What Does The "Settlement" Mean With Regard To Recreation Facilities Management? [Archive]

View Full Version : What Does The "Settlement" Mean With Regard To Recreation Facilities Management?

Villages Kahuna

01-21-2008, 05:12 PM

Today's Daily Sun said that a letter from the court will be mailed to all residents north of 466 explaining the settlement agreed to between the developer of TV and the POA, which sued the developer regarding the terms of the sale of all recreational facilities, pools and golf courses to the CVCCD. It briefly explained that the area north of 466 would have a board ofelected residents who would assume control of the management of the recreational amenities. (At least I think that's what the article said.)

So what does this mean? The developer, thru the Recreation Department, has done a magnificent job of planning, building and managing the recreation facilities that are so much a part of our community. Is that department going to be disbanded, at least as regards the facilities north of 466, in favor of a group of Villages residents who will assume control over the rec facilities? The Recreation Department is comprised of professionals experienced in the operation of recreation facilities and programs. Will the new committee of residents be comparably experienced or trained? What will be the effect on the quality of our facilities and programs?

I know the lawsuit achieved significant payments by the developer to assure the proper maintenance and updating of facilities over the next several years. That's a good thing. But if the lawsuit also results in the replacement of the highly qualified, competent and committed Recreation Department staff in favor of a bunch of part-time retirees inexperienced in managing recreation facilities and programs, I can't imagine that things will continue as they have been. Has all the complaining over residents being in control of the golf courses and pools finally come home to roost? Will we be sorry for what was demanded and litigated by the POA?

When residents north of 466 get their "settlement letters" from the court, I think those of us living south of 466 would appreciate knowing what the lawsuit has resulted in as far as our recreation facilities and programs are concerned. As I understand the settlement, the same terms will apply to the rec facilities and programs south of 466 after the community is built out.

For one, I'll be holding my breath. It's a done deal now. I just hope we're not disappointed in getting what the POA demanded and litigated for. I surely hope that the recreation that is so basic to our lifestyle here continues at the high level of quality we've become used to, or even better.

beartrack1

01-21-2008, 06:41 PM

Kahuna,

I think that you have it right. I would really like to read the story that you are referring to in the Village Sun. I went on the website but, the story is not there. Would it be possible for you to copy and paste it on this site so that those of us that are not in TV right now, could read it and form an opinion.

Thanks

redwitch

01-21-2008, 06:53 PM

There have been a few articles on this settlement. From what I could gather in reading all of them, it was not the developer stepping down as running the rec centers but, as was said, the payment of a large chunk of money to the reserve fund so that if a center needs renovation or rebuilding after a natural disaster, the funds are there.

beartrack1

01-21-2008, 08:48 PM

Thanks Red but, What I am really trying to find out is, now that there has been some sort of a settlement, are the residents going to take over the running of the amenities north of 466 ? And if it is going to be in the hands of residents in the form of a master association or a series of home owner associations or some other form of governance, how will these folks be picked ? Will some experience or some kind of qualifications be a criteria or will it just evolve into a popularity contest ?

another Linda

01-22-2008, 03:33 AM

Our place is north of 466. I'll watch for the letter and post it when it comes.

Muncle

01-22-2008, 04:18 AM

Muncle

01-22-2008, 04:36 AM

Per the first part of para 3, specifically "assume operational control of the amenity facilities and the expenditure of amenity fees," I gotta agree with Kahuna's interpretation that this creates an amateur council to have ultimate control of the everything funded by and related to amenity fees. :yikes: I hope I'm wrong, but I fear a bunch of squeaky wheels :joke: who could never get elected to Student Council now thinking they can run a multimillion dollar operation because they took a community college accounting course or worked for a city gov't in their prior life. I hope to God I'm wrong.

beartrack1

01-22-2008, 03:06 PM

Thank you Muncle and Another Linda for your posts.

As a potential home owner in TV, I am very concerned over this settlement if it means that a board of directors (residents) type of governing authority is going to replace the professionals that are now in place. Please allow me to tell you why I am so concerned.

I retired at age 50 and decided to keep two homes, be a snowbird if you will. We maintained a second home in Orlando then Boca Raton and finally in Fort Myers. We were so satisfied with Fort Myers that we decided to sell our first home and become Florida residents full time. Just to give you all some background.

Why three moves in Florida ? The short answer is, Home owners associations. We enjoyed our homes but, we could not stand the politics, the vitriol, the in fighting among our neighbors. The constant topic of discussion was always negative and hatefull. Each time we moved we thought that we could escape to another community that was different. Wrong !!!! The Fort Myers location for the past seven years is the best of them and we found ourselves happy here. But now a large project here has surfaced and without going into details, we find ourselves right back where we started. Anger, hatred and even vandalism. Incredible but, true.

I don't pretend to know anything about your POA. I am positive that these are all good people and good neighbors just trying to do what they feel is right for the community. I certainly do not, and will not judge them. I am only telling you of my previous experiences.

What I do not understand here is that after investigating TV, we have decided that it is the most beautiful and well run community that we have ever seen. The amenity package is incredible, affordable and well kept. This place is so well run, so well organized by comparison to anything that we have ever seen that I do not understand why anyone would ever think of changing it. I can't help but think how the developer has made so many people so happy for such a long time. It would be a pity to upset the apple cart now.

So, for what it is worth, and based on previous experience's, It is my opinion that a turnover to a resident run facility would be the first step down a slippery slope that would change the demeanor of the TV in the wrong direction.

