ASOCIACION DE PROPIETARIOS DEL RESIDENCIAL DE MONTAÑA LOS ALTOS DE CERRO AZUL (APREMACA)

Hello everyone. The issue people are taking with TSM seems to have a lot to do with Vistamares´accountability and the fact that the increase was made without adecuate involvement of property owners. Vistamares published an accounting statement last week which I think everyone should read. These were the issues I had with it:

Questions with respect to Statement of accounts ending 31 December, 2014.

1. Clubhouse and pool area are shown as areas of public use in approved subdivision plan and original members contributed $1,000.00 for the construction of the buildings yet in the accounting the clubhouse and pool area are shown as properties of Altos de Vistamares and the clubhouse is being rented back to us (the owners) doesnt make sense and all maintenance of the property is also listed as expenses if its not ours and we pay rent it is customary for the owner to do upkeep on the building is there a contract we can see?
2. The office shows as 50% owned by Vistamares but shows inflated upkeep costs assigned to us only.
3. The sum of the ingress shows TSM as 651 thousand and other ingress as 96 thousand but when summed produce only 680 thousand in the report and not 747 thousand as they should.
4. Further explanation of following items is needed: CUENTAS MALAS,ADMISION and MANT Y REPARACION LOCAL they account for 30% of our budget and no explanation is given for the cost.
5. In the letter sent out in january this year it was noted that we maintain the office in San Francisco, why do we maintain it and what purpose does it serve is this the $32,000.00 spent on Mant y Reparacion Local?
6. Who owns the items purchased with TSM money?
7. Are the cars and maintenance equipment owned by us or by Vistamares?

If anyone has answers to these questions or would like to add any to the list before I approach the administration I would appreciate it. Could just be lost in translation but the oddities I see account for over 40% of our annual budget.

Regardless of the above, I agree with Mr. Ort that if we dont pay maintenance our area will deteriorate. My view is that everyone should pay their TSM and everyone should demand accountability. It is customary in the condominium world for the administration to produce a budget for the coming year and charge maintenance fees in accordance with that budget. The administration has not done this to justify the increase in TSM which is the root cause of this controversy aside from their poor accounting for last year.

I for one would gladly pay much more than 45 dollars so long as the costs were justified and the funds made a difference.

Also, the roads are the exact same today as they were 15 years ago when I first came to Cerro Azul and are the same as when most of us purchased as is the system for their repair so there are few options on this front, we either come up with a few million $$$ and redo it ourselves or petition for the government to do it up to the guard gate (road from guard gate up isnt governments and will likely always be maintained the same way without getting fully replaced) and hope we get a positive response. The basic fact is that current TSM fees dont cover a whole lot of road construction unless Vistamares isnt being honest about the accounting which considering they have repeatedly refused providing full statements and receipts isnt too far fetched but shouldnt be assumed without a full investigation.
-Adam-

ENGLISH VERSION TOMORROW (WE HOPE!)

LOS INFORMES DE GASTOS DE MELO Y TSM

Si alguien es capaz de entender los informes de contabilidad que Melo nos entrega ahora - sobre los cuales basan el aumento del TSM - tiene mucha suerte! Nosotros no lo logramos. Se ofrece lo que sigue como historia y posible solución para el futuro.

Hasta finales de 1995, Melo tuvo una manera diferente y mucho más oportuno y transparente de reportarnos los costos y situación financiera. Tenemos documentos para El Torreón que demuestran que en esos tiempos:
1. Melo entregaba cada mes a cada Asociación de Propietarios una (una por sector o barrio) factura detallada que mostraba los costos de operación y mantenimiento como siguen: Recolección de Basura; Servicio de Seguridad; Limpieza de Cunetas; y Limpieza de Áreas de Uso Público (Ver ejemplo adjunto). En los meses cuando se necesitaba realizar trabajos especiales – por ejemplo, reparación de calles – el costo aparecía en la factura – y se pagaba a Melo - como ítem separado
2. Los propietarios de todos los lotes en El Torreón (al igual que los propietarios de otros sectores del residencial) pagábamos a Melo la Cuota de Asociación de Propietarios (ADP). Por contrato estamos obligados a pagarla a la Asociación. Ese dinero fue acreditado a la Asociación y se utilizaba para rembolsarle a Melo los gastos antes mencionados. El excedente quedó como patrimonio de la ADP, o sea de todos los propietarios.
3. Melo llevaba la contabilidad de la ADP. Cada mes enviaba informes que mostraban: Cuotas morosas por lote; Flujo de Caja; Patrimonio Acumulado (o Reservas) de la ADP, etc. (ver ejemplos adjuntos).

