Opinion: Fields Club Looks to Amberfield and Riverfield for a Bailout

After attending one of the joint Fields Club - Amberfield HOA - Riverfield HOA info meetings and studying the materials provided, it became clear to me that the Fields Club has not fully explored all available options to address their financial shortfall issue. The Fields Club has convinced the Amberfield and Riverfield HOA Boards to support mandatory membership in the Fields Club for all Amberfield and Riverfield homeowners, with an increase in annual dues of 375%! While it seems simple to some to force the non-swimming, non-tennis-playing residents of Amberfield and Riverfield to provide funding to rescue the Fields Club, there are alternatives that should be implemented before resorting to the heavy-handed ‘solutions’ presented at the meetings.

The Fields Club’s poor financial condition is not a new issue. In 2011 the Amberfield HOA Board surveyed its membership to obtain factual information to assist them in evaluating this issue. The results of that survey were clear; AHOA members believed at that time that those who wish to be members of the Fields Club should pay their own way. Since that time, AHOA members continue to ‘talk with their checkbooks’ and what they have said is unambiguous. 43% of Amberfield HOA members are Fields Club members. 57% are not. Only 50% of new Amberfield homeowners join the Fields Club. The conclusion is obvious. The majority of AHOA members DO NOT WANT TO JOIN THE FIELDS CLUB!!!

Arguments that Amberfield and Riverfield home values will crater if all HOA members are not forced to join the Fields Club are difficult to support with facts. Linnfield’s HOA has opted out of the ‘force everyone to pay’ solution. Are homes in Linnfield appreciably less valuable because there is no mandatory club? The facts do not bear this out. Perhaps Linnfield homes are more valuable to prospective buyers because there is no mandatory swim/tennis fee! Many Peachtree Corners area swim/tennis clubs are available if a homeowner wishes to join, but membership is not required. The Atlanta Athletic Club, Peachtree Station, etc. are all open to the public, regardless of where they live. It is clear, however, that the Linnfield HOA is protecting the interests of its members by refusing to consider this action. The Amberfield and Riverfield HOA Boards should follow their example until and unless they can reliably determine the desires of their respective members.

The Fields Club Board has once again looked to Amberfield and Riverfield to provide the funding that they have not collected over the years from their members. The FC Board, however, refuses to even consider a dues increase. When asked at an Info Meeting, their response was, “We raised dues $75 in 2007 and lost nearly 100 members! If we increase dues we will lose more members!” Perhaps the “Great Recession,” record unemployment, and many Club members losing their jobs and sometimes homes, may have had a little more to do with the member loss than a $75 dues increase?

The Amberfield HOA Board has stated its support for a requirement to force 57% of its members (265+/- families) to pay an additional $550 in mandatory HOA dues each year to fund a separate club they have chosen not to join. Their neighbors (200+/- families) who have chosen to be Fields Club members will enjoy a $200 per year reduction in combined annual Fields Club and AHOA dues - at the expense of their non-swimming, non-tennis playing neighbors. It is premature for the AHOA Board to support a heavy-handed bailout of the Fields Club when the Fields Club has not even attempted to bring dues for its current members up to an appropriate level. The Amberfield HOA Board’s announcement of its ‘official’ position long before soliciting input from the AHOA membership was, and is unwarranted, and was made prior to even administering the latest survey. Asking for a 375% annual dues increase at this time, which is in opposition to the latest (2011) survey results, is insupportable.

The Fields Club leadership proudly states that dues have not been increased for 9 years. While raising dues is unpleasant for the members, inflation continues, and the ‘real’ value of the dues paid erodes over time. If dues had been increased only to keep pace with inflation, 2014 dues should be $940.00 per family per year. (Source: U. S. Consumer Price Index). Dues should have been increased gradually over the past years. If that had happened the average annual increase would have been less than 3% per year -around $30.

Not considering the ‘lost’ or eroded funds not collected by not increasing dues to keep pace with inflation over the last 9 years, raising 2015 dues to the inflation-adjusted level will result in dues revenues of $343,100 per year. This exceeds the ‘target level’ Fields Club Operating Budget of $340,000 indicated in the presentation. For dues revenue to deliver the ‘Desired State’ of $380,000 per year (indicated in the presentation) would require dues to be raised to $1,041 per Fields Club member family per year. This is an 11% increase over the inflation-adjusted $940 level. Interestingly, this is very nearly the same figure as those of comparable neighborhoods in the Amberfield area. This fact makes arguments that raising Fields Club dues to this level is unreasonable very difficult to support.

While quantifying the revenue that ‘should’ have been collected if dues had been historically increased to keep pace with inflation is complicated, it is clear that those revenues would have been sufficient to pay for the capital improvements currently seen as required by the FC Board. In fact, the total amount of dues not collected over the previous 9 years approaches $440,000. (Yes, that number is $440,000. I’m happy to share the calculations.) This would have been more than sufficient to fund the necessary capital improvements, operating budgets, etc. over this period, and would have provided for a healthy financial reserve. The math makes it clear that for nearly a decade Fields Club members have enjoyed dues that have been kept lower than they should have been when measured by any valid criteria. Dues have not been increased to keep pace with inflation; they have not been adjusted for changing demographics, they are lower than comparable area neighborhoods, and have not been sufficient to provide for the ongoing needs of the Club. The actions or inactions of Fields Club Boards, past and present, and by extension, the Fields Club members who elected them, have created this situation. The 57% of Amberfield Homeowners who are not Fields Club members have no liability for anything concerning the Fields Club, yet the Amberfield HOA Board is actively working to force them to pay up - enforceable through a lien which could cause them to lose their home.

Prior to the consideration of ANY Fields Club bailout, the Amberfield HOA Board should insist that the Fields Club look to its membership for a solution and increase dues to an appropriate level. Ignoring the inflation arguments, comparable area neighborhoods have dues levels around $1,000 per year. An increase to this level will provide funding near the Club’s ‘Desired State’ of $380,000 per year. Fields Club members, 365 families who benefit from club membership, will pay an additional $250 to $300 per year. The argument that current Fields Club members cannot afford a $250 per year increase in dues for their club while 265+/- Amberfield residents (who are not Fields Club members, by choice) should be forced to pony up an extra $550 for a club they don’t use - is asinine.

It is also illustrative to consider the hypothetical situation where the Fields Club becomes financially insolvent, to the point that the facilities are abandoned and the club is dissolved. While raising Fields Club dues to an appropriate level will likely prevent this situation, what if “the worst happens”? A reasonable scenario is that after an affirming vote, the facility in Amberfield would be annexed by the Amberfield HOA and dues would be raised to support the facility. The Riverfield facility would be similarly ceded to the Riverfield HOA. In this scenario, assuming the budget for each of the two facilities is half that of the current Club, annual revenues of approximately $180,000 would be required by each HOA. An assessment of around $400 per Amberfield homeowner would be required to support that budget. Riverfield would be in much worse shape, requiring an assessment of around $1,800 per home. This certainly explains why many of the Riverfield HOA members support the “force-everyone-to-join” plan.

The Amberfield HOA Board has a fiduciary responsibility to maintain the integrity of the Amberfield HOA, and to serve and protect the interests of its members - as defined by the governing documents (which I helped author). Advocating for the Fields Club is clearly inappropriate. I applaud the current Amberfield Board’s attempts to solicit input from its members, and hope that the results will be carefully considered, and the Board will act in accord with the expressed desires of the membership.

I recognize that this is a contentious issue, and mine is not necessarily the prevailing opinion. I hope, however, that my neighbors who choose to weigh in here will strive to ‘disagree without being disagreeable’.