We will still be coming there but, we will rent until the dust settles on this issue or we feel comfortable with an acceptable outcome. If there is some legal reason for this turnover that I am unaware of, then maybe the best thing to do for the new administration would be to hire back all the professionals that are doing it now.

I realize that I am not a resident of TV yet, and I apologise for butting in to your affairs but, my wife and I really love TV and we envy all of you that are already living there. Based on our past experiences with HOA's we just wanted to give you our opinion and to wish you all Good Luck.

noleguy

01-22-2008, 03:24 PM

After reading the article a few times, I agree with Kahuna's interpretation. It clearly states that a resident elected committee will assume operational control of the amenity facilities.
I also am very apprehensive of this agreement that the POA litigated for.

Hope2b

01-22-2008, 03:54 PM

I don't think the POA had anything to do with it.
I too hate that the developer is turning it over to residents. I like how everything is now. Well, except that I did not get a tee time for Friday. ::)

jjdees

01-22-2008, 06:13 PM

I also agree with Kahuna. I've heard many tales of woe from friends and relatives about bad experiences with HOAs. It seems as though people who never had any authority in their lives become officers and subsequently dictators who go off the deep end over minor issues and cause all sorts of problems due to the lack of knowledge and experience. It's scary to think that TV is turning over the facilities to a residents group. Who are they? Who do they answer to? What recourse do residents have if things deteriorate? Many many questions and concerns.

cabo35

01-22-2008, 07:19 PM

My wife and I owned property in a large oceanfront complex in NJ. She was actually the president of our association during their growing pains and transition of responsibility to the homeowners. There were several associations, a mix of private homes, townhouses, villas and condos. It included several swimming pools, tennis courts, playgrounds and over 2000 feet of beach. There were common areas, underground parking throughout, a small network of 14 mph roads and 24 hour gated and roving security with full time guards.

The point I would like to make is that the developer had an on premise manager. He did a good job and accordingly was not liked by many that he had to enforce regulations with. He did tilt toward the developer in many decisions as that is who was providing his paycheck.

Ultimately, the association hired their own professional manager rather than let "amateur" hour prevail when the association took over responsibilities. Kahuna is on target and his concerns should not be taken lightly. One way to mitigate the petty politics that often ensue
after conversions to owners is to consider a search for a quality
manager to oversee recreation and amenity responsibilities. A table of organization with clear cut lines of authority and responsibility that keeps appointed or elected officials of the association at arms length from day to day operations is a prerequisite to success.

Perhaps some of the professionals with known abilities, whose positions are terminated because of the turnover would be interested in management and/or administrative positions in the employ of the homeowners.

As Kahuna observes, this is a very critical period as the process of transition materializes. It does not have to be a bad thing as long our community leaders understand the field of engagement and the goal of preserving the very special quality of life we enjoy in the Villages.

Kahuna for President !!!!

beartrack1

01-22-2008, 07:52 PM

Cabo is correct in my estimation but, like he said, the property manager is beholding to the developer because the developer is issuing his/her paycheck. This is a catch 22 because a resident board of directors also determines who the manager will be and also issues the paychecks. Resident boards are always staffed by Pips (previously important people) and they almost always tend to micro manage everybody and everything with absolutely no experience of the subject matter. At least with TV developer they have shown that they are professional and have the track record to prove it.

All HOA's hire property manager's either on campus or off. I have never seen a property manager left alone to do his/her job. The people that win these popularity contests for the board always feel that they must be heard. Just take all the difference's of opinion that you read on some of these threads. Now put all these opinions on one board of directors and the end result will be the same as everywhere else. Chaos.

SteveFromNY

01-22-2008, 08:07 PM

What a depressing thread this one is!

:(

bimmertl

01-22-2008, 10:42 PM

Got the letter today. What the article in the Sun apparently "forgot" to mention is that in addition to the $40 million set aside VLS will also pay the plaintiff class $6,700,000 for attorney's fees and $300,000 for incentive awards to the plaintiffs Class Representatives.

The suit filed claimed that the VCCDD breached various agreements to provide appropriate levels of amenity services and facilities to the subject class (owners of homesites in districts 1,2,3 and 4 etc.) While the VCCDD doesn't admit to being liable, the fact they settled this matter without proceeding to trial speaks for itself, especially considering the amounts involved. Simply put, the VCDD knew it breached agreements made with the homeowners and settled the suit rather than try it.

It appears many posts are confusing HOA duties with those of the CDD. They are two separate entities with totally different functions. This settlement has nothing at all to do with the HOA.

No doubt if any of us breached any of the agreements with TV, action would be taken. So the bottom line is the fact the VCCDD trying to pull a fast one and were held accountable by some residents who were familiar with the Florida CDD statute and the duties required by the developer under the statute. It was not the POA which commenced the suit.

Florida statute 190.00 sets out the law for CDD's. In case you can't sleep some time, here's the link.

http://www.ccfj.net/FS190CDD.html

This settlement is a great result for the residents and not gloom and doom as many have assumed.

villages07

01-22-2008, 11:34 PM

More questions than answers here...those who have been here longer or studied this subject in greater depth might be able to lend some clarity.

In the beginning, the developer built the amenities.... pools, rec centers, exec golf courses. He essentially financed the construction of the amenities. After a period of time (as neighborhoods are built out), a batch of amenities are bundled together and sold by the developer to the appropriate commercial district (VCCDD for North of 466; SLCDD for South of 466). The commercial district pays for these purchases via bonds (not to be confused with the homeowner bond) which are repaid via a portion of our amenity fees.

