Specifically, he wants to know if Living With Your Plane has information on annual home owner fees charged airpark lot owners. Residents of Indian River currently pay $900 per year and Lars is concerned that is too low.

Following is a slide (click image for larger version) from the presentation Dave Sclair made at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh this past summer.

As you can see, there is a wide range of fees.

Post your comments or current examples below. Be sure to include the airpark on which you reside.

Homeowner fees

And, in the case of some real estate professionals, multiple sales were recorded on the same form. For example, one real estate professional indicated the sale of two homes and six lots during the last year. The end result is that it appears we received information on about 35 to 40 transactions.

Our survey was designed to discover whether residential airpark properties were suffering a sales slowdown like much of the residential market in many areas of the country. We also sought information on how long a property had been on the market, how the asking and selling price compared, the price range of the property and whether there were plenty of lookers for the property.At least 20 undeveloped lots were reported sold among the transactions reported. An airpark home with hangar (whether it was integrated into the house or a separate structure), came in second with at least half a dozen sales reported while homes or hangar only sales were considerably less, two in each category.

The purchase price for 28.6 percent of the properties was less than $100,000 and a like percentage reported a price of $100,001 to $200,000. Another quarter of the respondents claimed a transaction at the $200,001 to $350,000 category. Three sales were reported in the $350,001 to $500,000 class, There was one reported sale each at $500,001 to $750,000 and $750,001 to $1 million.

Survey respondents reported the property they were involved with was on the market for longer than a year in just under 40 percent of the cases. In contrast, 32 percent said their properties were listed for less than 3 months. Five properties were listed from 3 to 6 months and another three places were sold in 7 to 12 months.

The survey asked buyers how many properties they had visited before making a deal. Nearly 80 percent of the buyers reported visiting 1 to 5 properties before deciding which one to purchase. Another 16 percent reported visiting more than 10 properties in their search for the perfect residential airpark property.

Financing the purchase was primarily with cash. Eleven survey respondents (58%)reported paying cash for their purchase while almost 37 percent said they used conventional or VA financing. Only one reported the seller financed the deal.

Needless to say, with that high a percentage paying cash, the financing aspect of the deal was extremely simple for most people.

Sellers had a somewhat different view of the number of visitors to their property. Nearly 37% said their property was viewed by 1 to 5 prospects. There were 6 to 10 visitors at 45.5 percent of the airpark properties sold and over 18 percent of those completing the survey as a seller said they had more than 10 visits to study their property.

When the property was sold, there were four equal segments of reductions from the asking price. A quarter of the respondents said they cut the price less than $10,000; a second quarter had to reduce their asking price between $10,000 and $25,000 while a third quarter took a $25,000 - $50,000 markdown. The final group reported slashing the price by more than $100,000 to make the sale.

Although we have no way of knowing one way or another, we assume this larger price cut was related to a home sale at the upper end of the price schedule.

Finally, 45 percent of transactions were made utilizing a real estate professional and 55 percent claimed they did not use a real estate salesperson.

The responses came from Arizona. California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

One Florida individual said it was his opinion that seller prices in his area had dropped about 20 percent. “However, most sellers are not panicking or dropping prices and seem confident things will be moving after the election in November.”

As a result of the survey responses, it appears to us that residential airpark properties - homes with integrated hangars, stand-alone home and free standing hangars - all continue to sell at about the same rate they have been for the last few years. The amount of time on the market and the number of folks checking the properties out also seems to be about the same as previosuly reported. It doesn’t appear that the sub-prime market meltdown has had any effect on the fly-in community.

The number of properties sold and the length of time they stay on the market seems to be more a condition of the number of possible buyers in any particular section of the country rather than anything else. There just aren’t as many individuals looking to buy a home on a residential airpark as they are folks interested in living on a golf course, as a comparison.

As always, we welcome your comments and ideas and of course, if your residential airpark isn’t listed or if you have information about other fly-in communities in the state for which we’re reporting, or any other state, let us know by filling in this form with the appropriate infomration.

Georgia counts 27 airparks with three of them currently in planning or under construction. The earliest state facility, Pinewood Airpark, opened in 1967 at Douglasville, GA.

Virtually all of those under construction report their lots will be less than an acre while only one established airpark says its lots are less then an acre. There are 24 fly-in communities in the LWYP database reporting residential lots of an acre or more.

