[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by collie1228

"The costs associated with cart wear are significant and were part of the justification of the change a year ago in the Reasonable Accommodations policy." Wait a minute. All executive courses have permanent concrete cart paths on which golfers must drive (unless you are handicapped). Just how much wear and tear is there on a concrete pathway? I submit there is none. Trail fees are a money making tax historically imposed by golf courses to enhance profit margins. For executive courses with concrete golf cart paths they are even more profitable.

In the ideal world I would agree, there would be little ongoing costs if everyone stayed perfectly on the cart paths, but they don't and there are some holes that don't have cart paths their full length (some of the par 4s). People drive on the courses all the time. When the courses are wet even rolling off to one side of the path can and does cause significant damages to the courses. The RA policy causes significant wear and damage to the courses that would not exist without the carts being on the course. The concrete on the paths is not indestructible, as it ages it starts to degrade, plates shift, plant rooting breaks it down, all of these have to be repaired and with the miles of cart paths we are talking about, the cost again adds up quickly.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by rustyp

The article in the online news states a $38000 boost in revenue is the estimate this change will benefit the executive courses. I find that hard to believe since $38000/141= 269.5. Call it 270. 270 is the number of priority memberships that have been given complementary trail fees. Even at half assuming non spousal membership that equals 540 memberships. In a community of nearly 140000 that says .2% have priority membership.

Lets say the number is more like only 2% priority membership. That would equal approx $395000 in increased revenue for the executive courses.

1. What are the real numbers?
2. If the windfall is significant enough should not the auto increase trail fee CPI formula be reviewed and possibly offset?

Real numbers and estimated values are attached.

The CPI is the measure that is used, unfortunately it is flawed and is manipulated frequently by Washington politicians to suit their needs and agendas, it therefore never comes close to the actual cost increases that are seen. Just go to the gas pump and see how that matches the CPI adjustment in your Social Security check. The CPI adjustments will help, but we'll continue to lose against inflation every year.

[dewilson58]

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

Real numbers and estimated values are attached.

The CPI is the measure that is used, unfortunately it is flawed and is manipulated frequently by Washington politicians to suit their needs and agendas, it therefore never comes close to the actual cost increases that are seen. Just go to the gas pump and see how that matches the CPI adjustment in your Social Security check. The CPI adjustments will help, but we'll continue to lose against inflation every year.

My WAG and your spreadsheet are amazing close. The numbers account for a 12.5% in trail fee revenue. FYI that number is year over year not a one time increase. I believe there is some wiggle room for further conversation at the meeting for exactly what will be done with this increase. An example can any of this revenue be used for any other amenities other than executive golf ?

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

[TSO/ISPF]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

Over the last few months there has been more clarity brought to this situation and the inclusion of the trail fee in the priority membership.

First, the inclusion of the executive course trail fee was for the priority membership holder only, if the rest of the household wanted the executive course trail fee it was sold at 75% of the normal rate.

The inclusion of the executive course trail fee with the priority membership was a holdover from the days when the developer owned all the courses - championship and executive, the majority of executive courses are now owned by the SLCDD and the VCCDD.

The inclusion of the executive course trail fee with the priority membership derived no benefit to the budgets that maintain the executive courses. No revenue was received from the developer for these included trail fees. For lack of a better term, they were a gift from the VCCDD and the SLCDD to the developer and the residents who purchased the priority membership. The only time there is revenue received related to the priority membership is when the reduced trail fee is paid for the remainder of the household.

The only people who are benefiting from the current agreement are the minority that are receiving the "free" trail fee, the remainder, the rest of the residents, are having to (unjustly?) carry their costs associated with executive course play.

Since the developer is not paying for the inclusion of the executive course trail fee with the priority membership, there will not be a change in the priority membership rate, they have made that perfectly clear. They are not profiting from either the current or proposed Trail Fee policy.

