Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobfar1
...
In my opinion, the 56% increase for CDD 14 was due to an incorrect allocation of EMAC costs between CDD 15 and 14. CDD 14 EMAC costs increased from $449,418 to $1,225,585 without an increase in area.
I am grateful the developer is considering a $2 million contribution to EMAC to offset this which is admirable. However, for next year this should be looked at.
|
The video linked in the other thread gives a different explanation for the increase. It is not that the area of the District increased but the
area requiring maintenance increased. According to the video, much of the area being maintained by the ECDD/EMAC was dirt in 23-24 which does not cost anything to mow. In 24-25 that same area is now turf which requires mowing and maintenance and higher contributions to the EMAC fund.
You point out that that the number of homes/acre (or acre/home) is approximately the same across many of the CDDs while the cost is significantly higher in CDD14 and CDD15. In other threads there have been complaints that the lots the homes sit on are actually smaller: homes are closer to the street, lanais are closer together, etc. If that is true then that means there is more common space in CDD14 and CDD15 which means more maintenance by someone other than the homeowner. This could explain why the cost of landscaping maintenance is higher in those districts.
EDIT: Comments in a post below explain that the acre numbers we have seen are the amount of land that homes are built on, not the entire size of the CDD. While CDD14 has homes on 639 acres, the area encompassed by the CDD might be much larger. The additional land is the land that must be maintained and the larger it is the more expensive maintenance will be. What we need to compare is physical extent of the CDD less the assessable acreage but unfortunately, I don't know where to find that.
You looked at the CDD14 costs but not at the CDD15 costs. CDD15 also did not grow in land area and CDD15 also paid approximately $450K to EMAC in 23-24. However, CDD15 is paying $2.5M to EMAC in 24-25, twice what CDD14 is paying for the same overall land area. If anything, the CDD15 allocation might be high though this may not be the case and may be due to CDD15 having more common area to maintain.
EDIT: While the EMAC assessment to CDD14 grew substantially, the assessment to CDD15 is twice as much. Though both CDDs show approximately 639 acres, the allocation table found later shows CDD15 was assessed as having 1,318 acres. A guess at this point is there will be a CDD15 Phase 2 which adds 680 acres and probably another 4,000 homes. Until those homes are built and sold, the Developer will be paying the maintenance fee for that area.