We, the homeowners, pay our monthly amenity fees to our respective commercial district. A portion of our amenity fees goes to pay off the bond used to purchase the amenities from the developer. The remainder goes for daily operation and maintenance of the amenities. The commercial districts are governed by the commercial landowners, primarily appointed by the developer. Thus, there have been some complaints about the price the commercial districts paid to the developer for these bundles of amenities. Also, and this is where the class action settlement applies, there was no adequate replacement and reserve pot being seeded or built for eventual capital expenditures to renovate or update the various amenities.

So, if the above is substantially correct...my question is...who actually manages the amenity budget and decides what are necessary expenditures? If amenities are being directed by the commercial district members, what are their priorities? Who decides when it is time to update the La Hacienda rec center or renovate the Chula Vista Golf Course or replace the pool furniture at Springdale pool? And, who actually owns the amenities after they are purchased from the developer? The homeowners, some corporation, or ???

I agree that everything runs pretty smoothly now at what is a very reasonable monthly fee. My fear is what happens in 10 years when all new development is essentially finished and a lot of the facilities are starting to show their age. Will they and can they be kept at their current quality level with the same inflation-adjusted reasonable fees that we are paying for now? I sure hope so.

I agree that the homeowners should have some advisory role in the development and execution of the amenity budget but like leaving the decision making to the pros.

Muncle

01-23-2008, 02:34 AM

Hancle704

01-23-2008, 03:05 AM

I read post that states,
"Got the letter today. What the article in the Sun apparently "forgot" to mention is that in addition to the $40 million set aside VLS will also pay the plaintiff class $6,700,000 for attorney's fees and $300,000 for incentive awards to the plaintiffs Class Representatives."

Can someone provide the source of this information that was left out of The Daily Sun about the fees and incentive awards. Haven't read the letter yet, was it in there?

Villages Kahuna

01-23-2008, 03:30 AM

...it appears that five Villages residents, Elaine Dreidame, Richard Lambrecht, William Garner, Joseph Gorman and Irving Yedwab, engaged a law firm to sue The Villages on the issue of the sale of amenity facilities and control of the amenities budget. These five residents were not elected to represent us, nor did they have any other official position except being officers or former officers of the POA. But the way the rule of law works in this country, these five people negotiated a settlement which ultimately will affect about 100,000 residents of The Villages.

Based on the breakdown of how much the attorneys representing these five residents were paid, it appears that they agreed to do the legal representation of the five plaintiffs on a contingent payment basis, ultimately earning a bit less than 10% of the total settlement agreed to by the five plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the developer of The Villages, an amount of $6,700,000. The lawyers were certainly highly motivated to succeed in the litigation, as they were paid a very handsome amount to do so. What a tremendous payday for the law firm of Anderson & Anderson. And they'll have another terrific payday when a settlement regarding the facilities south of 466 is negotiated.

More disturbing is the $300,000 in fees which the Court apparently approved as "incentive awards to the plaintiffs Class Representatives". The way I read this is that the five plaintiffs negotiated to get themselves paid $60,000 each for "representing" the rest of us by filing the lawsuit. I guess we can presume that these five will pay themselves another handsome payment when the facilities south of 466 become subject to negotiation.

One outcome of the settlement was positive indeed. The sale of the recreational facilities by the developer to the VCCDD apparently did not contain provisions and funding of a sinking fund to deal with major capital expenditures which will become necessary as the facilities age and ultimately need major rehabilitation or even replacement. For that outcome our five fellow residents should be complimented for their success. I won't even attempt to comment on how and why the developer of TV sold the facilities without addressing the issue of the need for a sinking fund. I simply don't know any of the details of the terms of that sale. Am I suspicious that the developer was trying to "pull a fast one" with the sale? Not really. I don't know enough of the details. Further, such a self-serving transaction would be almost totally out-of-character on the part of the developer. But I surely don't have an explanation of how it happened.

It's the other part of the settlement that has been agreed to that concerns me the most. The article in The Daily Sun seems quite clear when it reports that "...the settlement will create a resident-elected Amenity Authority Committee to assume operational control of the amenity facilities and expenditure of amenity fees."

So what have these five people accomplished for our community? It seems to me that the agreed-upon settlement clearly removes the authority and responsibility for the operation of all the recreational facilities in The Villages from the developer and places it in the hands of "a resident-elected Amenity Authority Committee". Who will these people be? How will we elect them? What level of experience or competence should be required of them? Will the Court decide all this for us? Will the Court permit the five plaintiffs to inject themselves into positions of authority over our recreational amenities?

If any of you have ever attended any of the Recreational Advisory Committee (RAC) meetings, you can observe the clear differences between the professional, experienced and thoughtful decisions made by the staff of the Recreation Department and the VCCDD and SLCDD and the often narrow and petty positions taken by the resident members of the RAC. The difference in professionalism and experience is dramatic. I believe that at least some members of the RAC are the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. If you've never attended a RAC meeting, I suggest you put them on your calendar. Satisfy yourselves as to the professionalism and competence of those who might be assuming control over running our amenities.