The SLCDD and VCCDD are governmental bodies, there is no justification or requirement to provide preferential treatment to any one resident, group of residents, or business entity.

If the AAC wants to have additional public discussion on this topic, all of the information should be made crystal clear before the few who are benefiting from the current agreement start to vent their rage. If the AAC decides not to change the current policy as proposed, they should then be ready to justify and explain to the rest of the non-priority membership residents that are paying a trail fee 1) why they should continue to give this service away 2) why the non-priory residents should continue to cover the costs and 3) why non-priority resident should not also receive either free or a discounted trail fee. There is no reasonable justification for any of these.

Executive golf is still free, if you walk the course, with or without your own hand cart, you pay nothing to play. The trail fee is a convenience fee to allow you to use your own cart on the course and cover the additional wear and tear on the course these carts bring. The costs associated with cart wear are significant and were part of the justification of the change a year ago in the Reasonable Accommodations policy.

With respect to the rest of the proposed agreement, these are needed changes. Revenue sharing of trail fees is now clearly defined. The cost of providing the on-line service will now be shared based on a benefit received based calculation method - the developer will pay a higher percentage of the actual costs. The ability to pay your trail fee and/or priority membership fees on-line will finally be available. An avenue will now be available to make changes to the on-line reservation system - perhaps we can now move into the 21 centry and have a phone app to make reservations instead of having to rely on a web page. Trail fees will include a CPI adjustment to help cover the continued increasing costs of the additional course maintenance.

HOLDOVER?
The inclusion of the executive course trail fee with the priority membership was a holdover from the days when the developer owned all the courses - championship and executive, the majority of executive courses are now owned by the SLCDD and the VCCDD.

So why does not "THE DEVELOPER" contribute that portion of the priority membership to maintaining the executive courses or reduce the cost of priority membership accordingly? Did priority membership fees go down when the ownership of the executive courses went to the SLCDD and the VCCDD ? Did Amenity fees go up?

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by heims01

HOLDOVER?
The inclusion of the executive course trail fee with the priority membership was a holdover from the days when the developer owned all the courses - championship and executive, the majority of executive courses are now owned by the SLCDD and the VCCDD.

So why does not "THE DEVELOPER" contribute that portion of the priority membership to maintaining the executive courses or reduce the cost of priority membership accordingly? Did priority membership fees go down when the ownership of the executive courses went to the SLCDD and the VCCDD ? Did Amenity fees go up?

Answer - the trail fee as part of the priority membership is a complementary gift made by the developer to entice membership without any cost to the developer. In fact this move may decrease the desire for priority membership and possibly create the need for an increase in membership fees.Thus any giving money to the executive courses or reducing the price of priority golf is a loss in revenue to the developer. There is no extra money of a trail fee baked into the revenue stream on a championship course. Any give away = a loss. One can argue that the developer had no right in giving away what was not theirs to give away.

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

The trail fee is a convenience fee to allow you to use your own cart on the course and cover the additional wear and tear on the course these carts bring. The costs associated with cart wear are significant and were part of the justification of the change a year ago in the Reasonable Accommodations policy.

If carts create significant wear and tear on the executive courses, then we should try to reduce the wear and tear. The executive courses should provide some incentive for people to walk the courses. In order to encourage walkers, there should be a program that for every 10 rounds that you walk, you get a free play at a Championship course. This would also reduce pollution from carts.

[Papa_lecki]

What did VCCDD and SLCDD pay the developer a fee for use of the tee time system?

[alwann]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

If carts create significant wear and tear on the executive courses, then we should try to reduce the wear and tear. The executive courses should provide some incentive for people to walk the courses. In order to encourage walkers, there should be a program that for every 10 rounds that you walk, you get a free play at a Championship course. This would also reduce pollution from carts.

With a few exceptions, the executive courses are not laid out with aging players in mind. And surely none of the championship tracks are. The wear and tear is mostly on the greens. Please use the increased revenue, if any, to keep the playing surfaces in good shape. The paths are in pretty good shape already.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

Over the last few months there has been more clarity brought to this situation and the inclusion of the trail fee in the priority membership.

