By Ron Duncan
If the ACHOA Board were merely dealing in common cents, we’d all applaud.
Unfortunately they are dealing with very real dollar issues.
This is further complicated by the lack of open meetings that candidly discuss options to an end that affects all of ArrowCreek.
From the beginning, the Golf Course issue was hidden from the general property owners in the ArrowCreek subdivision. From that first meeting at the ASSOCIA office spaces on 14 April 2014, between the ACHOA Board members Paul Burkett, Sam Fox, Robin Rakusin, Rich Kenny and Century Golf (the parent company of Arnold Palmer Golf Management) until the October 2014 ACHOA Board meeting, there were no communications to the ArrowCreek owners about a plan for the golf course. A deal was sealed. Only in October did the ACHOA BOD reveal that a plan had been developed to form a ‘Joint Venture’ with Arnold Palmer Golf Management. Unfortunately, the ACHOA Board, relying on legal counsel, discovered that the ACHOA is prohibited from becoming a ‘for profit’ corporation in the ACHOA Articles of Incorporation. Now the tap dancing started – to stay with the donors but get legal with the property owners. So, the ‘plan’ for a Joint Venture was abandoned in February 2015 – but not before the ACHOA ACCC presented to the assembled property owners a budgetary estimate of how the ‘Joint Venture’ would make a profit in year 3, with only a $100 increase in monthly dues.
Next from these same individuals came a pitch ‘to control our destiny.’ This was a poorly disguised ‘pitch’ to persuade the ACHOA property owners to buy the ‘land’ and worry about what it would be used for after a purchase. But wait! There’s more! That then led us to the ‘Green vs. Brown’ discussion. This should not even be a topic of discussion for the ACHOA as we do not own the property, and the people who do own it have full control of its use. If one moves to the ‘high desert,’ one should expect ‘high desert.’ If one moves here for the golf assets, then there are still plenty of them provided within an hour’s drive of ArrowCreek. If one moves here for the security of a gated community with common swimming pools, tennis courts, walking paths, exercise equipment and serenity, those have been identified as amenities and we still have all of that.
So, why have this discussion of ‘Green vs. Brown?’ Are we that panicked over the potential of a fire? The September legal opinion from the ACHOA lawyer says it is not our responsibility UNLESS we own the property. The Washoe County Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District Fire Marshal has stated the same fact last May.
IF we were to own the property, we would take on a HUGE financial liability that would decrease every home value in ArrowCreek for years to come.
IF the course were to go ‘Brown,’ the table below contains some actual data that the ACHOA Board refuses to acknowledge: All properties referred to in the table are adjacent to their respective current and former golf courses. The values are extracted from the UNR Brian Bonnenfant study. Analysis of the values in the study demonstrate that home values follow the local general housing market. After 24 months, at most, ArrowCreek property values would be down a projected 1%. They are worse off today due to the uncertainty of the ACHOA path forward.
So, what is really behind the urge to acquire the golf course? It is not to make a profit – that is prohibited by our Articles of Incorporation. It is not to ‘control our destiny,’ the developer took care of that in Planning Commission Case number DA9-1-93-2. ArrowCreek has allocated all the lots permitted under that agreement with the original property owners. So, what is it? Is it to support a private corporation to provide entertainment to select property owners?
May The Club live long and prosper!! May the ACHOA keep out of private business affairs and develop the ACHOA amenities described in our Articles of Incorporation and CC&Rs!
Using Northgate home sales data and the cherry picking D’Andrea data, from the UNR study, continues to be misleading to the readers of 411
I am not sure how the UNR study could rationally use home sales data from Northgate and project possible outcomes for ArrowCreek. First, Northgate is not a planned golf community. Second, 38 of the 126 home are Sommertt properties that one could surmise were insulated from Northgate issues. For these two reason most would discount any proposed correlation between circumstance at Northgate and Arrowcreek.
