Sunriver Scene July 2026 - Flipbook - Page 37
Letters
continued from page 36
improved Sunriver by adding amenities such as SHARC,
improving our bike tunnels and other improvements like
the Cottonwood Dog Park.
Thank you SROA Board!
The board is asking owners to support a Capital Transfer
Fee. Their goal is to find a steady source of income to keep
Sunriver financially strong and to continue to improve to
keep our community healthy and attractive.
The purchased advertisements in the Scene have increased. Many oppose while others support this fee to
fund improvements. Sadly, the naysayers are often selling
misinformation regarding what this fee is and what it is not.
Misconceptions: This CTF is not a sales tax and cannot
be increased without a 60% vote of owners. There is some
speculation that the board would make decisions without
owner input. That is contrary to all actions of our board
which is creating an owner-driven task force to define
policies and procedures for these funds. There are other
false statements.
Do your homework and support the SROA leadership.
Vote Yes!
Sunriver homes need modernization
By Lindsay Yousey
The discussion around the proposed Capital Transfer Fee
has largely focused on how to fund future amenities and
infrastructure. What I have not seen discussed as much is
whether we have correctly identified the primary driver of
Sunriver's future competitiveness.
The FAQ repeatedly suggests that new amenities will
help maintain property values and ensure Sunriver remains
vibrant for future generations. That may be true. But it is
also an assumption worth testing.
Sunriver is a resort community. Guests and buyers ultimately choose homes. While pathways, parks, pools and
recreation facilities contribute to the overall experience, they
cannot compensate for an aging housing stock.
I recognize that I view this issue from a different perspective than some long-time owners. I am part of the generation
expected to become Sunriver's future buyer base. My family
was only able to purchase in Sunriver by choosing a modest
condominium, and even then, it required substantial repairs
and updates. Future buyers are not entering the same market
many current owners did. At today's prices, interest rates,
insurance costs, HOA fees, and maintenance costs, it is increasingly unrealistic to expect buyers to pay premium prices
for homes that require major modernization. Amenities can
enhance value, but they cannot substitute for investment
in the homes themselves.
I am also not convinced that avoiding future owner votes
should automatically be viewed as a benefit. Requiring
project-specific approval may be time-consuming, but it
creates accountability, encourages careful planning, and
ensures major expenditures have demonstrated owner support. When millions of dollars are involved, some degree of
friction may be a feature rather than a bug.
The FAQ doesn’t state whether the CTF would replace
the need for future special assessments. If a major capital
need arises that exceeds available CTF funds, would owners
still face special assessments? Understanding exactly what
risks and obligations are being reduced or retained seems
essential before approving a permanent funding source.
Finally, the projected revenue assumes roughly 140 property sales annually. What happens if more owners choose
to hold properties longer, transfer properties through trusts
or LLCs, or keep them within their families? Has the longterm durability of this funding model been tested against
changing ownership patterns?
These questions are not arguments against investment.
Sunriver should continue to evolve. The question is whether
we are investing in the right things, in the right order, and
with the right level of owner oversight.
Sellers likely to bear the burden
bear most of the cost. Studies of similar fees consistently
show the burden falls on sellers through lower sale proceeds. This will result in a loss of equity built over years of
maintenance fees and special assessments that have added
to the value of our homes. The cost would be immediate
and certain at the time of sale, while any promised benefit
from future amenities is speculative and years away. Owners
who have already paid for today’s amenities should not be
forced to pay again to fund tomorrow’s. With some owners
exempt and a smaller group left to shoulder the burden,
this fee is fundamentally unfair.
This is a deeply flawed and harmful way to fund capital
improvements. We already have a fair, democratic process
that gives homeowners a direct voice in capital spending.
This measure strips owners of that voice by concentrating
spending decisions in the board’s hands. Major capital
projects should be shaped by all owners — not dictated by
the loudest voices and a select few.
CTF is necessary next step
By Keith Mobley
“A rising tide lifts all boats.” Voting yes on the capital
transfer fee can be part of the rising tide for Sunriver. Some
long-term improvements will only happen if funding becomes available.
One of the best known and most popular assets of
Sunriver are its pathways. Missing for the past many years
from that 34 miles is a link in the area of Circles 2 and
3. Except for that segment, owners, guests and visitors
can safely enjoy walking and biking. Work on getting the
easements and approvals required for that segment is finally
nearing completion. The projected cost of construction is
$2 million.
This need was one of the reasons the Finance Committee
was asked to explore ideas for a source for capital improvement funding. After extensive research and study of what
other homeowner associations have done to meet capital
funding needs, they settled on a capital transfer fee. The
Finance Committee presented their case to the Sunriver
Board of Directors. It was thoroughly reviewed by that
nine-member board of Sunriver owners, who unanimously
voted to propose it to all owners for their decision.
Sunriver owners who personally enjoy assets they have
funded and the effect those assets have on Sunriver home
values know what the effects of SHARC, the Member Pool,
and improvements at Mary McCallum Park have had.
