What is the fairest way to charge the Annual Property Assessment fee?

I think that what is being missed here is the available "security" the association has against non-payment. Notice that the documents reference the Property first, then the Owners. The collateral for non-payment is the Property. If the assessment is not paid, the Property receives a lien for the amount due. Sometimes collected at the next sale or worst case, through foreclosure. Most associations are set up this way so that they can recover their fees if necessary. A lien on a physical property has value, where a judgement against an individual, not so much. It also makes the accounting so much easier to bill by rooftop.

 

Hey SC-Rick, welcome to TOSC. You may well be right on the reasoning (i never considered that) but the good news is foreclosures for non-payment of fees isn't really a thing in Sun City. Lots of other ugly when someone doesn't pay and it's turned over for collection but to my knowledge no one has ever been kicked out of their house. Liens? For sure, and often times when someone is strapped for cash, the Sun City Foundation can step in. Hopefully that information is being transmitted to those who are struggling.

I think that particular question tk26 would cause an explosion within Sun City. Sun City West, who has had single payments for owners forever, had roughly 40% of their population the last time i looked. I suspect ours is well below that and many of the long time owners who stayed in their house when their spouse died (and purchased before 2003) are grandfathered as single payers, I have two of them living within doors of me. They would be counted as single owners but in fact are still paying just the single fee.

The real challenge would come from those (couples) who would argue you are changing the terms they purchased their homes under. It was why they did it the way they did in 2003 when they grandfathered current home owners. You probably have heard the reverse argument in that you knew and understood the terms when you purchased your home, whether there was one or two of you, a single lot assessment would be charged. Most likely when you bought you had no idea it was a 2 for 1 deal for couples. Typically when singles found that out was when the angst began for them.

If you think i am wrong, feel free to step up to the mic at the Exchange in March and test the waters. It's why i would rather see a phased in increase to couples moving forward, but even that would be a hard sell. I know our documents mention equal rights to members, so that whole question over whether different assessments would be an interesting debate. If you still think i'm blowing smoke, before you step to the mic next month go ask couples you know if they want to pay more so your assessment can go down. Many people will tell you it's not fair, but when you couple it with the rest of the discussion about actual impact to them (along with numbers) be sure to duck at the end of the discourse.

I've been involved in this community for 20 years. Not going to tell you i am an expert, but i know as much or more than many living here. I was one of those odd ducks who moved here because of our self-governance. I hated when they changed to a lot assessment because it was and sill is inherently unfair to singles. The fact is now 20 years later trying to change it back will be difficult. Of course if and when singles become the majority of the home owners (don't hold your breath) is most likely when it will happen. Just my opinion, take it for what it is worth.

 

Part of a couple here. I agree with GCotton in that I don’t really think most of us made our purchase decision based on a definition of “fairness”. Sun City heavily markets their “value” compared to peers/competitors based on the low rate for two qualifying household members. This is intentional and is an effective recruiting strategy for couples. I think the fee per rooftop makes sense and it was a factor (not “the” factor) in our purchase decision. I don’t want to sound cheap but I would not be in favor of a change to individuals EVEN IF I became a single (which could happen). This approach seems to work, is easier from an accounting/accuracy perspective, and was what most of us signed up for. I believe BPearson is correct this proposal to pivot to a perceived “more fair” approach of charging based on individuals would not be celebrated by married couples who suddenly have the rules changed on them. As an aside, my husband nor I have never once in our 20 months as SC homeowners used any recreational center for any purpose. Yet, I would never suggest I shouldn’t pay my full assessment fee.

 

Bill, thank you for the reply. While this is my first time posting, I have followed the site discussions since purchasing here two years ago. I completely understand the fairness aspect of the two vs. one card for the same fee. I do think it was set up as a rooftop assessment to ensure the collateral aspect of collections remains intact. The administration aspect of monitoring individuals would be significant as well. So i do not think you or anyone else here is wrong, simply pointing out the current system's efficiencies.
My wife and I have been consulting for HOA's nationwide for more years than I want to count, and have seen the good, the bad and the ugly of finance and implementation.

 

Is your property tax less because you’re single? How about your HOA fee? Too many people view this as a gym membership instead of a maintenance assessment. How many people are we talking about and are two people households willing to pay more so you can pay less? I doubt it.

 

Personally, I see this topic as meaningless (to me). This may come off as a hardass and thoughtless point of view. I have compassion and generosity, but that is another topic.

Look at Property Taxes - similar to Property Assessments.

• I never paid school taxes (the largest chunk of a property tax bill) based upon whether I had kids, had kids living in my household, or the number if kids I had. I just had to pay the school tax. Even in retirement, I would still have to pay a school tax (everywhere but here in Sun City - one step closer to Utopia).
• I pay for: Flood Control;Water Conservation; Fire District; Public Library; County Health District; and some others things. Just look at your tax bill.
  
• I pay the County (General Fund) to be my government, since Sun City is not incorporated.

Since when is life always fair?

I would pay more if the RCSC would do more. I think that property as the basis for making an assessment is in line with what government does. It's simple. If you don't want the active lifestyle you can move to a community without such amenities. It just the cost of living here.
Maybe we should rethink our fees, but first we should rethink the purpose and what you get for the fees (assessment).

Living here is a BARGAIN. Trying to rethink assessments is a waste of time in my humble opinion. RCSC has much more important things it should be doing with what we pay them. Keep up with maintenance. Put together a real 5 yr and 10 yr plan. Publish the information so that members can really track progress.

I gave up on Utopia a long time ago. I happen to think Sun City as a good second.

I don't expect this post to be popular. I will not debate what I have said. It's just something for people to consider. My time is the most valuable thing I have today.

 

I totally agree. The number of people in a household has no bearing on property taxes, HOA fees or property insurance.

 

The realtors and others must stop talking about the assessment as a "Rec Fee" for people to understand this. My feelings are somewhat mixed on this topic, but if we do look at the assessment as a "tax" to support our community, then it goes with the property. People can choose to get a card to use the amenities, it is NOT a requirement. Every property pays. There's more to this issue, and it involves educating residents about real costs. But that's for another day.

And, you're right! There are WAY too many issues facing the Board and the various standing committees that are critical. This issue doesn't rise to a priority level. Their plates are overflowing.