The composition and circumstances of the D’Andrea’s golf course community are reasonable representations of possible outcomes that can occur in ArrowCreek. Why you continue to spin the study results is troubling. The UNR study paints a bleak picture of what happens when the golf course goes brown as supported by the following UNR study paraphrased excerpts:
Prior to the closure of the golf course in March 2012 prices per Sq/ft ranged between $17.74 and $69.33 higher in D’Andrea when compared to Spanish Springs. The prices ranged between $14.33 and $71.35 higher in D’Andrea when compared to Sparks. The UNR data for the first quarter of 2015 indicates that prices in Spanish Springs, Sparks, and Washoe Co. now average roughly $5.00 higher per sq/ft than D’Andrea.
Following the closure of D’Andrea the differences in values per Sq/ft of D’Andrea homes have plummeted when compared to other homes in the region.
In 2013 the price per sq/ft in Spanish Springs was $4.18 higher than D’Andrea. In 2015 Spanish Springs is now $6.59 per sq/ft higher.
The comparison of sq/ft prices, show that properties values in D’Andrea, after the closure in 2012, decreased between $26.77 and $32.00 when compared with the other three areas assessed.
The analysis shows that the closure of the D’Andrea Golf Course significantly decreased property values of the homes on the golf course.
For a hypothetical exercise let’s use some of the UNR study conclusion and paint a picture of an average ArrowCreek home. Let’s say the average ArrowCreek home is 3000 sq. ft., and the delta in the UNR sq/ft values are comparative with ArrowCreek and surrounding areas. Using the Spanish Spring data, Spanish Springs’ homes sold for $27 less than D’Andrea homes before the closure in 2012. Data for 20151Q indicates that Spanish Springs’ homes now sell for $6.59 per sq/ft more than D’Andrea homes. In comparing Spanish Springs’ homes to D’Andrea homes, D’Andrea homes have lost $33.59 per sq/ft of comparative value. In this exercise the average ArrowCreek home, when compared to other homes in the region, would be worth $100,770 less by letting the golf course go brown.
To state “Northgate is not a planned golf community” is a false premise as neither is ArrowCreek. In fact, ArrowCreek is a community that has a ‘Non-Residential’ component to it, per the CC&Rs.
The UNR study was conducted solely by Brian Bonnenfant and his team. They recommended Northgate, as one of the course closures to be included in the study as home values are more akin to those on the West side of the Truckee Meadows. In fact, the inclusion of D’Andrea continues to be a red herring being dragged around the discussions of ArrowCreek when it has absolutely no, repeat no, similarities to the ArrowCreek situation other than an ex-golf course.
There’s really no need to try and hypothesize an average ArrowCreek home. In fact, all of the homes in the Bonnenfant study directly bordered the respective golf courses. The study shows the value data, per square foot, before and after closure. The closures were three years apart so, the table in this article, reflects the values at closure and then two years after, and since it was available, five years after for Northgate. If you apply the D’Andrea number to current, and equivalent ArrowCreek property (i.e. a property adjacent to the golf course), the value per square foot would be $266.95 per square foot after two years of closure, based upon last months recorded sales within ArrowCreek. Furthermore, the comparison of D’Andrea to Spanish Springs would imply comparing ArrowCreek to Saddle Horn and Monte Rosa.
So, the comparison of like properties, with the acknowledgement that amenities are not taken into account, provides the ArrowCreek owner a perspective on a possible result, should the golf course close (which we all hope will not happen under the private enterprise system). It’s not optimistic nor is it a pessimistic assessment.
Pingback: Sense For Your Cents | ArrowCreek 411
My wife and I moved to Arrow Creek because it was a beautiful place. The green made so. So firebreak or not it had an big influence. We looked everywhere it Reno. Somersett was brown and ugly so we eliminated it and it reminded me of California Housing developments which are also generally ugly. We were in contract at Montreux but decided it was nice but not as friendly and much more costly going then Arrow Creek.
Does the HOA need to own the Golf Course, not really, But here are some good solutions that would benefit all homeowners and give us great value compared to other Reno Area HOA’s.
1. The HOA negotiate a four-year fixed fee social membership for all residence in Arrow Creek for $75.00 per month.
2. The HOA take a first right of refusal for the property from the FOA with some payment to the Washoe County water company debt for those four years. The main debt retained after Bankruptcy.