Sunriver owners who are or will become board members
appreciate the opportunity to be responsibly creative in
finding ways to keep it one of Oregon’s best resorts and
places to enjoy living. A yes vote on the capital transfer fee
is a necessary next step.
Urge board to withdraw proposal, try again
By Steven Pearson
Our board has a duty to treat all owners as equally and
fairly as possible. Despite how it has been advertised, the
proposed Capital Transfer Fee is simply not equitable.
Frequency and timing of sales is not an equitable basis to
assess one property higher fees (in some cases substantially
higher) than another property.
The proposed CTF would assess properties that are sold
earlier or after shorter tenure, higher total fees than would
be assessed on properties that are sold later or after longer
tenure.
Consider two equal-valued properties, A and B, over a
40-year period. Both properties receive the same amenity
benefit due to the CTF. Property A is sold on average every
eight years. Over the 40-year period, Property A will pay the
fee five times. Property B is held by one owner, perhaps a
family (possibly transferred through inheritance) or corporation, for the entire period. If Property B is sold at the end
of the period, it is assessed the CTF just once, effectively
just 1/5 of what was assessed on Property A.
The board should not be creating winners and losers. I
urge the board to withdraw the current proposal and try
again.
By James Lundblad
Is the Capital Transfer Fee Fair?
Vote no on the Capital Transfer Fee. Whatever label the
directors use, this measure operates as a property transfer tax,
and the evidence is clear that sellers — not buyers — will
Some owners believe the Capital Transfer Fee is not fair.
It asks new buyers to pay ½ of one percent of the sales
price, with the funds dedicated to fund new amenities,
equipment and infrastructure. Yes, it’s possible the seller
may pay a portion.
If you are not selling soon, the added value from new
amenities may exceed the fee, even if you pay it. If you are
selling soon, you have a strong case for the buyer to pay
the fee.
If you rent your home, how much rent will you lose if we
don’t stay competitive with other area resorts with desired
new amenities?
The alternative for raising funds is to raise our annual
maintenance fees or approve special assessments paid equally
by all owners, except possibly the resort.
My question is this: Is it fair for the 1,000 owners of
two-bedroom condos to pay equally for amenities as owners of five- to eight-bedroom homes? Why should smaller
homes subsidize larger ones? I understand why some owners
of larger homes may support that approach, but I do not
believe it is fair to owners of smaller homes. I urge a yes vote!
Follow SHARC game plan
By John Salzer
My name is John Salzer, and I have been a permanent
resident of Sunriver since 1999. I am writing in opposition
of the Transfer Tax being proposed by the SROA Board. I
was involved back when the community needed to decide
what to do with the failing South Pool. We spent almost
three years involving all of our owners in deciding to build
SHARC. Eighty percent of the owners voted in the election with 69% voting yes to spend $4,500 each to build
SHARC. But the year prior to this vote, the SROA Board
asked owners to increase their annual membership dues
$30 per month with the funds going into the reserve funds
which would allow us to not only maintain but also improve
our infrastructure. This has enabled us to rebuild our roads
and pathways, and our tunnels, upgrade the parks and river
access, rebuild the North Pool, and create the new circles at
the entrances to the Village. All of this was accomplished
without having to go to the owners asking for a special
assessment. If we have a special need, then do what we did
with SHARC by educating our owners of the need and
then ask for a special assessment. An example of this would
be to have SROA go back to the county and ODOT and
purchase back the property we sold to ODOT back in the
early 70s and use this property to build Circle 8 and the
owners’ only golf course that was in John Gray’s original
plan for Sunriver. Some might argue that this is too radical
of an idea which is the same argument that folks made 15
years ago when we were proposing to build SHARC.
CTF ensures Sunriver Resort pays its fair share
By David and Stefani Shanberg
Voting “Yes” on the Capital Transfer Fee ensures Sunriver
Resort pays its fair share. Sunriver Resort is expected to cast
its large block of votes against the CTF, so homeowners
must come out in force to vote “Yes.”
The CTF applies equally to Sunriver Resort, commercial
properties, and residential properties. After careful consideration, the one-time, proportionate CTF is the best
long-term funding solution. It provides ongoing funds
critical for enhancing amenities and protecting property
values. The Reserve Fund is for replacing and maintaining
existing SROA assets.
The alternatives of raising maintenance fees or imposing
multiple special assessments are inferior. Neither is proportionate to property value. Raising similar funds through
maintenance fees (nearly $200 per property each year)
would require an overall 14% increase for homeowners
and would not apply equally to Sunriver Resort. Under
an existing agreement, Sunriver Resort’s maintenance
fee increases are capped at 4%. As owners have differing
priorities among potential projects, special assessments for
individual projects are unlikely to gain the broad support
necessary for approval.
Doing nothing is not a strategy. Without investment in
new amenities, Sunriver risks becoming less competitive
with nearby communities, costing owners far more in
property values than the CTF.
By Clark Pederson
Turn to Letters, page 38
JULY 2026 SUNRIVER SCENE
Page 37