Heaven’s Landing at Clayton, opened in 2002 has the distinction of having the largest number of residential lots on a Georgia airpark - 300. Only one other airpark in the state lays claim to more than 150 lots. Most airparks report less then 20 lots - 11 of them while five each report between 21 and 35 and 36 to 50. There are three state airparks with between 51 and 100 lots each.

Runways are predominately paved. With 25 airparks showing the surface of their runways, 18 indicate they are unpaved while seven have paving. Heaven’s Landing’s paved runway is 5,069 feet, which is the longest in the state. One other airpark has a 4,500 foot paved strip. Five fly-in communities claim runways 2000 feet or less and six others report strips over 3,000 feet. The majority, 15 of them, are between 2100 and 3000 feet long, according to the LWYP database.

Following airparks and city reported as open (click here for a list with links to airpark details):

• Aiken Field, Pendergrass
• Ayresouth Fly-in Community, Temple
• Berry Hill - Kitty Hawk sub-division, Stockbridge
• Blue Mountain Airpark, Trion
• Broad River Airpark, Lavonia
• Brook Bridge Aerodrome, Griffin
• Cedar Ridge, Griffin
• Eagle Neck, Townsend
• Eagles Landing, Williamson
• Flying N Estates, Luthersville
• Gentle Landings, Roberta
• Heaven’s Landing, Clayton
• Jim’s Private Airpark, Conyers
• Kenley Park, Brooks
• Kenwood, Newborn
• Lenora Airport, Snellville
• Little Tobesofkee Creek Ranch, Barnesville
• Lyons Landing, Whitesburg
• Mallard’s Landing, Locust Grove
• Mathis Airport, Cumming
• Peach State Airpark, Williamson
• Plane Living Skypark, Fort Valley
• Spring Valley Farm, Loganville
• Whispering Pines Airpark, Conyers
• Following airparks and city are in planning or construction:
• Berg Park Aerodrome, Midway
• Hunter Aviation estates, Waynesville
• Spanish Creek, Folkston

As always, we welcome your comments and ideas and of course, if you have information about other residential airparks in Alaska or any other state, we urge you to contact us.

The Living With Your Plane Directory of Residential Airparks lists nine Alaska facilities. As you might expect for airparks in our most northern state, seven of the nine airparks report their home lots are more than one acre. Only two indicated they have home lots of less than an acre.

Among the airparks currently listed in the directory, only two of the nine have paved runways. The remainder are dirt or grass. The information provided by the developers or management of the airparks reveals that seven have obstructions in the approach and departure corridors, one claims nothing in the way and the ninth failed to provide us information one way or the other.

All the airparks report their home lots are on individual water wells and also on individual septic tanks. Building restrictions of one kind or another are in place at seven of the airpark properties while the other two indicate there are no limitations on what a person may or may not build on an individual lot.

Fuel isn’t available at any of the airparks.

The longest runway at any of the airparks in our directory is 2,600 feet. That’s reported at two airparks. Another one is listed at 2,587 feet. There’s one at 2,200 feet, three are 2,000 feet long, another is 1,750 feet and the shortest reports its runway is only 1075 feet. That airport’s elevation is listed at 120 MSL. The oldest airpark claims its history back to 1954 while the one that opened most recently did so in 2005. Other openings included one each in 1970, 1972, 1981, 1985, 1990 and 1994.

The nine airparks are as follows:

• Alaska Airpark at Sterling
• Anchor Point River Airpark at Anchor Point
• Flying Crown Airpark in Anchorage
• Honeybee Lake Aero Park at Willow
• Rustic Wilderness in Willow
• Shirley Lake at Willow
• Sky Ranch at Pioneer Peak in Palmer
• Wolf Lake Airport in Palmer
• Wright’s Airfield at North Pole

Incidentally, Alaska Airpark is the only one for which we have a website listed. It is:
www.AlaskaAirpark.com.

As we noted in first two articles, the responses came from 53 individuals representing 23 different states. Even better, none of the respondents came from the same fly-in community so that means we received a broad response.

In our first installment we discussed problems with airpark rules, animals running loose and people on the runway – taxiway. The second article covered attendance at homeowner association meetings, use of the runway by non-residents and noise complaints.

For this final report we’ll provide responses to our questions about non-aviation folks buying airpark lots, enforcement of architectural rules, allowing junk to accumulate on lots and commercial operations from residential airparks.

