Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill14564
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.
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.
|
Now that is analysis. The attached pdf is only DATA! People trying to pass off data collection as analysis irked me when working. I have a server full of data, it doesn't magically become analysis by being retrieved. 10K filling MD&A analysis falls into this category as well, regurgitation of data presented as analysis. . bs
Big difference!
Nice explanation Bill!