. It seems that the proposed fees must now show the amount expecting fulling funding of reserves. Probably some change in Florida Law that took effect last year. Though if the fulling funding of reserves is waived by a vote, the actual fees are much lower.

 

[Fairwinds]

Based on history with our South Carolina (where there's also a fully-funded reserves mandate in effect) Weeks, I don't think so. Barony Beach and SurfWatch have both been maintained to a high standard as well as refurbished on 5- (soft goods) and 10-year (hard goods) regular schedules. They've also had periodic improvements to the common areas funded by MVW and not the owners. We've had no Special Assessments during our ownership and the reserves appear healthy from the annual Budget Reports. When the waiver has been on our ballots it's been voted down every time - but for SC owners it's not an annual voting item like it is for Florida owners, and the SC resorts don't issue proposed budgets like the FL resorts do.

"Fully-funded Reserves" as mandated means that expected repairs and refurbishments can be done to specifications with cash on hand. MVW recommends waivers because they're able to take into account warranties and extended life on existing items, as well as things like volume pricing and stocked inventory. It isn't that MVW recommends waivers to keep owners from complaining about high MF's; what they recommend is funding reserves based on the Operating Budgets/Projections rather than the state-mandated specifications.

If an Operating Budget appears to be short-changing the reserves then of course an SA could be in the resort's future - but I don't see glaring evidence of it being a foregone conclusion at our two resorts where "fully-funded" mandates are in play. Owners at other resorts can speak to those.

Makes sense, thanks

 

[Saintsfanfl]

Don't kid yourself. Underfunded reserves are made up with maintenance increases in excess of what they otherwise would be. Call it a reserve or special assessment spread out evenly through gradual increases. That missing money is still being made up.