Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobfar1
I did find an allocation schedule for the EMAC cost that I missed. Your comment that perhaps CDD 15 was being over allocated was valid. However, per the attached sheet, the allocation of EMAC costs is based upon "Assessable Acres". For 24-25 the allocation was 50.08 acres for Eastport Downtown (2.49%), 639.75 acres for District 14 (31.85%), and 1,318.94 acres for District 15 (65.68%). Not sure what the "Assessable Acre" really means.
District 15 Maintenance Assessment was based upon 639 acres. Not sure why the difference between 1,318.95 assessable acres and the 639 acres. The district 15 "Facts" page indicates 1,378.40 total acres.
District 14 Maintenance Assessment was based upon the same 639.75 acres as the EMAC allocation. The Assessable Acres for District 14 was 639.60 for 23-24 EMAC allocation. So not much increase between the two years, yet a 56% increase? What am I missing?
|
Assessable acreage *should* mean the total number of acres in the CDD.
If Assessable acreage increased it means the size of the CDD increased. Normally, this would be impossible. However, since CDD15 is still under construction it could still be growing. There are 639 acres currently included and platted for CDD15 but perhaps there are about 740 more acres that will eventually become part of CDD15. It could be that this land is expected to be added in 24-25 and so it is part of the maintenance assessment but since it is not yet platted it is not included in the list of "units" and their assigned assessments.
The 56% increase has nothing to do with an increase in area, it has to do with an increase in maintenance costs, particularly landscaping. If in 23-24 it was anticipated that very little land in CDD14 and CDD15 would be planted and require maintenance then the cost to EMAC for that work would be low and the allocation to the CDDs would be low. Now that the land *is* planted there is more recurring landscaping work (mowing?) required so the cost to EMAC increased and the allocation to the CDDs increased.
CDD14 required a 56% increase in maintenance revenue in order to cover increased costs including the increased allocation to EMAC. Since CDD14 was completely platted, each home saw this 56% increase.
CDD15 saw a 230% increase in costs over 23-24. However, since this is the first year CDD15 homes will be paying maintenance fees and since CDD15 appears to be not fully platted, there will be an average charge of $707 per home.
The $707 amount in CDD15 will only raise about half of the required funds but your numbers above imply that only about half of CDD15 has been included in the maintenance fee calculation. The other half of the required funds is coming from the Developer (NOT part of the $2M additional contribution). This makes sense since the Developer is still in the process of developing the second half of CDD15. I would expect that by the end of 24-25 CDD15 will show a Phase 2 with an additional 740 acres and 3,600+ homes.
NOTE: This is all my take on what I see in the budget documents and the allocation document you linked above. A good portion of it may be incorrect, but it seems to make sense with what we've seen today.