Calculation of Community Fees

Just received the email from mileniun explaining the calculation of our community fees.

Well I'm glad they cleared that up??????? 

Clear as mud!!!  now all they have to do is circulate the accounts just as quick and all the allegations can be put to rest......  can't they??

I actually though it was very simple to understand, and I'm certainly no brainbox I can tell you. I think it's getting to the point that nomatter what ML do some folk will just like to complain. We've even had outright claims of financial fraud and corruption on another thread (very irresponsible unless there's some evidence to back it up), it's kinda getting a bit ridiculous now IMO.

Agreed. A very good explanation of how the fees are calculated. This is exactly the sort of transparency and information we require. Keep it coming!

Totally agree Cappielow, cannot believe some of the serious allegations being made by  people who have no written evidence to substantiate such, or if they have, they need to take up with their relative president, behind closed doors, to investigate further, and not on a public forum. As for Millenium, I can only comment on the evidence that I have seen - the site looks superb and well kept, the staff are always helpful and courteous, and I find the updates very informative and helpful. This is my personal view, based upon the evidence I have seen and experienced.

Cappielow and Kev1

Could you please explain to me where 12.678%, 15.76%, 30.7%, and 0.57% come from? And what are the Entity and Level 1 budgets, in euros?

Many thanks,

Hi taffswell,

As I understand it, for the example given as apartment N692 on Jardin 7 of Naranjos 1....

The Urban entity percentage of 12.678% is N1's share of the general resort expences, examples given were outer ring road maintenance, waste collection and road cleaning. If you add up all the Urban entity percentages for all the communities it comes to 63.6%. I assume the remaining 36.4% comes from other sources such as Al Kasar, The Condado Club and the golf course. N1's percentage of 12.678% is I assume calculated as the percentage of apartments in N1 in relation to the whole resort (i.e. 12.678/63.6 x 100 means ~19.9% of apartments on the resort are in N1)

The Level 1 percentage seems to be more specific to the cummunity. As the N1 percentage of 15.76% is higher than it's Urban entity it means I assume that this community pays more than the resort average for these services. This could be perhaps be because there are a lot of Penthouses in this community and they have maybe got more maintenance costs for lifts and suchlike.

The Jardin 7 percentage of 30.7% is I assume because ~30.7% of the apartments in N1 are in Jardin 7.

The Plot 692 percentage of 0.57% is beacause I assume it makes up ~0.57% of all apartments in J7 (i.e. there are ~145 apartments in J7).

I've made quite a few assupmtions there so I don't claim it to be 100% accurate, but I think I'm generally on the right track.

Re your last question, this only explains how the calculation is done, not what the budget is in Euros (though I suspect you knew that already).

 Glad it's all been cleared up once and for all.  If we assume that maybe might be a percentage of what could be, divided by what is perhaps and youv'e got it.  It doesn't matter if none of it adds up to 100%.

Hi del007

As I explained, I believe the reason that the Urban Entity and Level 1 percentages don't add up to 100% is because this calculation is for the apartment communities only and excludes other possible sources such as Al Kasar, the sports complex and the golf course.

If you think otherwise I'm sure if you contact ML directly they'll be more than happy to give you a detailed explanation, in my experience they're very helpful.

Clear, I understand.......but I expect the doubt in peoples minds has been about various 'accounts' of which there are more than how the CC is achieved.

It all seems like smoke and mirrors to me.  I should imagine if I were to present a business plan to my bank in such a vague format I would correctly be given short thrift.  I would have thought it quite simple to advise the community of the total costs of running the resort, then simply break down the percentages attributed to each element within the Resort and the Urban Entity.  Eventually you will be left with a percentage of costs associated with each individual jardin divided by the number of apartments within a given jardin resultiung in a unit cost per apartment.  Simples!  This however would only explain how mileniun come to the individual community fees it does not justify how they come to this figure.   Where the smoke and mirrors come in is in relation to the overall costs associated with running the resort, someone must know where our cash is spent and why.  Until this is made totally transparent the rest is hogwash.  I am not pointing any fingers in any direction, I just find it strange that we as the employers seem to be unable to find out how our managers are spending our cash, if this is indeed the case.  No business can operate on such a mandate.  

This message was last edited by del007 on 29/08/2012.

Agreed. The budget passed at the last AGM should be available to the community. Not sure if it is anywhere - I have seen them before but not sure where or when!

 Haven't seen the email re communtiy fees calculation but I understood it was set in the stone as such in the original CdA documents.