It will be very interesting to learn more facts from those of you who agree to post the contents of the "settlement letter" sent to residents north of 466 this week. I'd like to learn more. While this settlement may already be a done deal, I'd surely like to learn how we can gain assurance that our recreational amenities will be maintained and operated with the same level of professionalism as we have been accustomed to. I'm hopeful that I won't discover that five legal activists, acting on their own but with demonstrated pecuniary interests, have taken an action that might change the quality of the lifestyle that the other eventual 99,995 residents of The Villages have come to expect.

Muncle

01-23-2008, 04:18 AM

One again, I salute the perspicacity of your understanding of the lawsuit snafu as we know it and your comments on its potential effect. :bigthumbsup: We all know that there is often much difference between what we see and hear one day and what is actually done. I pray that that is the case here. I admit that I am concerned about the situation and hope that something can be done to contain the damages before they overly contaminate the southern end of TV.

cabo35

01-23-2008, 04:45 AM

I am sure by now, at least one or more of the "group of five", Ruth Elaine Dreidame, Richard C. Lambrecht, William E. Gamer, Irving Yedwab and Joseph B. Gorman, has been made aware of and probably read this thread. It would certainly be enlightening to hear their perspective on the settlement and the windfall, if any, they received. Their straight forward responses would temper the suspicion that has crept into the revelations about the settlement and we all may be a little more comfortable with the result.

bimmertl

01-23-2008, 12:40 PM

AnotherVillager

01-23-2008, 03:20 PM

Here is a link to a copy of the settlement notice for those who haven't seen it:

http://www.thevillagesfl.us/classactionsettlement.htm

SteveFromNY

01-23-2008, 03:32 PM

Kahuna,
Thanks for bringing this really serious topic up, and shedding quite a bit of light on it.
I mentioned earlier I was depressed as a result, and that's all related to a small HOA I belonged to a long time ago when I lived in a condo here in NY. As far as the pettiness, it is amazing. As a for instance, the condo did not allow any outside changes to the building, including the addition of awnings. One person at a meeting was requesting an exception as the sun shone in her window strongly, and she wanted to cool the house some with the awning. All well and good, until someone else started complainig it wasn't fair, as the sun NEVER SHONE IN HER WINDOW!!! As if the board had the power to move either her house or the sun! So I know what to expect in a situation where the inmates rule, and it depresses me that TV, which I view as a paradise for the most part, will be subject to the same kind of self-appointed morons trying to run the show.

However, one potentially HUGE difference with TV: the potential talent pool for a resident run board should be very deep, given the sheer amount of candidates, and the likelihood that there are some reasonably smart, highly experienced people to help out. Of course, I'd imagine some of the retired talent wants to stay retired, and that will weaken the choices. And of course the morons hungry for some kind of power will rise to the occasion and campaign for these spots, bringing along all of the usual political baggage (like enough friends to sway an election). One can only hope for talented choices, large voter turnout, and for enough folks to have the wisdom to recognize the real talent.

I suppose though the microcosm of TV really reflects the outside world where the actions of a very, very few affect the entire population.

Anyway, as usual, your posts are unbiased, unemotional, informative, fact based and educational. Thanks.

larrydube

01-23-2008, 03:44 PM

At the end of the letter it states that this is a proposed settlement, and that the final hearing will be held on March 5. Doesn't that mean that someone could stop this process before then?

Hope2b

01-23-2008, 04:13 PM

It probably will turn out OK but I want every thing to stay as is. I moved here because It was run so well. I have diagreed with a few things but there has been much more that is good. Problem is I have a hard time believing that this is good for us if the POA has anything to do with it.

Halle

01-23-2008, 05:22 PM

Frangyomory,
Being a frequent poster to this forum and a strong proponent of the POA maybe you can enlighten us on how the members who will be paid as part of the settlement presumed to know what was best for all Villagers. If they had been elected to represent us I would not have a problem, but they were not. I like many other residents am concerned with a few very vocal and self serving individuals being in a position to make decisions that will effect all residents of The Villages. Follow the money may truly apply here.

Villages Kahuna

01-23-2008, 07:35 PM

After reading the copy of the Class Action Settlement Notice posted below by AnotherVillager (thanks, by the way), here's a couple of conclusions I've reached...

Yes, the five residents, all current or former officers of the POA, have negotiated to get themselves paid an amount of $60,000 each for whatever their efforts were in filing the lawsuit against The Villages. In that the lawsuit was only initiated sometime in 2007, that's a pretty handsome salary for part-time work. More importantly, the total amount of $300,000 proposed to be paid to our "representatives" comes directly out of the monies that The Villages agreed to set aside for future expenditures for recreational amenities in the area of The Villages south of CR 466.
[br]
More egregious is the $6.7 million dollar payment to be made to the lawyers for the five resident/plaintiffs. (Just as a frame of reference, $6.7 million would pay for the full-time engagement of over 13 lawyers for an entire year at a billing rate of $250 per hour.) In researching the lawyers I can find no record of the firm of Anderson & Anderson, P.A. in Lady Lake or anywhere else in the State of Florida. One of the two plaintiff's attorneys is listed as "Of Counsel" to the firm. "Of counsel" often describes a semi-retired or retired partner who still keeps a hand in a law firm. It certainly appears that this proposed settlement is a tremendous financial windfall to the two lawyers hired by the plantiffs to file this lawsuit. Also, like the payments to the five plaintiffs, this money comes directly out of the amount that would normally be spent on future recreational facilities and programs here in The Villages.
[br]
The Class Action Settlement Notice permits only Villages residents owning property north of CR 466 to appeal to the Court on this proposed settlement, but sets forth an extremely complicated and cumbersome process for doing so. If any of you meeting the tests as Class Members desire to appeal, you should read and re-read the process for doing so in the copy of the settlement notice posted below.
[br]
If there is anything positive I read into the proposed settlement notice it's the description of the formation of the new Amenities Authority Committee (AAC). It's pretty clear that the AAC will have complete control over running the recreational amenities north of CR 466. But the notice reads that the AAC will be created "...as a committee of the VCCDD". To me that suggests that the recreational amenities will continue to be managed by the VCCDD management (and ultimately the SLCDD north of CR 466). The wording of the Court doesn't say how the membership of the AAC will be established or whether residents will have any representation on the AAC. I wish it did.

