Not an oasis of calm at the Parc

SINGAPORE — A battle is brewing over car parking fees at the 950-unit Parc Oasis condominium in Jurong East, as the management corporation (MC) struggles to raise funds to balance its books while trying to maintain service standards.

Some residents with more than one car are opposing a move by the MC to raise money by imposing a fee of S$100 a month for the second car and S$150 a month for subsequent cars. Several owners plan to ask the Strata Titles Board (STB) to make a ruling on the legality of the targeted fee, which will be tabled at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of owners tomorrow.

If the fee move succeeds, the MC will raise the condo’s monthly maintenance fees by only S$3 per share. If it fails, the maintenance fee will be jacked up by S$8 monthly. A typical unit has four shares.

The MC had written to residents saying that the 18-year-old condo would be incurring a deficit of about S$19,000 for the year ending June 30, 2013. It had earlier forecast a deficit of S$118,000 but various cost-cutting measures had pared this down.

For the following financial year, a deficit of S$353,000 is forecast unless the fee increases are approved. If not, further cost-cutting measures are to be imposed.

“The practical implication is that we will no longer be able to enjoy a condominium living environment. In fact, the quality of life can be equal to or, more likely, worse than what you would expect in public housing,” wrote MC Chairman Lim Taik Leong in May and earlier this month.

But the owners of more than one car — there are 150 owners in Parc Oasis with a second car and about a dozen with more than two — argue that there are sufficient car parking spaces to accommodate every car. As no added costs are involved, it is unfair to ask them to pay more, they said.

“In October of last year, the MC had attempted to charge S$350 a month for third and subsequent cars as they claimed then that the car park situation was tight. However, it was subsequently discovered that there were applicants for only 650 car lots, meaning there were 300 vacant lots,” an owner of several cars told TODAY.

The resolution was narrowly defeated after the fee move failed to get approval from 75 per cent of the votes cast at the annual general meeting (AGM).

Some residents had in fact written to the STB for a ruling on the matter but withdrew their application following the defeat of the resolution at the AGM.

A resolution at an EGM in January to impose a fee on second and subsequent cars was similarly defeated.

“We got what we wanted then, but we probably will have to make another application to the STB to resolve the matter once and for all,” an aggrieved resident said.

“We are not unreasonable as we are prepared to pay should the car situation worsen and space becomes a problem. But why should we be penalised when there is more than enough space to pitch a few tents?” the resident asked.