Such_a_brett

@scotchipman I agree, keeping costs below $20/set would be great. The intent is not to make a profit on the use charge. The intent is to break even and prevent the heavy users of the boats from leaching off the other residents. The reality is that those who don't use the boats at all are already paying an equal share of the boat and insurance. If it wasn't for the driver charge, each residence would only be paying $20/month for a brand new high end boat. That is ridiculous. The one caveat is that we cannot have some monkey running said boat into the shoreline, so a certified and insured driver must be paid. It could work out that $11/set is too much pay. Maybe fuel ends up around $6/set, maintenance $1/set, and we can find quality drivers for $8/set. If that is the case, I have no problem charging $15/set. I just don't want to be in a situation where the HOA board has to assess special HOA dues on everyone because we undercharged for use.

The problem is that most people are used to amortizing the expense of this hobby over an entire year. They are paying for the boat 24/7/365, so in this context they feel like they are only paying $0.07/set. It's the sunk cost syndrome. People don't usually bother to add up all the unused sets and apply the expense to the rides they actually take. Every time I do the math it comes out to more than $22/set. Again, walk out my back door and jump on a brand new GS20 with a quality driver three times a week, for less than 2 months worth of boat payments and insurance? And I don't have to trailer, clean, or maintain the boat? Sign me up baby!

@oldjeep I already addressed this concern in a previous post. But go ahead and break it down further yourself... The fuel is the fuel regardless of setting. When pulling a rider I went with the assumption of 13gph and a $3/gal fuel cost. That comes out to $7.8 per 12 minute set. They are paying that whether skiing this private lake or the local pond. If the fuel is less than that, we'd charge less, but currently it isn't. Maintenance also costs money regardless. Boats are subject to wear and tear and have to be cleaned and maintained. The hypothetical family in your post would be contributing ~$700 per year towards upkeep. Do you think they'd be spending less than that on their own boat? That would be less than 1% of the value of the boat. The above costs are going to be incurred regardless of circumstance unless playing for free on a friend's boat. The remaining use fee is for the driver. The hypothetical family here is spending a total of ~$2900 per year on the boat/driver/insurance package. Are you claiming that this same family in real life would expect to spend less than that for their boat and insurance? I mean, maybe if they bought a 12 year old boat.

@oldjeep No, it is paying for a pro rata portion of the upkeep on amenities and a pro rata portion of the boat depreciation/insurance. The intent is to have the boats owned and operated by an independent charter company that will operate out of the community boat house rent free. The HOA will pay a fixed membership fee of about $6500/month to the Charter Co; SFR (single family residences) will be contributing $20/month towards that membership fee which is only meant to cover boat depreciation, insurance, and minimal overhead. Use fee of about $22 per set (+tips) pays for driver, fuel, and boat cleaning/maintenance. I'm figuring $8/set for fuel, about $3/set capex allocation toward maintenance, and $11/set for driver. The lions' share of amenity expenses are born by the MFR (multi-family); only 1/3 of lake, grounds, and amenity upkeep is born by the SFR. I've estimated this at about $55/month. The breakdown there is about $25/month to vertical upkeep (structures), and $30/month to horizontal upkeep (lakes and grounds). You gotta realize that the multifamily portion is completely self-sustaining. If I just did another typical garden style condo resort with 200 units (no lakes) it would still have a pool area, clubhouse, gym, offices, parks, etc. All of this would be nearly identical to what is proposed with the lake concept and it wouldn't need a contribution from the additional 112 SFR to achieve a 60% net operating income on rents. In the lake project, the SFR and MFR groups are just lightening each others load. The MFR amenities that would've been included anyway get an additional $33,000/per year from the SFR, and the SFR doesn't have to pay $300/month to maintain the lakes and additionally has access to desirable amenities that wouldn't otherwise exist.

@cfgunnell I welcome any input you have! We actually won't have a problem with Army Corp of engineers because we aren't building a dam like you did. Flat land with clay soils, just digging a giant pit in a controlled fashion. In terms of construction, yes it will be hired out. So we won't be running into problems of not having the right experience or equipment to execute the plan. A benefit of doing a large high-density resort community is that it doesn't need to be done on a shoestring budget. Far more people bearing the expense, both initial and ongoing. Obviously, I'm not looking to throw money away, but I won't be grabbing a friend with an old D7 and moving dirt around for 4 months. Intended location is in Cache County, Utah. Where are you? Are you guys the ones who did Last Chance Lakes?