[br]
The bottom line seems to be that our five fellow residents have paid themselves and their lawyers quite handsomely to obligate all of the rest of us to a settlement with the developer of The Villages that satisfies their complaints, even though the rest of us may not agree. It appears that this settlement is probably a "done deal", but if you want to appeal and if you qualify to do so, you'd better get going.

[b]I sure wish one or more of the five plaintiffs who appointed themselves to represent all of the rest of us would make a comment here on anything or everything that's been posted.

cabo35

01-23-2008, 09:37 PM

Let me see if I have this right regarding the financial windfall to the attorneys and the "group of five" ...please correct me if I have misrepresented or misinterpreted any of the fact pattern surrounding "the settlement".

Is it true that five individuals with assorted connections to the POA past and/or present, will be receiving $300,000 as incentive awards in their capacity as class representatives? Is this $300,000 award coming directly from our funding for future recreational facilities and programs here in The Villages? If this is true, how is this a good thing for Villagers?

It appears that the $6,700,000 in attorney fees is also coming off the top of future recreational facilities and program funds. Likewise, if true, how is this a good thing for the majority of Villagers. I would sincerely be happy to know this is not the case and I am misinformed.

If in fact, the eye catching award settled upon (40 mil) is spread out over 13 years, it would occur to me that the developer got the best of the deal as he will no longer have any liability (recreational facilities and programs) for a paltry $3,075,000 million a year. He probably pays that much in liability insurance premiums. He must be delighted to get out from under liability and responsibility for that price. Just my opinion.

I have to say I am suspicious of the eagerness to settle by lawyers who reaped $6,700,000 and the "group of five" who will net $300,000 when this matter is brought to closure. Remember, this is not a court ordered judgement, it is a settlement between principals where the majority of shareholders had no say in their representation. The lawyers and group of five self appointed "class representatives" spoke for Villagers without a mandate to do so.

In my opinion, the suspicions this warm and fuzzy, kumbaya climax generate are compounded by the developers eagerness to settle as well. It looks like the lawyers walk away happy, the group of five walk away happy and the developer walks away happy. What am I missing here? I really hope someone can tell me and show me where I need to stand corrected on my opinions.

I would like to hear opinions on this issue even if they are 180 degrees contrary to my own.

cabo35

01-24-2008, 04:13 PM

The silence speaks volumes.

Russ_Boston

01-24-2008, 06:17 PM

Just tell me I'll still be able to play golf :joke:

OK - I know, be serious. I'm sure it's all very serious business.

bimmertl

01-24-2008, 07:57 PM

The problem with this settlement is that little of the specifics involved are actually known. There are references to exhibits in the letter and none are available. (letter states the funds will be used pursuant to the terms of Exhibit B, which we don't have)The settlement also includes a Confidentially Agreement so not much will ultimately be known. As a result plenty of assumptions are being made with little factual basis for many of them.

In cabo35's last post the first question raised is "Is this $300,000 award coming directly from our funding for future recreational facilities and programs here in The Villages?" Good question. But then in the next paragraph it states "It appears that the $6,700,000 in attorney fees is also coming off the top of future recreational facilities and program funds." Despite no answer to the initial question, it suddenly becomes a fact the money is coming form rec funds and programs.

It would seem to defeat the purpose of the suit if the developer could use funds set aside for rec purposes to pay damages in a suit for more money to be set aside for the same purpose? The basis of the suit appears to get the developer to set aside more money. There will be a net gain of the agreed upon figure to the total set aside. Arguably the $7 million etc in fees paid as part of the suit could go for rec fees, but the developer was forced to add the $40 million by the suit. It was not done voluntarily.

Cabo also questions the paltry sum of $3 million per year. Well if little or no money was set aside, the settlement is much better than that. But again, we don't know the specifics. "He probably pays that much in liability insurance premiums." Again, pure speculation and since there are statutory limitations on liability exposures of CDD's I "probably" doubt he pays that much and it's most likely paid by us in the amenity fees.

The suit was initiated claiming a breach of various agreements to provide appropriate levels of amenity services and facilities to the residents of the involved districts. The suit requested damages as well as attorney's fee, incentive awards and costs. So the allegations in the suit forced the developer to live up to his contractual duties, which he apparently wasn't going to do short of litigation.

The court certified the suit as a class action which certifies the plaintiffs bringing suit as appropriate representatives of the class. It's typical in class action litigation for attorneys to obtain windfalls while members of the entire class receive nominal benefits, if any. So nothing new there.

In a prior post Kahuna states that a self serving transaction would be totally out of character for the developer. Check this old article from the Ocala newspaper and draw your own conclusions regarding that statement.

http://www.ccfj.net/CDDVillclout.html

Same developer who controls the Daily Sun where the article summarizing the settlement failed to mention the attorney fees and same Daily Sun that refused to let TOTV advertise in??

