When and How Did The Facilities Use Agreement Become Attached To Each Roof?

For any of the historians in our group, I am hoping that someone may know and remember how it came to pass that the Facilities Use Agreement became attached to 100% of the roofs in our community. This must have been an astonishingly complex undertaking.

While SCHOA is the umbrella over the single family homes, the Condos are a much different matter.

Can anyone fill me in?

I had this thought flash across my brain when reading Independent archives and noticed some older real estate listings that advertised “NO REC FEES”!…..or something like that….so I intuit that there must have been a period of time when the Facilities Use Agreement existed, and was attached to some roofs, but not to all roofs.

 

All I know is it happened in 2003. I have asked that questions many times and the answer I got was it was easier to keep track of properties than people. They could not keep track of people dying, how many were on the deed etc. However at the time we were the only Webb community out of 47 or so that changed to this system. Eyesopen has a chart. I always said I guess our people were not as smart as the other communities, and they were smarter prior to 2003. I have a facilities agreement from 1985, 2000 and 2008 if you would like to see changes over time.

 

Several different reference points here Cynthia: Let's start with the last one: Those older real estate listing were most likely MLS that claimed there was no HOA. That was a long standing argument that was caused because the MLS looked at the voluntary membership in SCHOA and some Realtors would plug it in as not having an HOA (with an accompanying fee).

The SCHOA umbrella over attached homes versus detached is another sticky topic. I know of late SCHOA likes to say they have no jurisdiction over condos and the like. We looked at it differently when we rebuilt SCHOA (2006) and actively solicited condo memberships. The age overlay covers all Sun City property's. Passing off the jurisdiction to the individual COA's may be okay as long as they police their documents (there was at least one condo association that threw the overlay out). I know this is a problem for SCHOA, i'm not thrilled with them saying they don't have jurisdiction.

Finally and the nuts and bolts of your question goes back to 1960 and 1961. When we opened the first rec center, Community Center (Oakmont) had voluntary membership ($40 per household). Only 60% of those buying here paid it. Those homes were in New Life Units 1 and 2. By the summer of 1960, DEVCO began working on the second rec center, Town Hall (Fairway) and those home further south all had to sign a "facilities agreement." The cost was $12 per person. For the most part, those living around Community Center (even though they paid the fees) could only use that center. Those signing facilities agreements could use both centers.

It wasn't until 1967 when the dispute ended. Those living in New Life Units 1 and 2 voted to become part of the structure and pay the fees everyone else was paying. By then, Town Hall South (Mountain View) was opening and the plans were announced to move north of Grand Ave. Meeker threw money into Community Center for updating and their vote guaranteed access to every center that opened there-after.

So, from 1961 through 2002, every rooftop paid a per person rate to the RCSC. In 2003, the board made a decision to charge a flat rate lot assessment whether there was one person living in the household or two. It's turned out to be a controversial decision as singles feel they are over paying. They "grand-fathered" those who purchased their home before 2003 and remained living in the same house. If they moved, they lost the grandfathering.

I think that covers all your questions.

 

No it doesn't answer the question. Why was that decision made. What was the basis for it? You stated what happened, not the why of what happened.

 

Hi Cindy, It could be that the seller paid the Rec fee within the framework of the sale. Just like some folks sell a home with the furniture included. A seller probably had the annual fee paid for.

 

For any of the historians in our group, I am hoping that someone may know and remember how it came to pass that the Facilities Use Agreement became attached to 100% of the roofs in our community. This must have been an astonishingly complex undertaking.

Where in the above question did read you the question "why" it happened? Let me help you out, here was the exact question: "how it came to pass that the Facilities Use Agreement became attached to 100% of the roofs in our community."

 

Josie, the purpose of going from per person to per property was a guaranteed revenue stream for RCSC. As the original members of Sun City passed away, going from a two person household to a one person household cut the revenue from that property by 50%. As this happened more and more it was difficult to construct a budget as the RCSC would not know how much revenue was being generated by rec fees. Add to it that Baby Boomers were buying here and maybe it was single people, transfers for work with only one person residing you can see the difficulty. The Board instituted the per property assessment but grandfathered purchasers prior to the effective date of the change. Although I have stated this many times before, I pay per person as I purchased my residence in 1998. Anyway the per property guarantees a know revenue stream for the future and makes budgeting much easier.

Now, the logic goes that eventually all persons grandfathered in will pass away and Sun City will be a per property entity. I will live forever and be the only one on a per person assessment. Kevin is aware of this and knows it is a joke until I form a trust, put the property in the trust corpus, name my SO’s youngest grandchild as successor trustee and then his first born as successor trustee to him upon his death. Upon the death of this trustee, the property is to be sold and the funds send to my Alma Mater. Then the trust will be dissolved and I won’t have to worry about the Statute of Perpetuities (look it up).

Have a positive day.

 

So the bottom line is SCW has no problem keeping track of its residents and has no issue charging per person, but SC is not sophisticated enough to do that.

 

Where is the why? So the generation prior to boomers were smart enough to keep track of and charge a fee that was fair to all, use the info to budget, then the boomers came in and it was just easier to charge per roof because they did not have the intelligence to do both??? That's just sad. Not to mention they did it all without the sophistication of computers. It's not just sad, it's downright pathetic.

 

The point was she didn't ask why, you did; i guess.

 

Nice. So as members who pay to live here I or we don't deserve answers. Nice topic for the Independent Opinion piece and Nextdoor.

 

As much as I don't care for Wiki I believe I will start my own page mking it about SC with quotes from this site.

 

A couple of donations to your effort.
I advocate drugs, sex and violence for everyone, but I have done alright by it. Dr. HST
When going gets weird, the weird turn pro. Dr. Hunter S Thompson

Josie, I’m not sure what your problem is but I wrote a nice explanation, give or take my trust, where I didn’t call anybody names, just straight forward facts. Yet I believe you either didn’t read the post or you had trouble grasping the obvious. We keep track, Kevin knows exactly how many per person members there are and the attrition rate. As for SCW, how are those annual increases working for them and why to they charge more than SC does per annum for less?

 

Dave give it up. I have so many posts od you swearing, calling people names, whatever, you cannot defend yourself. It's all on an external hard drive. Nice??? Tell me about fuckink katlicks. I have that saved too.

 

I saw an article a couple of days ago that millennials are joining the Catholic Church in large numbers. That should make you happy. If I find the article, I’ll let you know. It was quite interesting. Put that on your external hard drive. But you never responded directly to the information I posted on revenue stream. That on your hard drive also?