I agree with Villages07's post. While I'm a relative newbie here, I have had the opportunity to participate in the Resident Academy which is a 6-week course going into the details of the operation of the CDD (
http://www.districtgov.org/ResidentAcademy.aspx) . A similar question about the future of TV after build-out came up in the thread about the performing arts center. This is how I responded to that one:
Quote:
There are two aspects to this concern: 1) the amenities that are paid for by our amenity fees (exec. golf, rec centers, pools, etc.) and 2) all the things that some think are "amenities" but are actually paid for by the developer (the entertainment in the squares, Katie Bells, Savannah Center, Church on the Square, life long learning college, championship golf).
In the case of the first category, I believe that these are self sustaining based on our amenity fees. All of the amenities north of 466 as well as a portion of those south of it are already turned over to the CDD. The books for these are open to the public and do not show any subsidization. From comments that I heard at the Resident Academy that I attended, the CDD is looking forward to the transfer of the remaining amenities south of 466 into it domain since the revenue flow from the amenity fees will more than offset the money that the developer currently pays to the CDD to run these amenities. Hence, this category of amenity seems to be pretty safe from any big surprises at build out.
The second category, however, could be a different story. For example, are the rents that the developer charges the businesses in the squares sufficient to also pay for the nightly entertainment? Or, does he kick in a large amount to subsidize the entertainment and rationalize it as a marketing expense. Same goes with all of the other "amenities" that fall into the second category. The obvious risk for this category is that if these are not self-sustaining endeavors, when the marketing rationale goes away, will these subsidies continue? My very uneducated guess is that these will be continued in some way or another after build out because either they are 1) self sustaining, or 2) the developer will take a pride in maintaining the atmosphere in the town that his family has built, or 3) the developer will be afraid of law suits for breech of contract where his marketing message was an implicit contract to offer these amenities into the future.
As to the proposed performing arts center, it clearly would fall into the second category. My guess is that the developer may be luke warm (at best) about it for fear that it will not be self sustaining and that he will then be forced to either subsidize it indefinitely or open himself up to lawsuits if residents try to make a claim that it was part of the "package" that they bought into.
|
The CDD operates under the sunshine laws that apply to any governmental agency. Hence all meetings and account books are open to public scrutiny. If you want to put on your green eye shades and look at the financials as well as the auditor's views for the various districts, they can be found under the "Your Districts" link at the top of this page:
http://www.districtgov.org/yourdistr...px?district=sl
From a quick look at the auditor's statement, it looks like the two central districts are improving year over year, so this is positive from a sustainability perspective.
As we were going through the various line items in our class, the only thing that stuck out to me was cash flow for the fitness centers. It turns out that the revenue that they are taking in for these centers greatly exceeds the operational costs. They have set up a special account for this so the capital buildup will not be commingled with the general budget. I'm not sure what the plans are for these funds but to the untrained eye, it looks like they could easily reduce what they charge for the membership and still break even (there seems to be more than enough for equipment replacement). However, from a sustainability perspective, this is good news.