Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldwingnut
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.
|
Interesting point about CDD4 and a joint management agreement. But also, CDD4 is in Marion County and we own our roads and infrastructure, not the county. All the roads in Sumter and Lake county (except Villa roads) are owned by the county. This is one reason the Villages in those counties can't be truly gated communities (CDD4 could but there are other reasons why not to do this). So, I thought this difference in who owns the roads and infrastructure may have been the reason we in CDD4 got this increase. But thanks for mentioning joint management agreement, I will ask around about this.