[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

I plan to listen with an open mind.

My gut is telling me that there is a concern that the southern CDD's represent a higher cost that the northern CDD's do not want to share. The talk about how landscaping, etc "is different in the new areas" is driving my gut feeling.

I just don't see a benefit to Southern Oaks residents. Not right now. But, that may change at the meeting.

Good concern and a justified comment. In addition to different landscaping there is more of it to maintain.

For the areas north of SR44 about 92% of the total district acreage is assessable (paying a maintenance fee) were as south of SR44 only 78% of the property is assessable. So south of SR44 there is a higher ratio of green space to maintain, which if maintained in the same manner as north of SR44 would be a significant increase in expense.

This was recognized several years ago, and discussions started between the developer's designers and district staff to address this issue. Some areas, like the Hogeye Sink/preserve, require virtually no maintenance and have very little cost. But as most recognize there is substantially more green space in the southern areas. Pay close attention to these arears and you will see that what is growing in these areas is not the same turf taht you see along the MMPs and walkways north of SR44. This is more native grasses that require less water and grows better if not cut nearly as often, and with less nutrient supplement (fertilizer). These factors allow cutting only once every 2-3 weeks instead of every 5-7 days like north of SR44 and less water and treatments requirements, in all less cost per acre to maintain.

There are also less of things like the flowers that are replaced several times a year and different (more durable) fencing used throughout the communities south of SR44. Here again the concept is more area but less cost per area to maintain through a more nature landscaping plan.

The budget allocation process relies on an assessable acreage calculation (my video Maintenance Assessment and The Villages 6-19-19 Construction Update - YouTube attempts to explain this). The cost ratios for assessable/nonassessable acreage stay pretty constant across the CDDs so each CDD pays the approximate cost of the maintenance costs from the Project Wide Fund allocation. These costs very from year to year and some years a CDD is doner CDD and some years they are recipient CDD, it just depends on the common area maintenance required each year. For example, right now there is a major fence replacement project in progress throughout The Villages working from north to south. So, for now, northern districts are recipients, but next fiscal year they will be doner CDDs as the more southern CDD's fencing is replaced. These oscillations are both normal and expected and a benefit of the Project Wide concept that keeps each CDD's budget much more stable than if they had to go it alone. In the long run, everything works out pretty fair for all the CDDs, including those south of SR44.

The northern CDDs are not trying to divorce a more expensive younger brother, each CDD is carrying its own weight. This is more akin to a separation of generations. No matter how hard we try, we will not think and prioritize things the same as our children or our parents, this doesn't make any one of them more right or wrong than the other, just a little different, but all with the same goal in mind. Because of the differences in community designs and geomorphology, a slightly different mindset will be needed going forward for the new areas. The PWAC spilt helps facilitate the differences in maintenance strategies.

By the time the split is planned to occur in 2021, it is highly likely that CDD14 will have been formed and CDD15 also in the works. These will all add to the new PWAC2 and continue to help in the risk mitigation.

From the risk mitigation aspect of the Project Wide Agreement, the CDDs north of SR44 could be the loser in the PWAC split. Consider the following scenario: A pumping station in CDD7 is struck by lightning and destroyed. The cost to repair/replace it is $1 million. The PWAC does not maintain significant capital reserves, it is left to each of the numbered CDDs to maintain these funds, so the PWAC must send a funding request to each of the member CDDs and obtain their equitable share based on the assessable acreage calculation. The current total assessable acreage for CDD 5 through 13 is about 10,149 acres, of this about 7850 is north of SR44 and 2300 is south of SR44. So the CDDs north of SR44 would pay about $774K and south of SR44 would pay $$226K to replace the pumping station that exists for the common good of the community. Once the split occurs then the CDDs north of SR44 would have to pay the full $1 Million. Of course, the situation could be reversed and happen in CDD12, in which case the win/lose is reversed. Of course, the pumping station being in CDD7 would pose a similar scenario if CDD7 were to withdrawal from the project wide agreement and they (the residents of CDD7) would be on the hook for the entire cost. But that is an entirely different discussion for a different thread.

Please do go to the CDD meeting, ask the questions, make your supervisors explain the pluses and minus to you, if you see them sweat or squirming in their seats, you're doing the right thing. If after all that you are comfortable with the answers and direction the process is going, then your supervisors are doing their job and are deserving of your support. One thing I can assure you of, your Supervisors want you to come to the meeting, they want you to ask question, they want to hear your opinions, they want your involvement. Don't let them make decisions in a vacuum.