Re: Membership fees (WAS Money and Greater Hartford Cohousing)
From: Lydia & Ray Ducharme (ducharm1cadvision.com)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:23:10 -0600 (MDT)
Hi Mariana,

I understand that the 50% rate of return worked well for another cohousing
group and was suggested to us.

Even though at this stage it is difficult to know what the unit costs will
be we are optimistic that we can build the project and offer units at below
market rates.  We were very lucky to find development consultants who are
very knowledgeable and charge a reasonable fee for their services.  We will
be hiring professionals as needed but will not use a developer and hope to
thereby keep the costs down.

I know that a 50% return seems really high but it seems a fair way to
compensate the early members for the tremendous risk that they take.  After
all, there are a bunch of people waiting in the wings who aren't taking any
risk at all.

The 50% is a flat rate over the life of the project so it is pretty easy to
calculate the actual return.  It won't be taxable because it will be rebated
to the members at the end of the project, reducing the cost of their units.

The 50% is on all monies needed until our rezoning application is approved
and we complete on our offer to purchase for the land.  By this time all the
soils, legal, topographical and environmental tests will have been done on
the land.  The Cohousing Company will also have done the site programming
workshop with us.

This has had a positive effect on our members.  People are scrambling to
come up with extra money to share in the high rate of return.

It seems like this will be a win-win for everyone.

Lydia Ducharme
WholeLife Housing
Calgary, Canada



----- Original Message -----
From: Mariana Almeida <mqa [at] pacbell.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <cohousing-l [at] freedom2.mtn.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Membership fees (WAS Money and Greater Hartford Cohousing)


> East Bay Cohousing (in SF Bay, CA) just passed a membership dues agreement
> that is almost identical to the one Lydia describes below. We are looking
> for a site right now.
>
> Lydia, how were you all able to specify a return for early investment in
> the high risk phase? We are feeling that without a site (with a price and
#
> of units it can hold) we cannot make a good guess on the rate of return.
> How did you come up with 50% as the the rate of return for that phase?
Does
> that phase go from option to end of feasibility period?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Mariana Almeida
>
>
>
> At 07:36 PM 4/17/00 -0500, Lydia & Ray Ducharme wrote:
> >All members pay $100 to join and $30 per month to a maximum of $480 (16 x
> >$30).  This money is non-refundable.  This has been more than enough to
pay
> >our "operating expenses" such as baby-sitting, office supplies, lunch at
> >workshops, etc.  (I don't think anyone has submitted a bill for the
coffee,
> >tea and snacks that they provide at meetings).
> >
> >We have two levels of membership - "associate" and "equity" members.
> >"Equity" members finance the project, agree to purchase a home,  and have
> >committed to contribute a minimum of $7,500 each although many will be
> >investing more.    Only equity members can "block" a decision.  If equity
> >members leave the group they lose their investment.  Members will also
> >choose their units in the order that they became equity members.
> >
> >During the high risk phase (before we have secured land) the investors
are
> >paid a flat return of 50% which will eventually reduce the unit cost.
Once
> >land is secured we will pay a rate of
> >12%/annum on all additional money needed for the downpayment required to
> >finance the project.
> >
> >We have also received an interest free loan from Canada Mortgage and
Housing
> >Corporation (CMHC).  The 50% interest savings on this loan, that would
> >otherwise have had to be paid during the high-risk phase, will be used to
> >create some affordable units.
> >
> >Lydia Ducharme
> >WholeLife Housing
> >Calgary, Canada
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <Tonka444 [at] aol.com>
> >To: Multiple recipients of list <cohousing-l [at] freedom2.mtn.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 8:22 AM
> >Subject: Money and Greater Hartford Cohousing
> >
> >
> >> Hi everyone--
> >>
> >> I have a very nuts and bolts money question for you.  Our group has
been
> >> meeting since July and up until this point each "core" household (11)
has
> >> only put in $100 bucks for expenses.
> >>
> >> As of May 1st, we are leveling the membership so that core households
will
> >> now o pay $200 a month "fair share contribution" towards the option of
> >land.
> >> We do not have a site or any professionals hired yet.
> >>
> >> We have 10 households (!) who want to be core at $200 a month.  But the
> >> question that held up our group last meeting was...if we have a
household
> >> join four months from now, do they have to pay $1200 down (to catch up
to
> >the
> >> membership) and then $200 a month and THEN the $100 bucks that the
earlier
> >> core kicked in?  The membership committee who wrote out the new
membership
> >> levels did not include the initial $100 requirement but one household
> >feels
> >> that if they had to pay it, why wouldn't the newcomers?
> >>
> >> Also, with the new $2000 a month that will be coming in, should that go
in
> >a
> >> separate account and the initial $100 payment be used for expenses and
get
> >> replenished from the group?  I thought that ALL of the money each
> >household
> >> put in is considered predevelopment expenses that will come off the top
of
> >> our mortgages.
> >>
> >> Just curious how other groups structure out their initial monetary
> >payments
> >> before a site and before professionals.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Shelly DeMeo
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.