Re: renters fee?
From: Kay Argyle (kay.argyleutah.edu)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
All of our units, whether rented or owner-occupied, pay an assessment using
the same formula - a flat per-unit base plus square footage. In the case of
the community-owned units, it's part of the rent. For privately owned units,
some landlords pay it themselves (out of the rent one presumes) and some
require the tenant to pay it directly to the association.  None of our
rentals are 'mother-in-law' apartments, which sounds like the case at
Songaia.

Our experience is that renters, if recruited in the same ways as owners, are
as involved in and committed to the community as owners.

> ... the monthly assessment for a
> vacant home at Songaia is less than that for one housing people - and it
> costs more for 2 than 1, etc.

When we modified our fee structure a couple of years ago, we had lengthy
discussions about factoring in square footage, household size, income, etc.


Reasons to include household size:
* More people in a household means more draw on community resources.
* More adults in a household potentially means more household income and
thus more ability to pay

Reasons to exclude it:
* More children in a household means more claims on household income,
possibly decreased income if an adult stays home with the kids, and thus
less ability to pay.
* Requires the community to define precisely who is a resident - roommates,
month-long visitors, exchange students, housesitters, grandkids who spend
weekdays at Grandma's while Mom's at work?
* More adults in a household means more community work can be hoped for
("expected" is too strong a word).  A certain (large) percentage of
community work is independent of occupancy; empty units mean more work per
capita, not less.

That last reason was decisive for a lot of members.

Kay (Argyle)
the one at Wasatch Commons


Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.