Without all the specifics we can only guess at a lot of what took place. But my experience with a prior CDD indicates the developer's primary concern is driven by the profit motive (not that plaintiff attorneys aren't driven by that) and they do what they can to maximize their profits at the expense of the residents.

The Villages is still the best place to live, but just as we, as residents, have to hold up our side of the bargain, so does the developer. Look beyond the fees paid to the prevailing party and be optimistic that the settlement will "ensure that the amenity services and facilities remain at the highest level" as stated in the Daily Sun.

cabo35

01-24-2008, 09:58 PM

Bimmer, thank you for your thoughtful response and especially the Ocala Star Banner article. I did in fact qualify my remark regarding the $6,700,000 by noting, "Likewise, if true, how is this a good thing for the majority of Villagers."

I plead no contest to taking license with the insurance remark. I was being sarcastic and don't have a clue what the actual number is, but, from personal experience, it isn't pocket change.

We are in agreement about the Villages being the best place to live. I have a very real concern about not having a say in an action that profoundly affects my property rights, life style and pocketbook. I did not vote on instituting the class action, the representatives that brought it, or, the ultimate settlement, yet it has profound implications for me and many other Villagers. Regarding your reference to the Confidentiality Agreement, I believe it is a slap in the face to every Village resident stakeholder and has bred rumor and suspicion. It begs the question of, "who is trying to hide what from who."

As to the "settlement" itself, my question frankly was whether the attorneys and class representatives acted on what was best for them in the form of the personal windfall they stand to gain or what was best for Villagers. I would like to know to what extent they negotiated their personal awards into the settlement and where the actual funds are coming from. It is difficult to accept a handful of individuals personally profitting from an action that totally excluded the property owners from having any say in the process even though they are directly and profoundly affected. But....that is just my opinion.

Do you think Villagers who were not given a voice or vote in this process or settlement have an argument that has legal standing or merit on the basis of taxation without representation if the funding for the awards is in fact coming from revenues generated by Village property owners? Does the judge even know that the "group of five" has no standing as official representatives of the Villages and in fact are self appointed class representatives? They have not been duly appointed or elected by anyone I know and specifically me as a property owner. How do they get to decide for me?

Part of the problem is that this whole CDD is going through a metamorphosis in Florida law. It is dynamic in the sense that precedents are still being formed and there are many grey, undefined areas.

I was 6 over par (first time) going into the last hole at Palmer this afternoon and blew up shooting an 8 on that hole, so when I got home, instead of kicking the dog, I headed for the computer. In spite of this rant, the Villages is still the best place to be.

Hey Russ, chasing that little white ball isn't the only exercise we need.
You need mental exercises as well. Remember golf itself is 90% mental. Or....as Yogi Berra would say, "It's 90% mental and the other half is physical."

bimmertl

01-24-2008, 10:44 PM

I stumbled on this article today. It's not exactly well written but it sheds a little more light on the suit.

It also indicates negotiations were going on for about a year. I suspected the matter was litigated to get certified as a class and receive court approval for the overall settlement and not to decide on amounts etc. So suit was filed in December 07 for court approval of the settlement. The judge will decide if it's in the best interests of the members of the class. His job is to address concerns such as those you have raised. Hopefully he knows what the heck he is doing. The mailing of the settlement notice to all members of the class is to inform them of their rights in the settlement. Heck, all these parties could have just shook hands, exchanged money and what the heck would the other 41,000 of us ever know?

http://www.ccfj.net/CDDVillageslawsuit.html

I think the biggest problem was the Developer and VCCDD cutting amenities and no doubt hoping nobody notice. Frankly, we should be glad the plaintiffs caught this and held Morse et al accountable.

Sorry about the golf game. Get a pit bull and that way you'll never kick the dog.

lm01

01-25-2008, 04:26 AM

This topic really concerns me to no end but I would never consider moving because of it. The UNKNOWN always make people crazy.

I look at it a little differently.... Folks in the South YES YOU your time is getting close. We will be operational and you'll be going crazy!!!!! ;D

Villages Kahuna

01-25-2008, 06:17 AM

I stopped by the CVCCD office this afternoon to see if I could get some answers regarding the new ACC committee that will be running all our rec centers, golf courses, pools and programs. I was trying to find out information like: will the ACC report to the CVCCD Supervisor; will the ACC have complete authority to manage all our recreation facilities and programs or just be "advisory"; will the ACC be elected or appointed; if it is to be appointed, who will be on the ACC (I surely hope it's not the five self-appointed "representatives" of the rest of us); and so on.

Not surprising given the fact that TV is a litigant in an as yet unadjudicated lawsuit, the employees there have all been instructed to answer with that old Three Stooges answer, "I don't know nothing". I was instructed to call the plaintiff's attorney, the Anderson & Anderson law firm to get any answers to my questions. I did call the law firm office but wasn't surprised when I had to leave my name and number on a machine. We'll see if the attorney calls back.