@Wayne It seems like Hidden Lake is designed to have multiple boats running at once. Is that true, and doesn't it really get choppy on them?

@man0seven I look forward to your continued input. Feel free to be honest. Our ultimate targets are; $185k waterfont lot price (ave) $75 per month HOA Comp level boats and drivers provided Large community dock/beach area with swimming pools, hot tubs, BBQ, TV, firepits, boathouse/lounge, observation deck, etc Resident lockers/showers Full size gym and clubhouse Full time property management and grounds crew

@BraceMaker I completely agree! Unless someone is doing advanced inverted tricks, the vast majority of people don't need to bring out the big guns. Once you eliminate surfing, most boats we are talking about serve an all-around objective pretty well. IMO, most would be very happy with Malibu 20VTX, MC XT20, SN GS20, etc. Only the most hard core skiers would complain.

@eleeski The short answer to your question is that this is first and foremost a resort development with a unique draw. Not unlike a private golf community, but with better ROI. I'm a developer, and would not even be considering this if the return was much better just building townhomes on cheap land. But, I prefer to develop projects that I can be proud of. The lakes are meant mostly for the weekend warrior crowd. I don't ever intend to host events. They need to be more than adequate for slalom and wakeboard, because those are the main demo. Doesn't need to be able to accommodate surfing. I want deep enough to satisfy the wakeboarders, but not so deep it kills the skiers. 10-11ft seems about right. I agree with you that surfing is a fad and mostly popular because water conditions typically suck and it is more forgiving. In reality it is kinda boring if you are advanced at either skiing or wakeboarding. Wakeboarding is hard on the body, but it's the kids of the money who fill that demo. Sure, dad might slalom, but he buys a house on the lake for the 3 teenage kids. We intend to have designated time slots that are no-wake recreation. It's easy to control when the only boats allowed are charter boats operated by charter employees. We can even block out an hour right in the middle of a saturday without worrying about some jerk running people over to steal a set. Water isn't a concern at all. It is very cheap here and water rights are plentiful. We don't get much rain (second driest state) but we get a heavy snowpack that fills a huge aquifer.

Interesting feedback from local real estate brokers... they are very disappointed that we plan to retain and lease the condos rather than build and sell. Universally, the feedback is that they would be a very hot commodity and would likely all pre-sell before buildings are completed. But as of now we are looking at those being more of a long term play unless it is decided later that we cannot charge sufficient rents.

