A PLACE TO BE
Saturday, July 17, 2010
DO WE HAVE MORE RENTERS OR NOT?
Since Hurricane Dolly in 2008, the board has selectively used the windstorm insurance money to paint different fiscal pictures of our Rental Office. It was brought into play once again during our June Board meeting and put into the current newsletter, apparently to show that the first four months of last year's rental revenues were just as bad as this year.
Since Hurricane Dolly in 2008, the board has selectively used the windstorm insurance money to paint different fiscal pictures of our Rental Office. It was brought into play once again during our June Board meeting and put into the current newsletter, apparently to show that the first four months of last year's rental revenues were just as bad as this year.
In 2008 the insurance adjuster approved over $38,000 to cover lost rental revenues caused by Hurricane Dolly. These reimbursements were late to arrive, so the Board added them to the 2009 Rental Office revenues. Our Rental Office lost over $25,000 in 2008.
In 2009, this reimbursement was mentioned as needed, but what's interesting is that without this money the Rental Office lost over $25,000 in 2009, but this time without having a hurricane.
At the January 2010 Board meeting, an owner asked as to why the "09" Rental Office did so well. Nary was a word spoken about this windstorm insurance money, instead every owner at this crowded meeting was told by Pat Burke the revenue increase was due to two things, an increase in the number of renters going through our Rental Office and from the Board that implemented the many suggestions they received from a study done after Hurricane Dolly.
This continued at our Annual Meeting in March of 2010. Nary was a word spoken about this insurance reimbursement when Aramark proudly announced that our 2009 Rental Office posted a first time ever profit of $13,489. It could be found if you looked for it in Aramark's Annual Report that a $38,712 insurance reimbursements was distributed, not specically to the Rental Office, but to all of the Profit Centers.
This year's June P&L for the Rental Office reveals a $9,210 loss during the first four months, which apparently supports the $31,836 loss our Board has projected in their 2010 budget. In addition, our Treasurer last month blamed these current lossses due to a lack of renters going through the Rental Office.
Bottom line
2010 Rental Office is projected to lose $31,836
2009 posted a $25,223 loss (Insurance reimbursement not included)
2008 posted a $25,932 loss (Insurance reimbursement not included)
2007 posted a $8,175 loss (sewer loan/assessment reimbursement included)
2006 posted a $24,683 loss
2005 posted a $20,939 loss from Jan-Nov
2004 posted a $16,718 loss from Jan-Nov
What's your feeling about the Rental Office?
In 2009, this reimbursement was mentioned as needed, but what's interesting is that without this money the Rental Office lost over $25,000 in 2009, but this time without having a hurricane.
At the January 2010 Board meeting, an owner asked as to why the "09" Rental Office did so well. Nary was a word spoken about this windstorm insurance money, instead every owner at this crowded meeting was told by Pat Burke the revenue increase was due to two things, an increase in the number of renters going through our Rental Office and from the Board that implemented the many suggestions they received from a study done after Hurricane Dolly.
This continued at our Annual Meeting in March of 2010. Nary was a word spoken about this insurance reimbursement when Aramark proudly announced that our 2009 Rental Office posted a first time ever profit of $13,489. It could be found if you looked for it in Aramark's Annual Report that a $38,712 insurance reimbursements was distributed, not specically to the Rental Office, but to all of the Profit Centers.
This year's June P&L for the Rental Office reveals a $9,210 loss during the first four months, which apparently supports the $31,836 loss our Board has projected in their 2010 budget. In addition, our Treasurer last month blamed these current lossses due to a lack of renters going through the Rental Office.
Bottom line
2010 Rental Office is projected to lose $31,836
2009 posted a $25,223 loss (Insurance reimbursement not included)
2008 posted a $25,932 loss (Insurance reimbursement not included)
2007 posted a $8,175 loss (sewer loan/assessment reimbursement included)
2006 posted a $24,683 loss
2005 posted a $20,939 loss from Jan-Nov
2004 posted a $16,718 loss from Jan-Nov
What's your feeling about the Rental Office?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You have got to be kidding me ! ! ! I'd bet if you hired a "Property Manager" and gave them a % of the bottom line they would make money. There is NO excuse for this type of a loss. What about a professional assessment (similar to a time study sometimes used in corporate settings) to see where the Rental Operation is failing. It is RIDICULOUS that my quarterly condo fee increase is helping support this.
No need. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why the Rental Office is failing. The main reason is the bylaw saying the Association has the exclusive rental rights binding to each member are not being enforced, so most of the renters you see do not go through our Rental Office. Basically, renters can use our amenities for nothing, but heaven forbid any cook-off people use the pool that worked outdoors at a festivity to help our Village.
This needs to stop its RIDICULOUS that we keep suppporting this rental office, As for our bylaws as rentals go sure give them more property to rent so they can loss more of our money . Do as any place that can't make it CLOSE THE DOOR..After 7 years of loss. PLEASE
I say stop this money Monster of a rental office we are not a Obama bailout.Everyone I know that rents well not go through our office it just coast to much.
Perhaps the real money monster is no longer among us. Give the new GM a chance to clean up a very old mess and lets see what happens...
I know a lot of us started out as renters & eventually became owners. I, for one, agree with the above. Let's give the new GM a chance to fix this problem too.
Post a Comment