5a. Operating from Abundance

Craig Ragland

During the initial years of budgeting, it was frustrating to budget for "the extras" - special projects such as adding trellises, buying more trees, upgrading our guest rooms, electrifying outbuildings, etc. Doing this on an annual basis inevitably meant that projects would get informally proposed and then wait for months - until the budgeting cycle came around. Then they would go through a prioritization process in which various projects competed for the limited, indeterminate amount of funds that we could approve as a group – this meant that all of the "pet projects" proposed by various members and committees required everyone to compare and contrast the projects and decide which would be funded.

The process was excruciating. One improvement was to approve the operating and reserve budgets separately from the project budget. Another frustration was that some of the funded projects no longer seemed to be of interest to the person that had proposed it many months earlier. Some projects became running jokes as they were placed into the annual budgeting cycle year after year with no progress in making them happen.

By running projects through our conventional budgeting, all unit owners pay about the same amount for every project. This meant that families that were the most concerned about their expenses would carefully watch the size of their monthly assessments. They tended to avoid any "extra costs." Those with fewer financial limitations – or who placed higher value on "communal" enterprise would become quite frustrated that we couldn't agree to fund some projects they viewed as inexpensive, especially when split 13 ways.

Over the first few years of our life together, it became clear that some Songaia members would support almost anything, while others objected to most projects that involved added expense to them. I began to wonder whether everyone needed to pay the same for every project. One concern was how differential payments might affect feelings about power and influence... those with more means or willingness to spend might "vote with their dollars" in ways unavailable to others.

I proposed creating an anonymous fund for year-round ad hoc project budgeting. Members could contribute to the fund anonymously - either on a recurring basis (annually or monthly), or on a one-time basis. Those that wanted to help things happen, with less regard for costs, could choose to tax themselves to grow the fund. We already had an Abundance Fund that was created when some of our early members decided that they didn't want all of their early investments refunded. It was proposed to use this fund for the anonymous contributions as well.

My theory was that the new process for project funding would be that any member or committee would write up a project proposal with a budget that could draw on some or all of the funds from the Abundance Fund. The proposal could call for additional, ear-marked anonymous payments.

Over time, fewer people have contributed to the Abundance Fund using recurring payments. The fund continues to grow slowly and has never come close to being depleted. This approach has not really solved the issue around funded projects that are not actually completed. The Abundance Fund now has earmarked money waiting for a variety of funded projects to actually begin. However, those projects are now more visible and it may slow down folks who would otherwise propose a bunch of new projects, while their previously funded projects are still waiting for action.

Since this plan was put in place, we have not any proposals denied because of financial constraints. Another important outcome of this approach is that our annual operating and reserve budgets are MUCH easier to agree on as almost everybody accepts that we are really doing our best to keep those budgets to the minimum level required to prudently fund our organization's ongoing financial needs.