For me the issue is the costs and expenses being paid...not how its divided amongst us all.  That my "area" pays 26% of "this" and 33% of "that" means little to me...its the THIS and THAT which are important.  Is it 26% of €2m and why is it €2m? Thats what I want to know.

Hi SMV,

Have you tried asking these questions directly to ML? Or your L3 President? If so and you didn't get a satisfactory response then I fully understand your annoyance. If not, then I can't understand why you're annoyed about not getting an answer to a question you've never even asked (except on a public forum).

If I want to know something I go to the person who has the answer or can get it for me, it's much easier that way I find.

I wouldn't say I was annoyed...merely pointing out that the % I pay is not as important to me as the total cost figure. As far as asking ML, there is no way ML are going to answer questions on detailed expenses to every owner.  And they shouldn't.

Plus I don't want answers from ML as personally I don't trust them.

What I want is someone from our community (Level 1 and Level 2 presidents) to confirm that they are 100% happy with the financial running of our community and this is based on their examination of the costs (or someone independent) and not ML's. 

Its not a matter of asking/answering questions its a matter of restoring confidence in the whole system that many owners (including myself) have lost. 

On top of that, if I can get a weekly report on every bush that has been pruned on CdA, every light that has been fixed (with photos), then surely I can get a detailed monthly expense report (and I'd expect these to be reviewed by the presidents first).

Fair enough SMV.

Can I ask you though why you don't trust ML? Is this opinion based on an actual personal experience with them or on tittle-tattle and idle gossip you've read on here or elsewhere? If it's from a personal experiece can you share it with us?

Thanks!

 First off both ML and the presidents had my full backing.  I always expect there to be some issues and disagreements.  But I could see what I thought was progress.

Both ML and presidents have lost my trust.

The issue with Phil has caused this. Not the fact a new president was voted in or she's a woman or spanish or anything along those lines that I have seen thrown about. Phil was voted in and could be voted out and thats fine.

My reasons, first up...ML worked for us.  Phil was our representative. I find it totally unprofessional for them to go to us directly with their letter about Phil.  If they find this acceptable behaviour then I begin to question their professionalism in regard to their work. Then I begin to wonder if there is some truth to rumours about the reasons behind the breakdown between them and our president. 

2nd, ML letter sent just after Phil goes on holiday and meeting called while he is still away and apparantley a day after another president who backed Phil has left for the UK.  It may be all coincidental, but I doubt it.  My view is that its not enough for them to be doing things right and fairly, you have to be seen to be doing things right and fairly.  To my mind they are not doing this. To much cloak and dagger stuff for me to trust them. 

Hi SMV,

Just saying you're not going to contact ML directly to answer your concerns because you no longer trust them is a major cop out, sorry. You're in effect making your mind up and acting as judge and jury without even giving them the chance to explain their side of the story and defend their actions (and exactly the same of course goes for the former L1 President who deserves his own right of reply), or answer your other concerns about transparency and accountability. 

You and the others who have a gripe with ML will have much more chance getting answers to your concerns you by raising them directly with the people concerned. I can absolutely guarantee you won't get them resolved by mumping and moaning about them on here.

You are missing my point. 

I don't think ML are incompetent, I had and have no concerns with ML as to how they are maintaining the community, and I think they have made progress for CdA.

And this is not about who's side of the story I believe.  Personally I think both sides did themselves no favours letting things end up like this. I'm not saying ML were wrong and PT was right or vice versa. 

But I don't care if ML were in the right on every issue...they way they resolved things was in my view unprofessional and underhanded.  For me there are no questions to be answered or explanations given on their actions. I just don't trust them anymore.

I'm not sure who you think should act as "judge and Jury" when it comes down to who I trust, if its not going to me.

Hi SMV,

I'm not missing your point at all, I just don't agree with you. :)

You bang out about lack of trust and use expressions like 'cloak and dagger stuff'. So you obviously want clarity and transparency which is of course perfectly legitimate (I do too!), yet you refuse point blank to speak to the only people who can give you that?!? I'm sorry, but that's just plain crazy.

Let me put it this way, if you said you had spoken the ML directly and you were not satisfied with their responses, I'd sit up and listen with great interest in what you had to say. But accusing them of 'cloak and dagger stuff' without even giving them the chance to supply the information you want contributes nothing of any substance to the discussion IMO.

The people who can give you the information you want aren't going to reply to you or anyone else on here (even in the very unlikely event that they actually read it) as they're obviously not going to discuss such matters in a public forum like this. It just won't happen.

Tell you what SMV, I hope you're not in the jury if I'm ever in the dock, because you seem to make your mind up very quickly without even wanting to hear all the evidence from both sides. ;)