@owennibley thanks for the clarification. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. We are definitely still figuring out the best density and use dynamics. This will certainly need to be well managed in terms of scheduling and pricing. One thing to keep in mind is that many people buy waterfront property without any intention of using the water. Historically, it is a very good investment with great appreciation. In terms of water use, I would do the math in general terms like this on a monthly basis... Over decades of observation our region gets on average 353 hours per month of direct sunlight during waterski season. Higher during June, July, and Aug. Lower during late-Apr, May, Sep, and early-Oct. It doesn't do a lot of good to apply daily or weekly periods to the population because you have to use the most applicable periodicity. IOW, on one extreme we would use hours as the period and say, "there are 1,000 residents and only 10 available sets, so 990 residents are left unsatisfied." On the other extreme we say, "there are 21,000 available sets per season, so everyone gets 21 sets." Obviously both of those are unrealistic. It seems that the most realistic periodicity is monthly because a large portion of residents would struggle to get on the water weekly, but would enjoy use at some point during the month. (353 sun hours per month) * (5 sets per hour) * (2 lakes) = 3,530 possible sets per month. I think your example is optimistic regarding anticipated use per person. If there were 1,000 residents, I believe fewer than 100 will attempt to maintain your suggested schedule of 2 sets per week. Best of intentions, but life and ambition get in the way. I can literally start naming off families with boats that see the water less than twice a month. When I go boating with them, we typically spend about 6 hours on the water and everyone on average gets about 2 sets in. Some adults get zero and some kids do 3 or 4. During my 15 minute sets I spend about 50% of the ride time bouncing through rough water, unable to attempt anything serious. (10 minutes on glass where I can ride full out and I'm spent) Getting back to the demo analysis... I believe that about 500 of 1000 will virtually never have a ski or board touch their feet; too old, too young, too out of shape, too busy, traveling during summer, etc. Another 200-ish are light use and will average two sets a month. So 70% of residents will graciously occupy about 11% of available sets, completely satisfied with their personal access. I assume there are about 50 of 1000 who will average 7 sets per week. They will consume 40% of available ride time. That leaves about 25% of residents in the modest usage category. I'm sure it's a sliding scale, but I would anticipate desire within this group to average about 4 sets per month (equivalent to going boating twice a month). With those assumptions, we have already eliminated bad weather (including overcast but not raining) and we are at 79% use. Reviewing the numbers I think that I might even be aggressive in my usage assumptions. Keep in mind that there will be use fees per set. If 2 people in a household average 4 sets each per month, that'll be about $160/month. The diehards getting in 28 sets per month would be spending $560/month/person. The cost will certainly reduce usage to some extent, despite the fact that for virtually everyone it is still cheaper than owning a private boat and making trips to the lake. Your point about evenings and weekends is valid. The evenings, weekends, and holidays only make up 55% of total availability if scheduled perfectly. There will absolutely be times where people would like to get a set or two but the schedule is full. But keep in mind that we are proposing lots at very reasonable prices. If people want perfect conditions with unlimited availability, they can spend $350-450k for the lot and $75K+ for a boat to be at one of the low density private lakes. We are targeting $185K for the lots with boats provided.

@owennibley thanks for the input, but I don't understand your post fully. You correctly identify that even on weeknights the local lakes (reservoirs) are pretty much at capacity, which creates terrible conditions. But from that you infer low demand for private lakes with near perfect conditions. Wouldn't the general overcrowded nature of public venues here create higher demand for private venues? Why would the opposite be true?

@mjnelson it's funny that you mention american wave machines. My first plan included a 2 acre wave pool from them, very similar to the one at BSR in Waco. In fact, we are currently drafting up plans for a resort community with 2 ski lakes and a wave lake like that, but in a warmer location. We were concerned about the short season here being able to support the expense of a wave lake.

@oldjeep i personally think the prevalence of surfing is directly correlated with prevailing water conditions. Contrary to popular opinion, even wake sports prefer smooth water whever available. Novice riders don't really notice the difference but advanced or expert wakeboarders essentially want the same conditions that slalom wants. It's really difficult to do advanced wake tricks when there are rollers everywhere. Surfing, like tubing, is plan B. If there is too much chop, break out the tubes and add to the chaos. I guess surfing also has the appeal of being much easier than the other disciplines. But I still think surfing evolved as a way to overcome poor water conditions common at most public sites.

@Kelvin @BraceMaker I don't mind giving up surf, just can't give up wakeboarding. Surfing is just for messing around, but wakeboarding is by far the biggest demo out here.

@6balls I don't think you understand the reality. There are no public lakes to live on here.

@OBXtoFl thanks for the input. It sounds like surfing is just going to be a no go. We aren't willing to dig that deep and it would make the skiing worse anyway.

@MISkier it is probably the sand I'm talking about. The silica composition and strength of that sand makes it perfect for fracking so it sells at a premium. Wisconsin mines a lot of it. If there are any cranberry fields nearby, then it's exactly what I'm talking about.

@gar you could be right that 1500 hours might be too used to sell easily. In my experience, 300 hours is like new still on the high end boats. I think they could get easily to 800 hours with a charter service before they begin to lose their resell appeal. Most boats I'm familiar with can transfer the warranty to 2nd owner but not third. We had intended to pick up slightly used boats, so resell to 3rd owner would void warranty.