Properties being sold to non-aviation people

This is an issue that is becoming a problem at airparks, according to the survey results. More than half of the respondents – 53.1 percent to be exact – said they were seeing this as an issue on the horizon.

Another 12.2 percent said it was a very common problem at their airpark. Slightly more than one third of those completing the survey said sale of lots to non-aviation individuals hadn’t happened at their airpark.

Here are some comments:

“We try to discourage it, but not much can be done.”

“A few of our lots have been sold to non-aviators or wanna-be aviators. They may not have fully thought through the expense of aviation and the addition of a hangar to the cost of their home. This is causing the size and value of homes to be reduced, possibly affecting the value of current hangar homes.”

“Our Association is beginning to consider changing the by-laws to restrict ownership to aviation-only people.”

“Some of the buyers are car guys, who do not want to pay assessments or increased dues. A few are simply speculators (not very wise ones, I think).”

“A minority, but vocal. They seem to be disappointed that they can’t sell their houses that were never set up to accommodate pilots.”

“How do we stop this? How are other airparks dealing with this? How do other specialty developments, such a horse owner developments for instance, deal with this?”

“It happens, but has not caused any problems. People understand where they are buying.”

“Our CC&Rs prohibit selling to a non-pilot — at least one owner/buyer must be a pilot. Minimum pilot qualification is solo sign-off.”

“Occasionally a problem, but resolved by legal proceedings to enforce the restrictions.”

Is enforcement of architectural rules a problem?

There are frequent disputes over architectural situations at just under 4 percent of the airparks, according to the survey and the issue is increasing at another 23.5 percent.

Fortunately, 72.5 percent of the airparks from which we had completed surveys said the problem rarely comes up.

“Which rules, who says, why me, not the other guy and on and on” are issues that constantly come up at one airpark’s meetings as they regard architectural issues.”

“More lots are starting to sell, and with increased activity the committee is paying more attention to what requests are being submitted.”

“We’re wrestling with the definitions of ‘mobile home and manufactured housing’, not wanting any such things to be installed. However, it’s now water under the bridge because the first “manufactured home” was put in this summer and we were all (well most of us) up in arms with the architectural committee about their having approved it! We proceeded to stack the committee when it came time to fill 2 of the 3 positions later. Long story…!”

“Have only had two cases which were resolved in time.”

“We have strict covenants.”

“Good people, reasonable rules, it works”

“Our rules were ‘creatively’ enforced when the developer controlled the airpark and committees — he needed to sell lots. Now we’re more disciplined and we are getting cooperation from almost all neighbors.”

“We have just one lunatic trying to build a two-story ‘hangar’ adjacent to his one-story house. That is a no-no and we are in court over that now - 4 years so far.”

What about property owners allowing junk to accumulate?

With relatively large lots, some airparks are seeing this as a problem and at almost 6 percent of the residential airparks it is an on-going problem, our survey revealed.

Another 35.3 percent of the respondents said this wasn’t a big issue at their fly-in community and more than half 58.8 percent said it rarely happens.

“There’s always one that leaves junk.”

“Never an issue. Town rules are properly enforced”

“Some are borderline on what they’ve allowed to accumulate.”

“This is an on-going situation with just one or two neighbors.”

“Our airpark lots are tiny (1/4 acre) so there is scant room for much junk to accumulate outside the hangars in public view. Our community security patrol runs a tight ship here.”

“Every neighborhood has its slobs.”

“The problem occurs only from non-aircraft property owners. Can be handled through complaints to the Code Compliance office”

Our final survey question dealt with commercial operations from the residential airpark

The vast majority – 78.8 percent – reported that this wasn’t a problem at their fly-in community. There were 17.3 percent of the respondents that indicated it happens sometimes at their airpark and the problem was getting worse at 3.8 percent of the residential airparks.

“Not yet but it is a threat. Non owners adjacent to airstrip have been given access via their sub-division covenants. We fear that it may become a problem in the future.”

“This is currently a problem we are resolving. Commercial operations on a private airpark can cause you to lose your insurance.”

“We have a commercial ‘side’ to the airpark. We have 22 businesses in the airpark, and most are very welcome and advantageous. Where else can you annual your airplane, have maintenance performed, or buy fuel by just taxiing down the street.”

“Not a problem because this is a public use airport and these activities are expected by all lot owners. However, none of these activities are conducted by the lot owners as per the covenants and restrictions.”

