💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

StanH5 (Colorado)
Posts: 89
Posted:
Can amenities be eliminated without detracting from the appeal and quality of life in an HOA? In these tough economic times terminating previously expected/available amenities is not out of order or uncommon. HOA amenities don't come free and their existence doesn't mean they're needed, have been cost justified, and/or should be continued (under current circumstances). Consider your home telephone (land line), bank checks, or cable television service you've been paying for year after year, at the same level but now you have a cell phone, the kids have moved out and now your tv viewing is more limited, and you pay your bills via the Internet. Do these currently seem like good personal expenses? Similarly, your HOA is obligated to its' members to complete a yearly review of all services provided for cost/benefit and make sound business decisions on continuing, terminating, or modifying services. This is referred to as your Board's fiduciary responsibility but the way some Boards operate they most likely never heard this word. I doubt your Board (especially in age restricted communities with no term limits) completes any sincere review that considers the value of existing amenities and the financial impact on the community: they rubber stamp everything that currently exists which is "the easy way out". A beneficial amenity can be described as a needed/expected service to the community, one that attracts home buyers and/helps maintain property value, contributes to community comfort and convenience, and/or is used by/serves a majority (preferably more) of the community. Many so-called amenities were placed in your community by your real estate developer to attract buyers without regard to utilization and HOA expense. This is real estate "eye candy". The developer understands that such facilities give potential buyers a "feel good" impression of the community making them want to join in and subsequently buy. Once the homes are sold and the management of the community turned over to the homeowners, this stuff is no longer the developer's responsibility but dumped, with all associated expenses, on the HOA. Their continued support/expense is justified only based on their existence: management by being uncreative. In many cases, such as my age restricted community in Colorado, the swimming pool becomes a poster child of the "eye candy" syndrome. Think of it, the pool is open 3 ½ months, mostly used by 10-20% of the residents, some grand children, but can be best characterized by "non-usage" with the potential for expensive repairs and maintenance. Potential home buyers in this age group (60, 70 year old plus) are no longer "water bugs" and their heirarchy of needs and amenities would rate a part year, outdoor swimming pool low on their list: "eye candy" doesn't raise home values, it raises expenses. If Board's thought outside the box on financial management (or should I say outside their rocking chair, referring to their manner of thought not their age) they would convert the pool area to a more fully functional, higher usage, outdoor picnic and meeting area and apply the subsequent yearly cost savings into an amenity of higher use such as an exercise facility. I don't hold my breath but then again implementing term limits could change my pessimism. So most likely your pool and mine will continue to exist based not on financial sense or benefit but because it simply exists. I wonder what a vote of the community would render if the pros and cons were presented fairly? How about choosing between a rise in HOA fees for all vs ending the pool (or other) amenity used by the few? We close post offices, libraries, etc. for cost/benefit and usage reasons, why not the same thought process with HOA amenities? Sure this topic and action may seem revolutionary, but the uproar will be brief, from the few and the vocal, but the result may be that you can actually give some respect to your Board for doing the right thing. A good rule in managing amenities is to ask if they reflect sound business practices and/or are managed similar to amenities in your city/county government. Bike paths, parks, fire and police services, and many other services are provided via tax collections. They make financial sense and contribute to the appeal of the community, have visibly high usage, and are expected. These are similar to snow removal, landscaping, and architectural services in an HOA. Specific use facilities such as health clubs, swimming pools, soccer fields, and dog parks assess a use fee and mostly pay their own burden on the community. If your HOA conducts special use classes such as Yoga or other exercise classes, participants pay a fee. The HOA community clubhouse used as the administrative/government center and hosting HOA meetings, clubs, parties, and festivities is not considered an amenity but a necessity and benefits 100% of the residents: no problem there. So, you get the picture: what's required, what's not, what's up for review, termination, or user fee assessment and what's not. Again, just because something exists and has existed doesn't justify its' existence, period. Sacred cows exist with the support of your "lifer" Board and enabling residents who are on auto pilot with continuing the past regardless of cost to the community.

GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
Stan have you ever heard of paragraphs? It makes large posts more reader friendly. That said most of what you are complaining about are for the most part usually mandated in the CC&R's for the Board and therefor the homeowners to maintain them. That is not to say they cannot ever be done away with but it must be done according to the CC&R's. Just hope you aren't too upset when the majority of your neighbors decides to dispense with something you enjoy, maybe even the reason you bought into your community.

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
Stan,

I agree with Glen's post 100%.

There are many developments that have given away amenities because it was economically the right choice and supported by the membership only to then have to deal with complaints from those same members about the consequences brought about by those actions. No I don't have any actual references to provide on actual instances. However, I will provide the following examples:

Item: Deed Association roads back to city
Complaints: Roads are not being kept up in the same shape (now the cities responsibility)
Complaints: Snow removal (now the cities responsibility) isn't happening quickly enough

Item: Pond/Lke deeded back to county
Complaints: Lake now public - anyone can use it - increased traffic, noise, trash

Item: Playground/park deeded back to city/county
Complaints: Lake now public - anyone can use it - increased traffic, noise, trash

As Glen said, it depends on what is mandated in the Association's governing documents. Additionally, removing on amenity may affect the resale price or how quickly the homes sell in the community.

The old saying comes to mind, Be careful what you wish for - it might come true.

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964
Posted:
I agree with mostly everything said here.

StanH's statements have given me some great food for thought regarding our own pool. We've closed it for the last two years because of finances (increasing delinquencies and the high cost of maintenance everywhere else, plus a low user rate). This year, we're planning to have homeowner vote on its future because our CCRs state if the pool is closed for two conscecutive years, homeowners have to vote to reopen it. We will begin gathering information on the pros and cons of closing the pool (the Board plans to recommend a permanent close).

Stan's last statement about enabling residents says it all - it's interesting how people yell and complain about what BODs do and don't do, or should do, but when these same people are told they should vote the rascals out and bring in new people (such as themselves) to do the work, the response is somewhere between a dumbfounded look or dead silence.

So, I wouldn't be too hard on the Board, Stan. They probably do need shaking up in some areas, but you need to be sure everyone pays as much attention to the folks that come in as much as to the ones being kicked to the curb.

At some point next year, I hope to report to everyone on this board what we did regarding our pool - whether it stays or goes, hopefully there'll be some lessons everyone can benefit from.


If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius
StanH5 (Colorado)
Posts: 89
Posted:
The point of the posting was to revisit that which was and why it is there. I find little justification, for example, in maintaining an amenity that is used by 10 percent of the residents especially when such funding could be directed to more utilized or ill maintained high usage amenities. Also, most amenities were placed in the community by a developer to sell homes and not based on utilization i.e. eye candy. The Board and residents have a responsibility to utilize limited HOA funds optimally regardless of what the original builder put in place. Builders often construct amenities and other structures to sell homes like placing an ad in the newspaper. However, the ongoing cost of these things is placed on future homeowners unlike an ad for a car where I am lured in to buy but after I buy I am not stuck with ongoing advertising costs. Mine is a homeowner perspective. Thanks
DavidW5 (North Carolina)
Posts: 565
Posted:
My take on this issue is - if you do not wish to pay for amenities that you personally do not use, then don't buy in a community that has such amenities.

If a tyranny of the majority is allowed to make the decision to not fund the operation and maintenance of a particular amenity, then nearly all such amenities will be abandoned, because there are hardly any amenities that are actually use by a majority of HOA members.

Furthermore, HOA members should recognize that the value of their home is enhanced by the presence of amenities that they to not personally use.

I understand that for HOA's that are in financial difficulties it is tempting to cut funding for amenities that are not universally used. Properly managed associations, who follow prudent budgeting and spending practices should not often find themselves in such a circumstance.
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
Well said David.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here