But I was amused by the plaintiff's attorney's statement in the Daily Commercial article (thanks Bimmer for posting it below). "The settlement represents a fair shake for both sides", said Carol Anderson, attorney for the plaintiffs. Hey, if you were going to get a $6.7 million payday as soon as the judge signs off on the deal, wouldn't you also characterize the settlement as a "fair shake"? I know I would.

cabo35

01-25-2008, 05:36 PM

Thanks for the article Bimmer. Kahuna...why am I not surprised at the response to your efforts to gather information. Keep us posted,

another Linda

01-25-2008, 10:31 PM

We got our letter today. One new thing that I noticed was that the new Amenity Authority Committee will replace the old Resident Advisory Counsel. I understand that the RAC was less than perfect. Will the new AAC be any different?

Also, if we want to opt out of the class, we can do so (again cumbersome.) If we do nothing, we remain in the class and forfeit our right to bring suit again at another time. If we opt out, we retain the right to sue in the future but can not share in the settlement. Now what does that mean? If we opt out we can't use the facilities? If we remain in we share in the $300,000? Not at all clear.

Villages Kahuna

01-26-2008, 08:33 AM

I spoke with the plaintiff's attorney at some length this afternoon. She was very open and answered all my questions at length and with no attempt to parse words or be evasive in any way. She and the plaintiffs have entered into a confidentiality agreement with the developer, but that did not interfere with my gathering of what I thought was important information. Here's a summary of the major points of our conversation.[br]

The five plaintiffs, all associated with the Property Owner's Association (POA), have been in discussions regarding various issues in The Villages for some time, apparently more than a year.[br]
A couple of the major issues they were attempting to get action on from the developer were the absence of any sort of sinking fund to pay for future rehabilitation or replacement of facilities which the developer had sold to the CVCCD as well as the widening of the golf cart paths north of CR 466. While some progress was made, the discussions finally reached a point where the developer's representative, former CVCCD Supervisor Pete Wahl, advised the group that nothing was going to be done to address certain of their concerns and they'd have to hire a lawyer to proceed any further on discussion of those issues. Apparently, the five principal "resident's representatives" from the POA decided that they would do just that.[br]
Once the five plaintiffs engaged counsel, their list of issues expanded somewhat and the discussions with the developer's representatives and lawyers became more regular and serious. While a lawsuit was certainly threatened by the plaintiffs, discussions continued for many months with no formal legal action actually being initiated. With the assistance of the five plaintiffs, all of whom were residents of The Villages and knowledgeable about the issues, plaintiff's counsel was able to organize a body of evidence that would almost certainly prevail should a lawsuit actually be filed and go to trial. The discussions then began to take the form of negotiating a settlement of the many issues identified by the plaintiffs.[br]
In the midst of these discussions the "straw vote" regarding the ongoing management of recreational facilities and programs was placed on the ballot of the 2006 local and county elections. Villages residents expressed a desire to have residents manage recreation programs and facilities rather than the developer although the plurality of the vote was very thin and inconsistent across the several districts in the Villages. But after some discussion and further negotiation, the Resident's Advisory Committee (RAC) was formally organized by an ordinance passed by the CVCDD board. That committee has been active in advising the CVCCD management and the Recreation Department for several months now.[br]
Plaintiff's counsel advised the five plaintiffs that proceeding with a lawsuit on their issues would require a major personal commitment of time and could result in considerable financial risk to them personally. They were advised regarding the amount of work and time which would be required to assemble sufficient evidence to prevail in a negotiation or lawsuit against the developer. They were also advised of some fairly significant financial risks they would be exposed to should they decide to proceed. They agreed to continue.[br]
Both the developer and the plaintiffs continued their negotiations without any transparency to the public thru press releases, articles, letters or any other form of explanation of what was happening. This was done with considerable forethought and purposefully on the part of both counterparties to the discussions. The motivation of the developer not to have the issues publicly discussed is obvious. The plaintiffs decided to continue their negotiations/discussions in almost complete confidentiality and anonymity for the purpose of maintaining a non-confrontational negotiating relationship with the developer. They were making progress and believed that taking their arguments "public" would make their relationship with the developer more confrontational and materially reduce his willingness to continue negotiations towards a settlement.[br]
As the body of evidence assembled by the plaintiffs became obvious to the developer, the discussions morphed into the negotiation of both the form and amount of a settlement. The plaintiffs continued to be firm in their demands and the developer was responsive both because of the body of evidence that had been assembled to support the plaintiff's claims and demands, but also because the developer was consistent in his stated intention to continue to play a major role in the operation of The Villages even after the final residential build-out was completed. The developer and his family consistently said that The Villages was such an integral part of their family history that they would never leave the management of the lifestyle that they had created to someone else.[br]
The negotiations regarding the plaintiff's issues were substantially completed sometime last fall. The major issues where agreements were reached were: the amount and timing of the formation of a sinking fund for use in funding any necessary future rehabilitation or replacement of facilities which had been sold to the CVCCD in the future; an agreement and schedule for widening the golf cart paths north of CR 466; how recreation facilities and programs would be managed with resident input; and a few other less significant issues such as golf tee times used by the developer for marketing, etc. Once an agreement was reached, it became apparent that to properly implement it, a "class" of plaintiffs would have to be formed to in essence be the recipient of the benefits negotiated by the five plaintiffs. That became the basis of both the class action lawsuit and proposed settlement, all of which was rolled up into one legal proceeding. That lawsuit was filed in December, 2007. The settlement currently being adjudicated affects only residents north of CR 466. But both parties have agreed that a similar settlement will be negotiated for residents south of CR 466 in the future. The plaintiffs are hopeful that the scheduled meeting with the judge in March will result in final adjudication of the formation of the class and the settlement.[br]
The RAC will be replaced by the AAC once the case is adjudicated. The intent of both parties to the litigation is that the membership of the RAC be elected by the residents. Accomplishing that objective won't be easy given the fact that The Villages is spread over three separate counties. But the litigants have at least two plans for accomplishing that objective. The AAC will operate essentially the same way as has the RAC, advising the CVCCD board and Recreation Department on the desires and needs of residents. It's not clear whether the authority of the new AAC will be supported by the force of law, but the developer has agreed to accept and implement duely authorized RAC recommendations with few exceptions. So it is now clear that the existing management of Villages recreation facilities and programs will continue on an essentially unchanged basis.[br]
On the issue of the fees prescribed by the proposed settlement, the plaintiff's attorney made the following observations: Neither legal fees or fees paid to the plaintiffs for their work in assembling rhe necessary evidence, negotiating the settlement and forming the class were discussed until after the negotiations regarding additional financial payments by the developer were completed. Only then were legal fees and plaintiff's fees negotiated. Plaintiff's counsel stressed that none of the fees being paid the attorneys or the plaintiffs reduces the amount of financial settlement by the developer in any way. The legal fees are well within the range of normal fees paid to counsel in class action litigations. As far as the $300,000 proposed payment to the five plaintiffs, their attorney observed that without their willingness to expend significant amounts of time and effort to assemble the necessary body of evidence and negotiate a settlement as well as assume not insignificant financial risks, there would be no settlement that benefits all residents of The Villages.[br]