First, the inclusion of the executive course trail fee was for the priority membership holder only, if the rest of the household wanted the executive course trail fee it was sold at 75% of the normal rate.

The inclusion of the executive course trail fee with the priority membership was a holdover from the days when the developer owned all the courses - championship and executive, the majority of executive courses are now owned by the SLCDD and the VCCDD.

The inclusion of the executive course trail fee with the priority membership derived no benefit to the budgets that maintain the executive courses. No revenue was received from the developer for these included trail fees. For lack of a better term, they were a gift from the VCCDD and the SLCDD to the developer and the residents who purchased the priority membership. The only time there is revenue received related to the priority membership is when the reduced trail fee is paid for the remainder of the household.

The only people who are benefiting from the current agreement are the minority that are receiving the "free" trail fee, the remainder, the rest of the residents, are having to (unjustly?) carry their costs associated with executive course play.

Since the developer is not paying for the inclusion of the executive course trail fee with the priority membership, there will not be a change in the priority membership rate, they have made that perfectly clear. They are not profiting from either the current or proposed Trail Fee policy.

The SLCDD and VCCDD are governmental bodies, there is no justification or requirement to provide preferential treatment to any one resident, group of residents, or business entity.

If the AAC wants to have additional public discussion on this topic, all of the information should be made crystal clear before the few who are benefiting from the current agreement start to vent their rage. If the AAC decides not to change the current policy as proposed, they should then be ready to justify and explain to the rest of the non-priority membership residents that are paying a trail fee 1) why they should continue to give this service away 2) why the non-priory residents should continue to cover the costs and 3) why non-priority resident should not also receive either free or a discounted trail fee. There is no reasonable justification for any of these.

Executive golf is still free, if you walk the course, with or without your own hand cart, you pay nothing to play. The trail fee is a convenience fee to allow you to use your own cart on the course and cover the additional wear and tear on the course these carts bring. The costs associated with cart wear are significant and were part of the justification of the change a year ago in the Reasonable Accommodations policy.

With respect to the rest of the proposed agreement, these are needed changes. Revenue sharing of trail fees is now clearly defined. The cost of providing the on-line service will now be shared based on a benefit received based calculation method - the developer will pay a higher percentage of the actual costs. The ability to pay your trail fee and/or priority membership fees on-line will finally be available. An avenue will now be available to make changes to the on-line reservation system - perhaps we can now move into the 21 centry and have a phone app to make reservations instead of having to rely on a web page. Trail fees will include a CPI adjustment to help cover the continued increasing costs of the additional course maintenance.

Thank you for the facts. As a priority member, I see no reason for all residents to subsidize my trail fees either. My only concern is the reference to wear and tear on the course. It is possibly a slippery slope since obviously those with RA tags that drive off the paths cause considerably more wear and tear, and some that are, well let's say careless, cause even more. The obvious conclusion would be a two tiered trail fee, which of course I'm sure would violate the ADA. Perhaps a fee for the RA tags???? Call it handling and processing? Naturally, the wear and tear on the paths would be the same.

This will no doubt be a post attacked by the usual culprits, but I'm just playing devil's advocate----If it is unfair for everyone to subsidize trail fees for priority members, then isn't it is unfair for everyone to subsidize additional wear and tear by RA tag holders? Same would be true on the champ courses vis a vis the greens fees.

[tophcfa]

I have a related question for Goldwingnut. Just like most of the Executives, most of the sports pools are also owned and operated by the SLCDD and VCCDD. For the sake of consistency, why is the developer allowed to give out resident passes to the Lifestyle visitors that are accepted at the sports pools? The only benefit of giving out the passes is to the developer, who is trying to sell new homes, while the passes to already overcrowded pools are detrimental to amenity fee paying residents! Do the developers pay a fee for this privilege that is used to help maintain the pools? If not, the SLCDD and VCCDD need to put a stop to this practice.

