[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by NatureBoy

Excellent post GWN. And it of course raises some questions for me.


You used "deferral" too many times there for me. Reusing the same word doesn't explain to me what's going on.


How does this work in a place like TV where houses are constantly being built and amenities are constantly being added? So the fee may be $X/house/executive course + $Y/house/pool, etc.
As the Developer adds houses & amenities there should be times where there are more amenities than houses to support them (it'd be nice to think the opposite never happens). Does the Developer eat this imbalance until there are enough houses to support the amenities & the amenities are transferred to the local government?

Does the "gimme" clause cover items like the archery & air rifle ranges, & the RC track? i.e. The number of pools & other standard amenities stays proportional to the number of houses, but now there are additional new amenity types, so the overall ratio of houses to amenities goes down (houses/amenities), requiring the fee to go up. This seems like it would get tricky given the size of TV; I doubt people in Orange Blossom want to pay for the RC Track way at the other end of TV.

Fascinating stuff. And bless you for wallowing around in all this sausage-making.

The deferral option in the deed restrictions allows increases to be delayed until a later date if the regulating party so decides. The uncertain portion of the deferral is when it stops. For example, if rate increases were deferred for 3 years and had a cumulative increase of $10 that was not implemented. The 4th year the increase for CPI works out to be $2 and the decision is made to end the deferral. At this point the decision has to be made about what to do with the delayed increases. The options appear to be:
1) just apply the $2 increase and continue to defer the other $10,
2) implement all or a portion of the $10 deferral and the $2 planned increase with any unimplemented deferral held again to a later date,
3) implement 1 or 2 above and discharge the deferral so it can't be implemented at a later date.
Confused yet?

The new construction area amenities are under the control of the Developer's company, not the local government. They add what amenities they feel are in the best interest of developing the community and ensuring a viable market for their product. They are responsible for all of the operating costs. They also own the amenities contracts with the home owners in the new areas, which they use to pay for the operating costs. As they have agreements with the SLCDD/SLAD to staff and operate the facilities (this ensures seamless continuity of operations across the entire development) they pay the SLAD an agreed to amount to cover the costs incurred by SLAD.

When the amenities north of SR44 were purchased 2 years ago by SLCDD they also purchased the amenities contracts for all the impacted roof tops. So SLCDD/SLAD now collects the amenities fees from the home owners and pays for the costs of operating the amenities. None of these funds pass through the developers hands except for paying for contracted services that they may be performing. This goes back to dispelling the false notion that the developer is getting rich off our the amenities north of SR44 and any increases.

Getting back to the "Gimme" clause. This applies to additions driven by residents not to items being put in during the construction process. So if the developer originally decides an area needs 2 pools and later decides to add an additional pool when the build another unit of housing, the cost is on them, not the residents. If the residents were to decide that an additional pool is needed/wanted and asks for the developer or a 3rd party to install it, this cost then falls to the residents to cover as it wasn't a part of the developers project plan. Again, this is where the conversation normally stops, nobody wants to pay for it.

As a point of clarification, the resident north of CR466 wouldn't be impacted by a Gimme additions south of CR466 and vice-versa as the are operated by two different amenities district - VCRAD and SLAD. The agreements in place between the amenities districts prohibit differential treatment of residents based on the location of their home or amenity.

It's been the practice for many years now, and I've seen no changes in this practice in the 5 years I've been here and been watch dogging the goings on, to build the amenities and have them available before homes are sold in an area. Sometimes they appear to be racing neck-n-neck but the residents haven't ever been on the loosing side.