[rustyp]

Originally Posted by rustyp

While I understand the hesitancy from the supplier side you pointed out the flip side of the coin is why should we the residents enter into anything long term at the infancy stage when the decision makers are all appointed by the developer ?

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

Good question, currently only the commercial districts and CDD13 have developer appointed representatives. CDD13 landowner elected seats 1, 2, and 3 will be coming up for election in November, it is not unreasonable to assume that these 3 new seats will be held by residents of CDD13, assuming any will step forward and run for the positions. This would put the majority voice and vote in the hands of the residents.

The PWA requires unanimous agreement by all signatories for any changes to the agreement, so the other 9 resident elected supervisors on the PWAC board must also approve any decisions and changes. So, there are residents looking after the best interests of all the residents in these matters.

Entering into PWA brings with it immediate economies of scale and reduced pricing for the majority of services that the new CDDs require. This represents substantial savings to the fledgling CDDs as they start up and brings with it resident oversite of these costs. Additionally, this process reduces the overhead and administrative costs of not having to put every contract for serves out to bid for each new CDD, instead all contracts all carry the ability to amend and add on additional services at the already agreed to rates.

Some are very quick to point out that a majority of every CDDs budget funds are contributed to the Project Wide Fund under the PWA, of course it does, what is consistently ignored and not discussed by these same individuals is that the majority of the services required to be delivered by the CDDs are carried out under the PWA at significant savings to the CDDs. So yes most of your CDD's budget is used to perform most of the work, work that is carried out under the CDD.

The basics of the PWA are to maintain common infrastructures - cut the grass, trim the trees, maintain the storm water system and retention ponds, and maintain the common areas. The argument against the assessable acreage calculation ignores this simple fact and claims the commercial districts don't pay their fair share. Lake Sumter Landing has about 75 assessable acres to contribute to an even smaller number of acres to be maintained under the PWA, while CDD10 has about 1500 assessable acres and a substantially higher number and ratio of acre to be maintained under the PWA. These acres are out of the approximately 10,400 assessable acres. So yes the commercial district pay a relatively small portion of the project wide fund assessments, because they have so few acres to maintain. Should one district pay more per acre to cut the grass or trim a tree than any other? I don't think so.

The commercial district properties (tenants) pay more than 10 times the maintenance assessment per square foot that residential properties. These fees pay for not only maintaining the buildings, but also all the parking lots, cleaning the streets and parking lots of trash nightly, and many other things that directly and indirectly impact the residents. The commercial properties pay the full burden of the nightly entertainment (Sumter County stopped contributing their 50% to this about 2 years ago), this is a self-serving gesture as the goal is to bring more people to the squares and thus more customer to their businesses.

With respect to the windmill and water tower, one can only hope that prudence and good judgment in these difficult financial times will win out at Monday's PWAC meeting.

Actually I was referring to PWAC resolution 13-05. This document appears to be the original template which set up obligations between the districts south of 466 and the developer. Any amendments to that resolution since then appear to be a formality to include new areas and districts under the original rule set. I attempted to find the names of the district chairs and research if they were the original representatives assigned to each district by the developer (I.E. the 7 year weaning process). The attachment is not included on the PWAC site. Thus I'm talking about the days of Janet Tutt for you old timers. Of interest also is there is no time limit mentioned in the document which I will interpret as someone did not give forethought if this original agreement really represents the will of the residents (taxation without representation). As we know from history many of the developers business partners were assigned as district reps at the beginning of each CCD. Those reps in many cases were the very suppliers that were also entering into long term agreements with TV as you mentioned why the need for stability.