Reasons why Sunriver Homeowners should Vote NO on the Special Election Ballot

Ballot Measure Items

1. Once the Common Area land is sold it is Lost Forever.

2. The Sunriver Consolidated Plan should be left intact, including the very important provision to NOT allow the sale of Common Areas.  As stated by Ted Smith A.I.A. Sunriver Resident Architect and Development Manager during the early years of Sunriver (including the planning and construction of the original Village Mall) "Common land was intended to be and should remain sacrosanct.  It was deeded to each property owner with his purchase and should not be taken away for any reason." (Full Ted Smith A.I.A. Letter)
   

3. The Sale Agreement does not direct that SilverStar use the property for development benefiting the Village and there is no "reverter clause".  Without a reverter clause there is nothing within the Agreement that would prevent SilverStar from selling the property to a third party and in the case of any other event - such as bankruptcy or insolvency - the property does not return to the SROA but would be under the control of a trustee who would sell it to the higest bidder with no stipulations on use or development.

4. The sales price is far too low:
   1. The price is based upon an appraisal conducted by SilverStar’s appraisers, PGP Valuation, whose valuation report was determined by the SROA’s own consultants, Bratton Appraisal Group, to not be credible. (Link to Bratton Appraisal Review).
      

   2. No independent appraisal was ever conducted by the SROA even though Bill Chapman stated in a letter requesting a proposal for such an appraisal that “The SROA Board has a fiduciary responsibility to the Sunriver Owners Association to ensure fair compensation for their land.”(Link to Bill Chapman Letter). Further Scott Hartung, then SROA Board president, prior to Mr. Chapman’s request for this independent appraisal stated in a letter to John Goodman of SilverStar “We have instructed staff to hire an independent appraisal of the SROA parcels.  We believe such an appraisal is necessary to determine appropriate compensation to be received by SROA for the sale of the property given our conclusion that the PGP Valuations appraisal is an inadequate basis for such a determination.  We also believe such an appraisal will allow our owners to conclude that the SROA Board has pursued a proper course in determining the value of SROA property and that such a conclusion is a requirement for voter support of a land sales agreement.”(Link to S. Hartung Letter)  Although a proposal for the independent appraisal was received by the SROA on July 26, 2007, and a deposit was made for the work, an independent appraisal has never been presented by the SROA Board.  This is despite the assertions by Scott Hartung that it was needed by owners and was a “requirement for voter support”.  It would appear the SROA Board did not pursue the actions even they believed were necessary to protect the owners and assure them of fairness.

   3. The appraisal value obtained by SilverStar within the Sale Agreement for the subject property is not based upon its value under its intended use (the proposed Town Center zoning designation) which allows for high-density residential.  It is based upon the much lower value commercial use designation.  On top of this comparable land purchases made by SilverStar within the Village were not even used as comparables, only lower valued sales in Bend and Redmond and the Willamette Valley.  It also greatly discounted the value of some of the parcels and classifies them as plottage land and not developable.  Both of these actions were challenged by the SROA Board’s consultants as it was not well supported and discounted the valuations by up to 80%.  (Links to Bratton Appraisal Review and B. Chapman Appraisal Comments)
      

   4. As a reference the amount proposed for the purchase of the SROA property, most of which borders Abbot Drive making it a  prime location, is well under 40% of what SilverStar paid for the other mall property.

   5. Further SilverStar has up to four years to finalize closing on the property sales; the first purchase is to close within two years, while there is no provision for any change in price to account for property appreciation during this period.  It is essentially an option to purchase set at an already below market rate: it is a windfall for SilverStar.

5. There is no requirement for SilverStar to upgrade any of the recreational facilities within Sunriver that the owners and guests of the almost 600 new high-rise condos will be utilizing.  In fact a large portion, if not all, of the funds provided by the sale of the Common Areas will be used to upgrade facilities because of overuse.

6. By voting NO it will take our 6.38 acres out of the village mall redevelopment area and effectively reduce the number of allowed new residential units by 140 (reducing the total allowed residential unit amount from 583 to 443).