As we reported in an earlier installment, the problems seem to be quite manageable. There are always going to be some problems, just as in any type neighborhood. However, it appears from these results that aviation people are doing a pretty good job of keeping their communities in good order.

As always, we look forward to reading your comments. You can add them by clicking on the comment button.

As we noted in our first piece, the responses came from 53 individuals representing 23 different states. Even better, none of the respondents came from the same fly-in community so that means we received a broad response.

In our first installment we discussed problems with airpark rules, animals running loose and people on the runway – taxiway.

Attendance at homeowner association meetings

Getting people to turn out for association meetings is an ongoing problem at more than 61 percent of the airparks represented by the survey responses while it is an occasional issue at another 38.8 percent.

Attendance at the meetings is reported as always good at 44.9 percent.

Here are some of the comments:

“A few dominate the association,others moan about it, but don’t show up.”

“ I don’t understand why but attendance is abysmal.”

“ Always a modest turnout, mostly due to a number of owners who have unbuilt lots, and some who live out of the area. Winter weather is also a discouraging factor for annual meetings in January.”

“Getting better since the word got around that any votes not present at the meeting are distributed as proxy among the directors. Covenants and by-laws can be wonderful things.”

“Generally attendance is good. Just place something on the agenda that is of interest to everyone.”

“Our bylaws require ‘super majority’ for some issues that come up at our annual meeting but we always get a quorum even if it requires a few proxies. Board members are good about attending monthly Board meetings.”

“Association has a board. There is no need to have a large attendance. The Board makes the decisions anyway.”

Using the airpark for T&G, etc. by non-residents

This apparently is an issue at only a small number of airparks since 75 percent of those responding to the survey said it wasn’t an issue for their development.

Only 1 person answering the survey reported it as a frequent problem and another 23.1 percent reported it as an occasional issue.

Here’s what some respondents had to say:

“It has gotten better through enforcement.”

“We like the activity on our airpark!”

“A very occasional low, high speed pass usually along the runway. Not really a problem.”

“Some pilots don’t know one damn thing about safety, and think they do not need to announce on the frequency when in the pattern, etc. This includes NAS Fallon helo pilots, who can be egregious violators. We nearly had a head-on a couple of weeks ago for this reason.”

“Dragging the runway prior to landing is tolerated if not encouraged. We have a pond and therefore a goose problem. Make noise and geese go away or skeedaddle to the other side of the pond.”

“Usually no one gets upset about flying issues until there is an unrelated association issue and this is their form of retaliation, to say the other guy is breaking the rules.”

Off-airport noise complaints about flight operations

Fortunately, this appears to be a completely non-issue since 92.2 percent of those replying to the survey said it was rare to get a complaint. None of the respondents said it was a frequent problem and only 7.8 percent reported to have troubles once in a while.

Some of the reasons why so few complaints are as follows:

“We have annual airport picnic with all neighbors within 5 miles to promote good neighbor relations. We provide food, music and kids activities along with static aircraft displays and actively encourage neighbors to join the community.”

“I will say we’ve had an instance when a non-flying resident called local police to complain about an airplane taxiing past her home! Not kidding!!”

“Never. Know your neighbors. Invite them to your annual picnic. Give them rides.”

“When it happens, it is almost always from someone who built near here after the field opened up knowing the airport was here.”

“We have had one noise complaint in the past 8 years since I became Airport Manager. That was a pre-dawn departure for a cross country.”

On the whole, the problems seem to be quite manageable. In our final installment on the results of our survey we’ll look at the responses to questions about properties being sold to non-aviation folks, enforcement of architectural rules and allowing junked cars, planes, etc. to accumulate on individual airpark properties.

As always, we look forward to reading your comments.

Rather than burying everyone with the answers and comments I received for all of the questions at once, I’m going to break it down into a few questions at a time.

Violating airpark rules

I asked whether violating of airpark rules, such as no low passes, aerobatics, touch and go’s, was a problem.

Nearly 70 percent responded that this was not a problem at their
airpark. Just fewer than 30 percent reported that there were occasional
issues with rules violations and only one respondent claimed it was a
serious problem.