Aunque idealmente los cargos del Administrador debían ser respaldados con comprobantes, por lo menos con ese sistema los propietarios podíamos ver en tiempo real exactamente cuánto se gastaba, rubro por rubro, en operaciones y mantenimiento. También se podría saber cuales propietarios no cooperaban en el pago de la Cuota de Asociación, y la capacidad financiera de la ADP para enfrentarse a imprevistos.

Para los 290 lotes de El Torreón, los gastos de operación, mantenimiento y mejoras del año 1994 sumaban $11,296.72 (equivalente a $3.25 por mes por cada lote). El sistema no era perfecto, pero sí era bastante transparente y fácil de entender. Se aproxima al método que utilizan la mayoría de ADPs en el país. Era fácil ver si eran justificados los costos ordinarios y extraordinarios reportados por el Administrador, si había aumentos excesivos o gastos ocultos, entre otras cosas.

En 1996 Melo cambió el sistema. Dejó de cobrar cuotas de asociación y comenzó a cobrar un nuevo cargo que denominaba Tasa de Servicio y Mantenimiento (TSM). Nosotros los propietarios no tomamos ninguna acción; por razones de ignorancia o apatía, aceptamos el TSM. Error! Por un tiempo el TSM se mantenía a un nivel razonable pero entonces comenzó a subir y subir y algunos nuevos cargos fueron agregados (por ejemplo, el club) sin nuestro conocimiento ni autorización. No sabíamos como se gastaba el dinero porque no recibíamos informes. Hace un par de años – a nuestra insistencia - comenzamos a recibir informes de vez en cuando. Estos informes son tan confusos y mezclados con otras actividades del Grupo Melo que nadie los entiende y por ende es imposible evaluarlos.

No esperamos que los gastos de hoy sean iguales que durante los años ’90. Y algunos nuevos tipos de costo que Melo no cobraba en ese entonces ahora son aceptables – por ejemplo, los honorarios del Administrador. (Otros, a lo mejor, no son aceptables.) Pero sí tenemos que preguntarnos cómo se puede justificar un aumento de más de 1400% en tan solo 20 años. Con los estados de situación que presenta Melo, nunca vamos a poder tener repuesta a esa pregunta.

Necesitamos cuentas claras en tiempo real que nos permitan ver cuanto dinero se invierte en cada actividad, si son rubros que realmente debemos pagar y decidir si los costos que debemos pagar son razonables. En otras palabras, necesitamos regresar - con mejoras - al tipo de sistema que teníamos antes, por medio del cual los derechos de los propietarios se respetan y las ADP’s juegan el papel legítimo de aprobación y supervisión.

Bill y Esther Adela
142, El Torreón

ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF YESERDAY'S POST

If anyone can make head or tail of the accounting that Melo presents to us to justify expenses and the increase in TSM, let us know. We can’t do it. The following is the history of the way Melo has charged us in the past which in turn points to a solution

Until end-1995, Melo had a different, much more punctual and transparent way of reporting costs and the financial situation. We have documents that show that in those times:
1. Each month Melo handed to each Home Owners’ Association (HOA) a detailed invoice that showed operating and maintenance costs as follows: Garbage Collection; Security; Cleaning of Streets and Gutters; and Cleaning of Public Areas (see attached example). Additionally, in those months when special work had to be performed – for example, road repair – the cost appeared in the invoice and was reimbursed to Melo as a separate item.
2. All lot owners in El Torreón (and all those in other sectors) paid Melo HOA Dues. By contract, we are obliged to pay that. That money was accredited to the HOA and used to pay the aforementioned Melo invoice. Excess funds became assets or patrimony of the HOA, i.e. of all owners.
3. Melo kept the HOA accounting. Each month it would send reports that showed: Overdue HOA dues by lot; Cash Flow; and the current value of HOA assets (see attached examples)