As far as the current state of play of the formation of a residents class and the proposed settlement, personally I feel quite bit better about the situation. I certainly can't opine on the adequacy of the financial settlement. I can only assume that the five plaintiffs were knowledgeable and complete in their analysis of the situation and negotiated an amount that will be adequate for the purposes identified by the settlement. I also feel somewhat better that the developer and his management team, who in my opinion have done a magnificent job in creating the community that we have all chosen to live in, intends to remain in that role indefinitely. There are no guarantees of that for sure, but just that type of statement provides some comfort, to me a least.

Of further importance, learning of the process that was followed has eliminated the enmity I initially felt for the five residents who chose to proceed on this odyssey when they could have otherwise simply enjoyed golf and swimming.

I hope this final posting resolves the questions that I posed in starting this thread in the first place.

Knowledge is Power.

stjade

01-26-2008, 02:05 PM

:agree: :agree: :agree: Thank you Kahuna for persuing this topic as throughly as you have. As a new resident closing and moving in next week I feel much more comfortable. One of the obvious attractions of the villages was how it was managed and maintained, the vision of the Morse family is what created our paradise and it looks like it will continue. It sounds like the POA did a good job and should be comlimented ,even thou the lawyers made a lot of money [ they always do ]. Thanks Steve ;D ;D

another Linda

01-26-2008, 02:39 PM

Kahuna, thank you!

bimmertl

01-26-2008, 06:32 PM

Kahuna, outstanding work!!

Should be interesting, as the settlement unfolds, to see if the Daily Sun ever provides as much information as you have in this post.

It's great to see the plaintiffs were not only well informed of the developers continuing duties under the contract with the residents but also paid great attention to changes that were being made unilaterally without any notice to the residents. They than called the developers bluff of "well if you don't like it sue us" and prevailed.

Looks like we will all benefit from their diligence and hard work!

Halle

01-26-2008, 09:47 PM

Did you really think you were going to get anything but positive comments from the Plantiffs Attorney? If so I have some Ocean front property in Arizona I would like to sell you.

cabo35

01-27-2008, 02:47 PM

Kahuna....thanks for your follow-up and transmitting an articulate representation of your conversation with the attorney. It fills in some of the blanks. Residents who live south of 466 need to be attentive to what is transpiring with this process and settlement so that they may benefit from what their neighbors and friends north of the border are going through.

Muncle

01-27-2008, 08:58 PM

Hey Kahuna, good follow-up. :super: With that kind of effort, I think you too deserve an extra $50K or so. :bigthumbsup: Some the the answers you rec'd do ameliorate some of my concerns and like you I am willing to wait and watch. Maybe Chicken Little was wrong this time, but I still don't consider the POA an ally.

Boomer

01-27-2008, 09:21 PM

VK,

Thank you.

Vinyl siding I can deal with.

This is the stuff we're really watching.

BB

The Shadow

02-22-2008, 01:53 AM

This topic is one reason I registered. I have been monitoring this form for months. My first trip that was recorded by the front office was 1988. I was to young to live in the Villages at that time plus I was working in MI.
For two decade I have said, a family has done something the government could never do. I have traveled the U.S. in a motorhome scoping out retirement communities, this is one of a kind. Does anyone disagree? No
My fear is I cringe at the thought of anyone other that the present decision makers making the decisions concerning the managing of the recreation facilities. I know not one new face has any experience. I see the residence taking over. I see the people with the best golf score being elected by popular vote or the best line dancers. The line dancers will want to gut the rec-centers and put in big dance floors. The golfers will want to demolish the rec-center and expand the golf course. Everybody will want to spend the money in the treasury for bigger and better and newer. I fear the money will be mismanaged if for no other reason than no one has ever done this before. Look around you it is a full time job, are you going to but a retired person in charge.

Tell me, is it the plan to elect residents to manage this or is it just to have a voice. It looks to me that without the money the Village is out of control. OR is the money in a kind of escrow fund but managed by the Village.

Thank you for you time.