Sometimes I even annoy myself, must just be boredom on my part eh? TM = teachable moment. One of the things I've come to understand along the way is we all tend to translate or talk about stuff and then think everyone knows what the heck we are talking about. It's especially bad when using work vernacular, but there's lots of acronyms and terms in age restricted living that is sometimes a touch challenging to get our head around. In another thread we were talking about facilities agreements and how and why people have different criteria for what they pay. It should come as no surprise, there is a historical background to this and knowing it helps people better understand how Sun City works. When Sun City opened, they were was no blueprint on "how to." The DEVCO folks were kind of flying by the seat of their pants and clearly were stunned at how fast the community took off (they sold more homes in the first year than they thought they would sell in the first three). There was one rec center, Community Center (now called Oakmont). When those first buyers moved here, payment for using the facility was on a voluntary basis. It was a nominal amount, and while it was a genteel approach, it wasn't practical and they (DEVCO) quickly came to understand the error of their ways. Worse yet, it created a riff that lasted the first 8 years. By the end of year one, it was clear the community would need another rec center, and quickly at that. The company added Town Hall, now Fairway Rec Center. By the end of 61 it opened, but by then they knew better than to be doing voluntary payments. Built into the point of sale of each home was a "facilities agreement." It's a commitment to pay rec fees (now called a lot assessment). Back then it was $40 a year and of course the rub came because a good number of the folks living around Community Center had never signed this type of agreement. It wasn't until 1967/1968 when this issue was fully resolved, and there's tons of stories and backfill for anyone interested. Meeker called it the "mini-Berlin wall," because it was such a divisive matter. There were separate community associations for both centers and perhaps one day my friend Ben will post a thread on this topic. In any event, in 1960 the parties all came together and struck a deal where there would be one association. It is the Rec Centers of Sun City (RCSC) and is the governing body for the community. Everyone that buys here signs paperwork that includes payment of rec fees, an agreement to pay the PIF when buying and to follow the CC&R's (whether they join SCHOA or not). The lot assessment agreement is a legal document and to this day is still known as the "facilities agreement." If you fail to pay your yearly fees (currently $462), the RCSC has the right to take action against you. They have an in-house collector, but their efforts are pretty low key. If they fail to get the money it can and will be turned over to a collection agency. If you have read the General Managers monthly reports, you will note the number of owners who have not paid. Often it's homes that have been or are being foreclosed on. Sometimes it's properties the owners have died and family members don't recognize their obligation to pay the yearly fees. Occasionally it's people who have outlived their resources and for some of them we have the Sun City Foundation to help them. Rarely we get the stubborn SOB who just refuses and they generally go to outside collection. We have the right to foreclose the property but have never done that, electing to lien it instead. The question came up in another thread about how and why some people have different facilities agreements regarding single/couple assessments. The answer is over the years, those facilities agreements have changed based on board actions. For example, those signing agreements pre-2003 had single payment schedules, while those signing agreements in 2003 and after had a lot assessment without the ability to pay on a single basis. Obviously that caused some furor in the community and to this day, still does. With each passing day, there are less and less of those pre-03. Around 2009, the board passed another change; owners used to be "grandfathered" whether they stayed in the same house or moved. Now if that owner sells and buys a different house they sign a new agreement and they are no longer protected by the old agreement. They pay the full lot assessment whether there is one or two of them. Some have questioned whether everyone should fall under the same criteria, the full lot assessment whether there is one or two people in the home, but the reality is the facilities agreement they signed is the one in force and the RCSC cannot force people to sign a new one...unless of course they buy a different home. Hope that helps.
