[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by John41

Yes, that is what we have been doing for 14 years, but with some of the recent controversy I want to get more involve is how things are run.

Not sure what recent controversaries you are referring to, there is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation put out recently but there have been no issues.

One point of disagreement in today's paper was about CDD-7 wanting to exit the project wide agreement (PWA). Once again they mention that 7, as well as the other districts south of 466 pay into the fund, what keeps getting omitted is what that money does and what each district receives in return. The collective buying power of all the CDDs combined make for larger and more economical contracts, as 7 is finding out with the cost of getting a lawyer. The PWA also brings consistency across the community. Risk mitigation is another huge factor that is overlooked. Districts north of 466 don't have a joint management agreement and are on their own for infrastructure costs. The residents of CDD4 felt the sting of the cost of the sink hole in that are 2 years ago with a 30% increase in their maintenance assessment, which would not have happened south of 466 because of the PWA.