@BraceMaker I agree with your thoughts on the limited access permits. I really dislike the idea of creating different classes of residents, those with water access and those without. I prefer to use scheduling and price dynamics to regulate boat use. Simple things like: -Must schedule on app, but can have front office schedule for you. -10 minute sets and you must be waiting and ready with gear when your time slot starts. -Standby list FCFS for no-shows, but you've gotta be ready at the dock either in lounge, observation, or pool areas. -No more than 2 consecutive sets from the same household can be booked more than 3 hours before start times. -Can book up to a month out, but can't have more than 3 time slots booked on same day until day of. -Useage fees are $1.50/minute during normal times, $2.00/minute during peak days/times. -Auto text alerts sent out 60 minutes before bookings. Cancellations allowed up to 12 hours prior. No shows billed 50%. This is all standard mechanisms for keeping people honest, responsible, and fair.

@MISkier that would make much more sense. Is that area by chance loaded with high grade silica sand used for oil fracking?

@MISkier thanks for the info. I looked up and analyzed that project after you mentioned it. I don't want to offend anyone, but I could've pointed out numerous problems from the start. Their lots were WAY to shallow to allow any sort of design flexibility. The lot frontage was also too narrow to attract the proper buyers, and the duplexes seem to be an afterthought that ruins the cohesion of the development. Now they've recovered by creating an inefficient lake that is essentially wasting 6 acres of land and increasing hoa costs at a detriment to water conditions. Also looks like the excavation is being done by amateurs or someone who doesn't have the budget or equipment to do it right. IMO, the proper way to do high density is resort style. They have to know their audience, and if the target demo really was starter home duplex buyers, they really should've reconsidered the project. They'll end up attracting a bunch of residents who are constantly at risk of skipping out on the HOA dues, making it hard on everyone else and running noisy outboard boats tearing up the lake and ruining the desired tranquillity. Our development CCRs and design review committee will create a Lake Tahoe meets Park City Resorts cohesion. Even with relatively modest lot prices, I anticipate average home values in our development will be about $600-800K. Condos will rent for $1100, $1400, or $1700/month depending on whether they are 1, 2, or 3 bdrm and should have an NOI of 61%. The resort setup allows for the necessary operational staff to make high density luxury work. 112 high end homes and 210 luxury resort condos is much different than 200 starter homes and duplexes.

@wart thanks for the input. We are actually about an hour north of SLC, but I'm familiar with Daybreak. My understanding of that area is that it is primarily sandy silt. If they didn't truck in clay, i'm sure water retention is difficult. Compare that with Stillwater in Syracuse. Well chosen site with sticky clay soils and 3 water sources. HOA fees are minimal there. @scotchipman would know all about that. As I drive through my neighborhood, its amazing how many $100k wakesetters I see sitting on trailers. I also know they don't get out on the water more than about twice a month. That's a lot of money for less than 75 hours of use per year. As a developer, I've noticed something about most lake developments. It is typically just a guy with a dream of having a private ski lake to live on. His approach is to sell just enough lots or shares to keep things affordable. My approach is to create something highly desirable to a broad demographic and do it large enough that it will be accessible to people within that demo.

From my perspective, the biggest drawback to community boats is that occasionally I might still want to take the family down to Lake Powell for a week or something. Would be nice if the HOA had a spare boat for offsite rental. Would completely eliminate my desire to have my own boat.

@oldjeep My brother lives in the Minneapolis suburbs but is from Utah. He talks about lakes and water like we talk about mountains. Here, everyone I speak with has a gorgeous view lot on the hillside with world class rock climbing, hiking, 4X4, snow skiing, etc. right at their fingertips. A residential lot like that will fetch a $10-20K premium. But there is only one natural lake nearby. It is 50 minutes away and water temp is 55 degrees. There are few waterfront houses because the shorline fluctuates 600ft in and out with changing water levels. All other boating water is small reservoirs with the surrounding land owned by the city/county. The few waterfront homes are only really waterfront Apr-June. After that, the water gets used up for irrigation because we don't get measurable rain for about 60-90 days. By end of July, the floating docks are dangling in the dirt and residents are walking 300ft+ through the weeds to reach the water. Actual waterfront is very valuable here. I think it's like when I visit San Diego and see a little 1,000sf surf shack on the boardwalk for millions of dollars. Who would pay millions for a beat up shack, within 2 feet of the neighbor's beat up shack, and access to a beach with very mediocre waves and freezing cold water? Different strokes...