7. By voting NO it will save the Common Areas that serve as a buffer between Abbot Drive and the Mall area.  The current SilverStar proposal reduces setbacks to as little as 10 feet and builds a multi-story parking structure for the entrance to the Village – and this is the first impression that most visitors get of Sunriver.

8. Voting NO will not stop the mall redevelopment. It will help to reduce the scope of the new residential component and maintains current common areas that serve as effective setbacks.

Proposal Related Items

9. The current proposal has very little to do with a new mall – it is essentially a high-rise high-density 600 unit housing project.  There has been almost no discussion as to SilverStar’s retail mall management experience or their plan to attract and retain new tenants.  Additionally they have not stated what they will do with the existing tenants that would need to be eliminated to make room for the new, and yet unnamed, tenants as the current 120,000 sq. ft. under lease can be reduced to only 85,000 sq. ft. under the proposal.  The net effect of the SilverStar proposal would be to allow almost 600 condo units and to allow retail to be reduced by 35,000 sq. ft. from what is already under lease.

10. The proposal is entirely inconsistent with the views expressed by owners in the Long Range Plan adopted by the SROA in 2000.  The owners surveys listed the top two threats to Sunriver as: “Overuse of the outdoor facilities, natural and man made”, and “Overbuilding and loss of peaceful atmosphere.”  Clearly the current mall proposal has a direct impact on both of these threats.

11. The Sunriver Strategic Plan, undertaken by an outside firm with funding from the SROA Board and eight Sunriver rental management companies, which was prepared in late 2005 stated many goals for Sunriver.  Of the four Physical Improvements mentioned Retail Facilities was the FOURTH!  Nothing is being done related to the first two items, a community center and covered pool, yet the SROA Board is spending an enormous amount of time and money to push through the new mall redevelopment.  Also nowhere in the consultant’s findings do they mention the need for high-rise high-density condos or for time-share units.  They actually do mention that vacation homes, not hotel rooms, remain the preferred type of accommodation in Central Oregon – so why the need for a 75+ foot high hotel?

12. There have been no adequate independent professional studies done on the impacts of the proposal on traffic, parking, our recreational facilities, or environmental impacts.

13. The construction will go on for many, many years with full buildout not estimated until 2020.

14. The problems of fire prevention have not yet been resolved.  The Sunriver Fire Department and SilverStar have had meetings the challenges of well over 40 buildings 45 feet or higher is a substantial one that affects everyone within Sunriver (and may be well beyond the scope of just one new ladder truck).

15. There has been no study of fire evacuation taking into account the proposed new residences.

16. The SROA Board has, and continues, to proceed in a manner which is far from transparent.  Their extensive use of Executive Sessions allows them to meet in private and have no public record of their discussions or actions.  In order for SaveSunriver.org to obtain the documents related to the appraisals above Save Sunriver’s attorneys had to issue a Demand Letter to the SROA.

17. The proposal, which adds almost 600 units, is detrimental to the existing owners of rental properties (the rental companies may benefit, but not the rental owners).  By adding one the of the largest developments in Central Oregon – in terms of residential units – right in the middle of Sunriver how can that benefit existing rental homeowners (especially of smaller homes that would have to compete directly with these new units)?

18. The SROA Board, even more than one year after entering into the binding agreement with SilverStar, has only now begun performing due diligence investigation on SilverStar and the results of that investigation have not been published.  This is even though the public record related to SilverStar’s main financial backer, Jon Harder, is troubled. (Link to SilverStar Info page)
    

19. SilverStar has no experience developing or managing a mall or a redevelopment of this kind or scope.  The only references listed by members of the SilverStar team relate to ski area developments, far different than Sunriver and its rich history and unique challenges.

20. SilverStar has shown no willingness to reduce or change their current proposal, even though the majority of the owner's letters and statements have requested a more moderate proposal as well as direct questions from the Deschutes County Planning Commission.  This “all or nothing” approach is not in the best interests of Sunriver nor in the spirit SilverStar has portrayed in their communications.