Here are a few of the comments relating to this problem:

• “It has gotten better through enforcement” of our rules…
• “Our airpark is part of a public use airport and we enjoy the touch and go traffic and miss some of the other activity.”…
• “Transport category aircraft using airpark. Turbine and jet aircraft not paying landing or use fees.”
• “Some pilots don’t know one damn thing about safety, and think they do
  not need to announce on the frequency when in the pattern, etc. This
  includes NAS Fallon helo pilots, who can be egregious violators. We
  nearly had a head-on a couple of weeks ago for this reason.”
• “Dragging the runway prior to landing is tolerated if not encouraged.
  We have a pond and therefore a goose problem. Make noise and geese go
  away or skedaddle to the other side of the pond.”
• “We welcome low passes, aerobatics, and touch and go’s as long as common sense is used.”
• “Usually no one gets upset about flying issues until there is an
  unrelated association issue and this is their form of retaliation, to
  say the other guy is breaking the rules.”
• “We RECOMMEND making one low CLEARING PASS down the runway before
  landing, to alert the myriad pedestrians, buzzards, deer, lawn
  tractors, and golf carts on the field to get out of the way.”

Animals loose on runway/taxiway
On another issue we asked about animals loose on the runway and/or taxiway.
This was a frequent problem at 11.8 percent of the airparks from which
we received a response and it was occasionally trouble at another 25.5
percent of the airparks. About two-thirds of the airparks said this was
rarely a problem.

• Deer seem to be the largest single troublemaker with dogs owned by
  airpark residents next. Go-arounds were the worst result of animals on
  the runway although one airpark reported a dog getting his tail clipped
  by a prop.
• Migratory birds are another of the issues cited by those having problems.

Collecting assessments from property owners

Collecting assessments levied by the homeowners association seems to be
a partial problem at half the airparks and not a problem at all at the
other half. The actual numbers were 51% to 47% with the other 2 percent
commenting that this was a situation all the time. But, that response
came from only one respondent.

• “Residents don’t seem to be a problem, however vacant lot owners seem
  to forget they have a responsibility to the airpark. Friendly reminders
  seem to work so far,” was the report from one of those completing the
  survey.
• “Requires lots of effort by our treasurer. There always seem to be a
  few ‘problems’ but the majority of the homeowners are not.” Was another
  common comment.
• “From what I hear about in the Association meetings, there are usually
  one or two people (the same people) who are either late or behind in
  their payments.”
• “Non-pilots, mostly, are late paying their assessments. Liens are filed
  and the payment comes eventually,” was the report from another airpark.
• “No assessments levied at the present time. Owners living on the runway all participate in the upkeep,” claims this respondent.

Bikes, motorcycles, etc., being ridden on runway

Finally, how about kids (or adults) riding bikes, motorcycles, horses, etc. on the runway?
“We’ve got this problem all the time,” was the response from 3.9
percent of those completing the survey. Another 45% said it was a
problem once in a while and more than half (51%) indicated this wasn’t
a situation at all.

• “Golf carts are our biggest problem.”
• “With all the new home/hangar building which took place this past
  summer, there were sometimes incursions on the runway by building crews
  and first time visitors to the owners of new homes.”
• “Seems to be the same ones that fail to exercise pet control. No respect for safety. One flies for a major airline, too. Sad!”
• “We have specific times when walking on the runway is permitted. Mostly our problem is with non-residents.”
• “We have very light air traffic here and a wide grass strip so folks
  riding a four-wheeler along the edge of the runway isn’t viewed as a
  problem.”
• “We posted ‘federal offense’ airport signs around the field and that
  seems to have registered with the airport kids to cross the runway
  briskly and look both ways first,” was another comment with a solution.

I’ll provide more of the survey results shortly.

We’ll compile the results and publish them in the near future and
then do another survey on the good reasons to living on an airpark.
Just click on the link below to get to the survey

Click Here to take survey

First, 77.3% of the respondents said their fly-in community did have liability insurance and the most popular level of coverage was $1 - $2.5 million. Slightly more than 70% of those completing the survey indicated that amount of coverage. Less than $1 million was in force at 17.8% with coverage of $2.5 - $5 million and over $5 million each reported by 5.9% of the fly-in communities.

Three-quarters of the airparks had maintained liability insurance coverage since the project opened while the other 25% said they had purchased coverage within the last three years.

Perhaps most significant was the fact that none of the fly-in communities indicated they had ever had an accident that resulted in an insurance claim.

Of those that didn’t carry liability insurance 80% indicated they had considered obtaining the coverage at one time or another. The cost of the insurance was the reason for not buying a policy in 75% of the situations. The remainder of the airparks without coverage declined to purchase it because they decided that the availability of insurance money might bring on lawsuits.