Although ideally the amounts charged by the Administrator – Melo – should have been supported by vouchers, at least with that system owners could see in real time, item by item, how much had been spent on operations, maintenance and improvements. We could also see which owners were not cooperating in the payment of HOA dues and the financial capacity of the HOA to face unforeseen expenses, as well as to determine what was a fair rate for the HOA dues.

For the 290 lots of El Torreón, Melo reported for 1994 a total of $11,296.72 in operation, maintenance and improvement costs, equivalent to an average of $3.25 per lot per month (we paid $3.00 per undeveloped and $5.00 per developed lot, so the dues were fair). The system was not perfect but it was quite transparent and easy to follow. It approaches to some extent the methods used by the majority of HOAs in Panama. It was easy to see if the regular and occasional costs reported by the Administrator were justified, if they increased too fast, or contained hidden costs, amongst other things.

In 1996, Melo changed the system. It stopped charging HOA dues and started collecting the “Tasa de Servicio ny Mantenimiento (TSM). We did nothing about it; because of either ignorance or apathy we accepted the TSM. Big mistake! For a time, TSM stayed at reasonable levels but then it began to climb at an ever-increasing rate, and some new charges were added in without our knowledge or approval (such as the Club). We did not know how the money was being spent because we no longer received reports. A couple of years ago – at our insistence – we did start to receive the odd report. They were and are so confusing and mixed up with other Melo Group activities that nobody understands them and because of that it is impossible to evaluate them.

We do not expect that today’s expenses will be the same as during the 1990s. And some new types of expense that Melo did not collect then are now acceptable, for example, an Administrator’s monthly fee. (Other cahrges may not be acceptable.) But we do have to question how you can justify an increase of over 1400% in only 20 years. With the statements Melo gives us, we shall never be able to answer that.

We need clear real-time accounting to see how much money is invested in each activity, if the charges should really be paid by us and not someone else, and to decide if costs are reasonable. In other words, as a start we need to get back to the previous system through which property owners’ rights are respected and the HOAs resume playing their legitimate role of approval, oversight and decision-making.

Bill and Esther
142, El Torreón

1. Gracias Bill & Esther por compartirnos un poco de historia, de cómo se hacían las cosas antes.
Concuerdo que es imposible mantener los gastos a niveles de hace 20 años, pero esta historia demuestra que SI es posible que los propietarios recibamos información detallada, con respecto a la tasa de mantenimiento, antes se hacía! Yo por el momento me mantengo pagando la misma tasa de mantenimiento previa a marzo 2014, porque en realidad si me parece que si somos propietarios comprometidos con el pago de una tasa, es correcto igual que recibamos información contable detallada - creo que es lo único que pedimos todos: Saber en detalle cómo se asigna nuestro dinero con unos informes contables como corresponde.

2. con respecto a la reunión del 31, hay específicamente una votación? Yo voto que sí a que se de una sola asociación, cualquiera sea el proceso legal más conveniente. En caso de haber alguna votación, podríamos dar un poder a alguien para que nos represente, digamos otro vecino?

PD: este problema de gente botando basura parece ser -lamentablemente- parte de nuestra idiosincracia... esto debe cambiar... hay que instalar letreros que diga PROHIBIDO BOTAR BASURA - LE ESTAMOS FILMANDO - MULTA DE 500.00 POR DEJAR BASURA EN LA CALLE, a ver si alguien se atreve a seguir botando.

Voy a exigir las cuentas completas través de ACODECO. La reunión del 31 de Mayo va a decidir si procedemos o no con denuncias formales. He hablado con la administración múltiples veces y no me convencen.