[Papa_lecki]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

I have a related question for Goldwingnut. Just like most of the Executives, most of the sports pools are also owned and operated by the SLCDD and VCCDD. For the sake of consistency, why is the developer allowed to give out resident passes to the Lifestyle visitors that are accepted at the sports pools? The only benefit of giving out the passes is to the developer, who is trying to sell new homes, while the passes to already overcrowded pools are detrimental to amenity fee paying residents! Do the developers pay a fee for this privilege that is used to help maintain the pools? If not, the SLCDD and VCCDD need to put a stop to this practice.

But selling the houses converts the visitor into an owner and into an amenity fee payer - so the developer is paying marketing to increase gross amenity fees too.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Papa_lecki

But selling the houses converts the visitor into an owner and into an amenity fee payer - so the developer is paying marketing to increase gross amenity fees too.

But does not the increased amenity fee go toward a new district that just benefits the developer and district?

So please correct me if I am wrong but what do homeowners who have been here for awhile get out of it? Just asking.

[elevatorman]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

Over the last few months there has been more clarity brought to this situation and the inclusion of the trail fee in the priority membership.

First, the inclusion of the executive course trail fee was for the priority membership holder only, if the rest of the household wanted the executive course trail fee it was sold at 75% of the normal rate.

The inclusion of the executive course trail fee with the priority membership was a holdover from the days when the developer owned all the courses - championship and executive, the majority of executive courses are now owned by the SLCDD and the VCCDD.

The inclusion of the executive course trail fee with the priority membership derived no benefit to the budgets that maintain the executive courses. No revenue was received from the developer for these included trail fees. For lack of a better term, they were a gift from the VCCDD and the SLCDD to the developer and the residents who purchased the priority membership. The only time there is revenue received related to the priority membership is when the reduced trail fee is paid for the remainder of the household.

The only people who are benefiting from the current agreement are the minority that are receiving the "free" trail fee, the remainder, the rest of the residents, are having to (unjustly?) carry their costs associated with executive course play.

Since the developer is not paying for the inclusion of the executive course trail fee with the priority membership, there will not be a change in the priority membership rate, they have made that perfectly clear. They are not profiting from either the current or proposed Trail Fee policy.

The SLCDD and VCCDD are governmental bodies, there is no justification or requirement to provide preferential treatment to any one resident, group of residents, or business entity.

If the AAC wants to have additional public discussion on this topic, all of the information should be made crystal clear before the few who are benefiting from the current agreement start to vent their rage. If the AAC decides not to change the current policy as proposed, they should then be ready to justify and explain to the rest of the non-priority membership residents that are paying a trail fee 1) why they should continue to give this service away 2) why the non-priory residents should continue to cover the costs and 3) why non-priority resident should not also receive either free or a discounted trail fee. There is no reasonable justification for any of these.

Executive golf is still free, if you walk the course, with or without your own hand cart, you pay nothing to play. The trail fee is a convenience fee to allow you to use your own cart on the course and cover the additional wear and tear on the course these carts bring. The costs associated with cart wear are significant and were part of the justification of the change a year ago in the Reasonable Accommodations policy.

With respect to the rest of the proposed agreement, these are needed changes. Revenue sharing of trail fees is now clearly defined. The cost of providing the on-line service will now be shared based on a benefit received based calculation method - the developer will pay a higher percentage of the actual costs. The ability to pay your trail fee and/or priority membership fees on-line will finally be available. An avenue will now be available to make changes to the on-line reservation system - perhaps we can now move into the 21 centry and have a phone app to make reservations instead of having to rely on a web page. Trail fees will include a CPI adjustment to help cover the continued increasing costs of the additional course maintenance.

Will there be any attempt to recover lost revenue from the developer? The developer has been giving away property (trail fees) that was not his to give.