To better understand the type residential airparks that were represented in the survey, we asked a number of general questions, including:

How long has your airpark been in existence? The vast majority – 72.7%, reported more than 10 years. While 1-5 years was reported by 18.2% of the respondents. The rest had been in operation between 6-10 years.

How many home lots on your airpark? More than 35 homesites was reported at 40.9% of the fly-in communities while 10-20 sites was the answer at 18.2% and the same percentage at airparks with 21-35 sites.

Of those lots, how many have completed homes on them? Less than 10 lots had completed homes at 45.5% of the airparks. The other three categories each reported 18.2% completed homes.

The runway at the fly-in communities was more than 2,500 feet at 59.1% of the airparks and it was unpaved at 54.5%. The runway was not lighted at 50% of the sites.

Less than 10 airplanes were based at 36.4% of the airparks. There were 10-20 planes at 31.8%, 21-35 was the response from 22.7% of the fly-in communities and only 9.1% reported having more than 35 based planes.

Amenities at the fly-in communities varied greatly. The runway was open to the public at 55.6%, a commercial operation was conducted at 44.4%, flight instruction was available at a third of the airparks,
maintenance was available at 44.4% and fuel could be obtained at 22.2% of the airparks. A restaurant and golf course were available at 33.3%; equestrian center was reported at 22.2%, as was a clubhouse. Only 11.1%
of the properties had a swimming pool.

Half of the fly-in communities for which we received a response were located more than 35 miles from a city of at least 100,000 people. Respondents claiming their airpark was 21-35 miles from a big city were 18.2%; 10-20 miles came in at 9.1% and less than 10 miles from a large city was reported at 22.7% of the airparks.

Perhaps the most important results of the survey were the names of insurance companies or the insurance agencies that were instrumental in providing the coverage. Here are their names (some are actually the insurance companies while others are the agents that the different airparks worked with):

• American National Property & Casualty / Phoenix Insurance Group
• US Specialty Insurance Co., Dick Levin
• Falcon Insurance of Alaska
• W. Brown & Associates
• Air Capitol Insurance LLC
• Chubb
• AIG Aviation
• Southwest Aviation Insurance Group
• Aircraft & Marine Assurance Agency Inc.
• Philadelphia Insurance Group
• Costello Insurance
• Wells Fargo Aviation Specialty Group

We do not have the locations of these firms but suggest they can be obtained through a web search.

There were also a number of comments submitted.

“The runway and partial parallel taxiway are owned by the developer who has a $10 million insurance coverage. There is a golf course and restaurant on the developer’s property and isn’t associated with the
homeowner’s association.”

This same respondent indicates they received a $3,000 quote for liability insurance not including residential taxiways. They declined because of the price.

Another airpark reported a $2,000 premium for their coverage. It has been that rate for five years but was raised to $2,250 this year. “We feel we need the coverage but think the premium is too high and we don’t really know if we have the ‘right’ amount.” This airpark has been around over 10 years but has less then 10 completed homes. They have coverage of $1-$2.5 million.

Several respondents indicated they require property owners to sign a release putting the risk on the participant, not the airpark. Others reported requiring a user waiver and indemnity release for airport users.

No one answer fills all the needs. Hopefully this information will help you and others at your residential airpark come up with the solution that best fits your needs.

He wrote:

“I live at Sunrise Skypark in Southern Idaho. After reading your recent article titled How Much do you pay? I have questions.

First, you mentioned that 75 percent of respondents said that their assessments were under $100 per month. I would like to know more. How much under were they? Did they average $50 a month, $60 a month or what.

"You also mentioned ‘built on’ percentages regarding homes constructed. These figures seemed low to me. Many airparks that I am aware of have constructed homes figures in the vicinity of 50 percent  and more.

""I would like to suggest a follow on article or topic to the one you have already done. It would be something like ‘Are you paying enough?’

"Using the previous article as a reference, if 75 percent of associations are charging significantly less than $100 a month, are they collecting enough to maintain and improve their airpark? Where does the majority of their money go? Taxes, maintenance, etc.?”

Well,  Hamilton’s questions and comments certainly have merit.

What is the homeowner fee at the airpark where you live?

How much of the fee is for taxes, insurance and other regular expenses.

How much goes into a maintenance fund, either long or short term?

You can help by providing your comments.