3. The homeowners via the HOA agree that if the FOA would like to develop half of one of its courses (125 acres) into a luxury housing area that they will not oppose the zoning change.
4. The HOA amend to annex the new development into the existing HOA.
What does this give Arrow Creek homeowners in return?
An HOA fee that includes; Swimming, Tennis, Gym and a social club all in a beautiful setting and safe environment for $295.00 a month (Maybe even Pickle Ball) . Compare this to Montreux.
Montreux Monthly Fee Structure:
Basic HOA – $250.00 / Month
Social Club – $102.00 / Month ($3,500.00 Donation)
Combined HOA – 352.00 / Month
Want to Socialize, Swim, Play Tennis, Workout (No Pickle Ball)
Monthly Kicker – $338.00 and a mere ($21,500 Donation)
Combined HOA – $588.00 / Month
Compare the last Option to want we can have at Arrow Creek $295.00 vs $588.00 and no donation required.
OK if you want to have an expensive Hobby like Golf at Montreux ($875.00 monthly no cart included and a mere donation of $27,500)
Arrow Creek homeowners can get a Great Deal here and if you are a Realtor who can not sell this all day long and win, well I have a entry level job opening in my company.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The issue comes down to the term ‘community.’ The ArrowCreek ‘community’ has 52% working families and about 48% retirees, both of which would be challenged to increase their expenses by $75 to $82 per month for a LUXURY item that was not in the original contract. In fact, the ‘luxury’ item would come with some hidden charges down the road just to insure that PRIVATE Industry continues to survive on the backs of the community.
The suggestion that the community should accept this ‘modest’ increase in dues to perpetuate a private corporation is appalling and to “not oppose” spoiling the views of the Truckee Meadows from ArrowCreek, should someone attempt to take on the risk of trying to develop housing on the Non-residential property, is repugnant.
The private venture should stay private. A 34% to 37% tax/fee increase means LESS play time for all of us.
You seem to lack an ability to reach a reasonable position other than the one you started from. It is surprising as I did not know you were in the Political Class.
The proposal was not to to give something to a Private Industry, but instead to gain an asset for homeowners. The proposal would greatly enhance home values for all and provide a super environment for young and old. Development of the property could most likely take place without Arrow Creek HOA. The value of the project will entice Washoe County with increased fees and taxes. Something all politicians as we have all seen in recent years will fight for.
While it may create a lawsuit, public interest (Increased Taxes) has been winning out over private citizens for a long time.
How about a reasonable proposal.
Tim – please read How to Express Your Truth With Honesty and Respect. Thank you.
A reasonable proposal? Raise the fees on the members of the club by $165 each and you’ve got the equivalent dollars that are wanted from the ACHOA without any hassle from the ACHOA. In fact, expand the ‘club house (with proper permitting, of course)’ into a real strip mall/commercial center (which is permitted in the County planning case number DA9-1-93). That should generate not only income for the owners of the 525 acres but also provide new tax revenue to Washoe County and save all ACHOA property owners the drive to the bottom of the hill for essentials (i.e. Starbucks?)
Since the founding of ArrowCreek, the two entities, ACHOA and Golf Enterprise, were designed and defined to be separate but ‘coordinated.’ There was no intent on the part of the developer to ever have these two joined as one entity (that’s throughout all of the governing documents). So, separate they should remain. One a quasi-governmental entity and the other private enterprise. The ACHOA does not require the acquisition of the Golf Enterprise to maintain property values, as has been shown over the past several months. In fact, the acquisition, would decrease property values by raising fees and forcing residents to have mandatory ownership. This is not a golf community. It is a community with a golf course within its secure boundaries.
POLITICAL CLASS?? A 34% to 37% tax/fee increase means LESS play time for all of us.
This is a factual yet frightening summation of the ‘golf course’debacle here in ArrowCreek. The Board still is keeping the homeowners in the dark about their next proposal—some things never change. How disappointing and shame on this Board.