Re: Monthly assessments | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Rob Sandelin (robsanmicrosoft.com) | |
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 94 13:25 CST |
Ian Higginbottom asked: >I would appreciate hearing from those who have already posted their monthly >assessment figures (and from those who are yet to post them) the logic behind >their decision to charge on a per person or per household basis. Sharingwood chose figuring assessments per household because it was easiest. Just divide the costs by the number of units (17). As phase II is developed and sold our assessments will drop because we will start dividing the costs into a greater number. A couple of members own more than one unit and they have to pay those extra shares but that is their choice to own more than one, and typically that extra cost has been passed on to the buyer. For example lot prices have increased over the years because the assessments on those lots were figured in. Those of us who bought lots early got the land at a cheaper price and then incrementally paid the assessments as they came in. Those who bought lots later paid all those costs at once as part of their lot price. Since our lots are still selling well below the market rate for property in our area, it has not been a problem and the late buyers often have the advantage of bank financing which those of us who paid incrementally did not. We subtract the property taxes and capital improvement from the rental assessment so it is less than the regular assessments. Rob Sandelin Sharingwood
- Re: Monthly assessments, (continued)
- Re: Monthly assessments Donna Spreitzer, November 3 1994
- Re: Monthly assessments Stephen Hawthorne, November 4 1994
- Re: Monthly assessments Ian Higginbottom, November 7 1994
- Re: Monthly assessments Rob Sandelin, November 7 1994
- Re: Monthly assessments Rob Sandelin, November 7 1994
- Re: Monthly assessments David L. Mandel, March 30 1995
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.