This Is our Village

Monday, July 14, 2014


Whether Florida Statute 718 requires an entity such as UCO to have reserves or not, it still makes every bit of sense for UCO to have reserves, and it makes sense to fund them adequately.

In considering our situation, it might be well to first keep in the back of our minds that well-meaning treasurers may differ in their calculations. That is almost a given in the financial field, I think.

Our new treasurer, Howard O’Brien, feels our UCO reserves have been underfunded, and that this needs correction starting in 2015. He suggests a 5-year plan wherein the shortfall will be made up over five years.

The shortfall, as Howard calculates it, projects to be about $1,152, 561 at the end of 2014. For this amount to be made up over five years would mean collecting an additional $230,512 for each of the five years. Dividing this by the number of months in a year (12) means that $19,209 would need to be made up each month. Dividing this by 7800, the approximate number of units in the Village means that each unit would have to pay $2.46 more a month to make up the deficit.

Is that so much?

UCO dues would go up more than this, but that is because of other increased UCO expenses--NOT failure to have budgeted enough for the UCO reserves. Our total condo dues will undoubtedly go up still more because of the effect of inflation on other expenses; and WPRF dues will probably increase a little, too.

The overall increase may be considerable, a tough bullet to bite, and this might well be the time to put off some purchases we would like to have made. Our officers and the Finance Committee will be considering this.

Let’s not blame the underfunding of UCO’s reserves for more than its share, though. At the most, if my figures are right, this would be responsible for less than $2.50 per month per unit to be made up over five years.


  1. Careful Lanny. Ms. Know-(Not)-It-All on the other blog is taking you to task again for commenting on the UCO budget. Gird your loins!

  2. Thanks, Plcruise. What I was getting at is really only a question of arithmetic, though. It concerns ONLY the asserted budget shortfall incurred (projected) through 12/31/14 and making that up over 60 months by 7800 owners units. If my math is wrong, I am happy to be shown I'm wrong by anyone. Math isn't my strong suit!

  3. So far no one on the opposition blogs has even tried to show how my math is off. All that Esther and Olga have done is insult me and hold me up for ridicule. Now I am a "dirty rat" ala James Cagney. (I can hear him saying that now with his snarl!)

    I wonder which of the three it is:

    (1) I am right but they don't realize it and, like Pavlov's dog, just revert to form with ridicule.
    (2) I am right, they DO realize it and don't want to admit it, so they go into their tirades in order to divert readers from a valid point a little damaging to their contentions.
    (3) My math IS wrong somewhere, but neither they nor I know where.

    No matter which of the three it is, their responses do nothing to make me respect them more. On the contrary, their responses cause me, and I expect other thinking people, to give them less credence than ever.

  4. Hi Lanny,
    July 16, 2014 at 12:15 PM,

    Your math is correct, the Malcontents want the issue(s) not the solution.

    The establishment of robust reserves as calculated by Howard is very prudent; and spread out over 5 years.

    Depending on the final number, the cost is between $2 - $3 per month per unit, not $15 or $16 or $17 per month per unit.

    They want to panic monger the Delegates and Residents, with nonsense.

    Dave Israel


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.