The Lifelong Learning College may be saved afterall!

[jnieman]

From the other on line Villages News!!

District manager has ‘good news’ on Lifelong Learning College

BY META MINTON JANUARY 11, 20175 COMMENTS

The Village Center Community Development District is going to save the Village Lifelong Learning College, but it is going to take a little time.

An overflow crowd of Villagers crammed into the District Office on Wednesday afternoon, eager to learn if the Lifelong Learning College would be resurrected after it had been shut down Dec. 31.

“I think it’s a good news story,” said District Manager Janet Tutt.

It was not a decision taken lightly, she said.

District staff have pored over the VLLC’s books and have determined that it is fiduciarily feasible for the District to take on the operation.

Tutt said a major part of the decision hinged on whether the District could carry on with the expected level of quality.

“I believe we can,” she said.

The bulk of the resurrection of the Lifelong Learning College will fall on the Recreation Department.

John Rohan, head of the Recreation Department, said his department “many years ago” had offered enrichment programs that were eventually taken over by the Lifelong Learning College. He said it was not uncharted water.

However, he said it would take time to evaluate everything from staffing to equipment needs.

Rohan predicted that registration for the next set of classes could take place in August and September. Classes could begin in October.

Some Villagers had questions about how the District could accommodate the Americans with Disabilities Act demands.

“The programs will be sponsored by the District and will be subject to ADA requirements,” Tutt said.

The Lifelong Learning College likely will physically continue in The Villages’ many recreation centers which were already home to some of the previous classes.

[villagetinker]

Also, it appears we WON the appeal, the ruling was published today and the judge affirmed the prior ruling which was in OUR favor.

IMHO, I would like to see the VCCDD arrange a rental arrangement with the former building that the LLLC used, and set it up under new management. This should be able to retain a lot of the infrastructure that worked very well.

[jnieman]

Also, it appears we WON the appeal, the ruling was published today and the judge affirmed the prior ruling which was in OUR favor.

IMHO, I would like to see the VCCDD arrange a rental arrangement with the former building that the LLLC used, and set it up under new management. This should be able to retain a lot of the infrastructure that worked very well.

Yes, from what I read it sounded like they planned to use the rooms at the rec centers. They are so booked already I don't know if that would be possible.

[Buffalo Jim]

Yes, from what I read it sounded like they planned to use the rooms at the rec centers. They are so booked already I don't know if that would be possible.

You gotta love it when people immediately see the dark clouds forming on a clear sunny day !!

In addition to the above on another site the resident grump
initials A.E. has already posted twice within an hour that our mutual expenses will be increasing as a result ! Too Much !!

[Mleeja]

You gotta love it when people immediately see the dark clouds forming on a clear sunny day !!

In addition to the above on another site the resident grump
initials A.E. has already posted twice within an hour that our mutual expenses will be increasing as a result ! Too Much !!

From my reading of the court filings, it appears as if the LLC was a self sustaining operation. Part of the issue was the increased cost associated with providing sign interpeters. I would suspect this cost will be absorbed by TV. We as Villagers pay for all kinds of facilities/activities not used by all residents.

As long as the cost are kept in control, I see no issues with supporting some increased cost in support of the LLC.

[Taltarzac725]

Sounds like good news!!!

[Mleeja]

Also, it appears we WON the appeal, the ruling was published today and the judge affirmed the prior ruling which was in OUR favor.

IMHO, I would like to see the VCCDD arrange a rental arrangement with the former building that the LLLC used, and set it up under new management. This should be able to retain a lot of the infrastructure that worked very well.

Can you post the link to the court again? Thank you!

[TheDude]

its great news if something like this is opened again. I have so much to learn...

[rubicon]

The LLC should be self supporting and not be subsidies by our amenities. People invite a pandora's box by such suggestions and my concern that amenity fees already climbing will go out of control.

