 |
Message BoardHome > Internet > Message Board
| Author |
Message |
    
Rachel Harris
New member
Username: Rharris
Post Number: 1
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, December 1, 2006 - 8:26 pm: |       |
We have a couple of restricted funds whose objects state that the income is for the "Maintenance of the Church and Churchyard". We are currently trying to prepare a definition of maintenance expenditure so that we apply the income stream against a consistent set of costs. Is anybody prepared to share their thoughts on how widely "maintenance" might be interpreted and would this extend to including replacement costs? |
Nigel Wearne
Moderator
Username: Nwearne
Post Number: 6
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, December 2, 2006 - 10:35 pm: | |
Are you trying to restrict your expenditure or make the definition generally as inclusive as possible? I feel an accounting policy note coming! If so, much is possible, but consistency is essential.
I think you ought to post your definition and let others comment. You seem to be implying that you want to restrict expenditure to revenue items, but I could imagine that buying a capital item such as a new mower to maintain the churchyard could be covered by the object as stated.
(An insomniac's post!) |
Glenn Hughes
New member
Username: Glennhughes
Post Number: 1
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, January 5, 2007 - 9:28 am: | |
On a similar note, we have a legacy left "for the upkeep of the church" but we have been told that we cannot use this for repairs to the church building, identified as needed by our last quinquenniel inspection. I don't understand this. Can anyone help? |
Nigel Wearne
Moderator
Username: Nwearne
Post Number: 14
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, January 5, 2007 - 12:00 pm: | |
Who 'told' you?
And can I encourage some treasurers to respond to the first posting and to share their thoughts or policies defining maintenance and replacement costs with some examples on the boundary between these and capital expenditure. I think some current challenges in this area might be universally useful. |
Alan McCullough
New member
Username: Amccullough
Post Number: 5
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, January 5, 2007 - 9:23 pm: | |
What you can spend legacy on will depend on the restrictions imposed by the donors. If the donor simply gave the money for the "upkeep of the church" then you can interpret that widely unless the legacy was made prior to 1900 or so when upkeep generally was limited to making good any "wear and tear" resulting from use, in which case capital projects would be in keeping with the donor(s) wishes if they are restorative in nature rather than improvement orientated.
If in doubt consult the charity commission!
I personally would use the following dictionary definitions when deciding what to spend the legacy on, and would spend legacy before using unrestricted funds, if the legacy permits this.
upkeep = The cost of maintaining land, property, plant, machinery or equipment etc. in proper operation, condition, and repair.
Maintenance = The work of keeping something in proper condition; i.e. upkeep
Property maintenance = Activities required to compensate for Wear and Tear on a property. This includes routine upkeep of the building, repair and periodic painting as needed, keeping all mechanical parts in working order, and lawn maintenance.
Hope this helps. |
Mr J Buckley
New member
Username: Jbuckley
Post Number: 3
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 8:26 am: | |
An adviser tells me that is valid to use funds restricted for the upkeep and maintenance of the church on insuring it. It seems reasonble but then it's not completely obvious. Does anyone know for certain? Our insurance of course includes elements that are clearly not upkeep (e.g. public liability) but he argues these are de minimis and immaterial. |
Rachel Harris
New member
Username: Rharris
Post Number: 2
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 28, 2007 - 9:57 pm: | |
Here for the record is how we decided to define maintenance expenditure. Our objective was to be as inclusive as possible without stretching the bounds of credibility. Comments and thoughts gratefully received. |
|
The views expressed here are those of the poster. The Diocese of Oxford does not endorse any opinion posted here.
Copyright © 2006 Oxford Diocesan Publications Ltd. Credits Privacy
|
Searching the Board
This discussion board can be searched by time of post and keyword from the Search screen. This searching mechanisms provide convenient methods to locate discussions of interest. Rules and Netiquette
When writing your messages, please use the same courtesy that you would show when speaking face-to-face with someone. Flames, insults, and personal attacks will not be tolerated. It's fine to disagree strongly with opinions, ideas, and facts, but always with respect for the other person. Great minds do not always think alike, and that's where the fun is! Also, note that messages express the thoughts of the writers, not the board or its moderators. 
|
