|Re: Work Requirements: LCD?||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Bitner/Stevenson (lilbertearthlink.net)|
|Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 23:04:23 -0700 (MST)|
We have a separate fund from the HOA dues for capital improvements. The HOA dues are based solely on unit size, and the capital improvement fund is based on what each household feels they can contribute. You pledge every year based on what you want to pay, and can change the amount, with notification, at any time. We felt this addressed the issue without involving complicated sliding scale schemes. It works very well, and since people choose their own rate, there is no resentment. Keeping it separate from the HOA also makes it easier to talk about the budget in a less charged way-which you will have to do every year. -- Liz Stevenson Southside Park Cohousing Sacramento, California ---------- > We are looking at a capital improvements plan and its accompanying > budget, and we are struggling with balancing the basic needs of our > neighborhood (e.g., paying the water bill) with the desire for capital > projects (like a workshop) and the inability of some members to pay > higher dues. > > We've discussed income sharing in the sense that the more affluent > members could pay into some account to cover the shortfalls of those > residents who can't pay an increased dues. > > We've also discussed counting sweat equity towards payment of dues for > households that are comparatively economically disadvantaged, but then > what about the households that are able to pay but also put in > tremendous amounts of sweat equity? Are we valuing their input less? Are > we creating a class of less-affluent cohousing serfs? > > I am tending to lean towards we just don't do anything that the whole > group can't afford (lowest common denominator.) > > Any thoughts? > > Christine Della Maggiora > Eno Commons Cohousing > Durham, NC
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.