2/29/2012 10:05:00 AM Letter: Univest should meet its obligations at Stoneridge
In August 2011, the Univest Company, Suncor Development and the Stoneridge Community Facilities District entered into an agreement that transferred Suncor's interest and all obligations to Univest.
One of the obligations transferred and accepted by Univest was to contribute "Standby" payments to the debt service.
The current debt service payment is $1.4 million per year and the term of the bond debt is an additional 14 years. Of the $1.4 million, home owners pay $700,000 through a tax obligation and $168,609 per year through association dues. Univest has a standby obligation of approximately $531,391. There is currently in place a deposit of $2.96 million to be used in the event Univest defaults on its standby payments.
A new proposal has been offered to the home owners to refinance the bonded indebtedness. In this proposal, the $2.96 million will be used to pay down the debt. However, the cost of refinancing (estimated to be $500,000) and any prepayment penalties ( possibly exceeding $100,000) would be added to the bond debt as well as extending the period from one to six years of debt payments. $600,000 paid by the home owners to relieve Univest of its obligations.
It appears that all this is in an effort to relieve Univest of its obligations under the agreements it entered into in August 2011 and to perhaps offset losses from Golf Course operations. I ask that Univest live up to its obligations, build the homes it had planned and retain the respect and goodwill of the Stoneridge community.
I ask all concerned Stoneridge residents to attend the Facilities District meeting at Town Hall on March 1 and voice your opinions.
Posted: Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Article comment by:
I went to the meeting on the 28th (at the rec center) to express my concerns about the assumption and the payment of debt assumed by Univest as filed at the court house last Aug. They agreed to assume their portion of the CFD tax. Basically a split of the CFD Tax Bill. On the 28th all I heard was do you not want Stoneridge to grow and move forward. And this was not from the owner's rep! Well "move forward" was not explained to me. And it was also stated that I did not understand the deal but yet no one was able to explain it to me at that meeting. Poor communication since a survey was asked of the existing homeowners to approve a deal which only a few apparently knew the details thereof. And we were asked to choose (not vote) on vague details that only a few knew the details. And in my mind, since the details were not clearly defined, the survey is in doubt.
A sample home, Home A, was provided that basically shows that the CFD tax would remain about same with the new refinanced bond.for a 15 year period. Actually over 15 years the owner of Home A would pay about $1800 more over that period of time. Assuming about the same payment as the 2012 CDF tax for the new bond on Home A (or about 100/year more on avg) and knowing the 2.9 million might/would be applied to a new bond and the rate would remain about the same on the bond, my question is where is the money coming from to pay off the approx 1/2 of the new bond payment. Or is it all dumped on the homeowners.
The assumptions and conditions of the example home, I was just looking at Home A only, are vague. Even with a paydown of 2.9 million on the current bond and the $500,000 added on (which I believe the owner should pay or split with us) and an interest rate about the same as the current bond I want to know where the rest of the money is coming from to pay the CFD tax. A very simple question which seems un-answerable. Or is it all on the homeowners.
A return of about 370 surveys on 1000 homes may sound good but it represents only 37% which is well short of 51% for such a important decision. And it was not a vote.
It just appears to me that all of the CFD tax is off loaded to the homeowners with no contribution from Univest (except for the 2.9 million which was Sun Cors) and since they went Bk the status of this is unknown at this time . What about leaving the CFD tax the same as in 2012 and let Univest pickup the short fall which should be minimal after obtaining a new bond? If you believe the numbers. Each year on average that means they contribute about $100 times 1000 homes which is 100k using Home A as a example. That is much less than the $700k they are now paying on the old bond. Which they agreed to pay by buying Stoneridge.
If What I am stating above is not clear then consider the following reasonable option.
A simple resolution would be to keep the homeowners CFD fees the same as 2012 and let Univest pick up the remaining amount due which, if you believe the examples of homes used in the survey and the assumptions, should be much much less than 700k per year. They win and so do we. If the survey was so stated, I bet you would get more than 51% in agreement.