If a resident has a burning desire to learn something new I applaud that effort but that resident should bear the cost not the community. The LLC found it difficult to continue financially closing the school down. This is a nice gesture but a suggestion that will move us in the wrong direction.

[biker1]

Increases in the amenities fees are tied to the CPI.

The LLC should be self supporting and not be subsidies by our amenities. People invite a pandora's box by such suggestions and my concern that amenity fees already climbing will go out of control.

If a resident has a burning desire to learn something new I applaud that effort but that resident should bear the cost not the community. The LLC found it difficult to continue financially closing the school down. This is a nice gesture but a suggestion that will move us in the wrong direction.

[Boomer]

The LLC should be self supporting and not be subsidies by our amenities. People invite a pandora's box by such suggestions and my concern that amenity fees already climbing will go out of control.

If a resident has a burning desire to learn something new I applaud that effort but that resident should bear the cost not the community. The LLC found it difficult to continue financially closing the school down. This is a nice gesture but a suggestion that will move us in the wrong direction.

Rubicon, our amenity fees are controlled. It is a percentage increase with a built-in limiting factor.

Oh, and, btw, I do not have a "burning desire" to play golf -- although I do have a lukewarm desire to play golf. But, I have never resented kicking in for golf courses because I know they are good for our property values -- and besides, they look pretty.

Please check the facts for more specifics on the controlled fees we pay for our amenities. My guess is the fees were designed to work that way to avoid that Jets vs. Sharks routine that so often occurs in communities with amenity fees.

[biker1]

Not exactly. Read my post. The amenity fee increases are tied to the CPI.

Rubicon, our amenity fees are controlled. It is a percentage increase with a built-in limiting factor.

Oh, and, btw, I do not have a "burning desire" to play golf -- although I do have a lukewarm desire to play golf. But, I have never resented kicking in for golf courses because I know they are good for our property values -- and besides, they look pretty.

Please check the facts for more specifics on the controlled fees we pay for our amenities. My guess is the fees were designed to work that way to avoid that Jets vs. Sharks routine that so often occurs in communities with amenity fees.

[Boomer]

Not exactly. Read my post. The amenity fee increases are tied to the CPI.

Thanks. I knew something controlled it so they could not up amenities fees willy-nilly just because nerds like me want to take a few classes.

I bet you can answer a question for me. -- What is it that controls the starting point of the fees for homeowners. I don't think they are all the same. Does it start with the time of sale and go from there? What determines the baseline? Thanks.

[biker1]

That is a good question. I suspect you would need to call your CDD to find out the exact formula they use for setting the starting point. I think the amenities fees are all pretty close (within several dollars) but you will find different numbers if you ask different people. Ours right now is $146.86.

Thanks. I knew something controlled it so they could not up amenities fees willy-nilly just because nerds like me want to take a few classes.

I bet you can answer a question for me. -- What is it that controls the starting point of the fees for homeowners. I don't think they are all the same. Does it start with the time of sale and go from there? What determines the baseline? Thanks.

[rubicon]

Increases in the amenities fees are tied to the CPI.

biker:

Respectively.... I understand how the amenities work. what I am suggesting is that if we keep adding what amenities will pay for the day will come when we will be told we go bust or we up the fees.
Think social security, etc. All contracts were made to be broken. We have some residents living here that have a lot of wants and never seem to balance them with need or the ability to pay and believe it should be shared by the community.

How does taking an educational course become defined as an amenity? How does a dog park become an amenity? You want to take a course pay the tuition. You want to own a dog pay the freight and take responsibility for your choice. I do not see these two items as defined as amenities and hence the comparison to golf, etc and the aforementioned are a real stretch.

I play golf but I have never utilized another amenity here and I don't object to paying amenities for rec centers, outdoor pools, golf pickle ball. I understood that when I signed on. However I don't pay for someone's golf lessons or their equipment or their golf cart or their trail fees or their tee time fees or their golf cart garages.

[Northwoods]

biker:

Respectively.... I understand how the amenities work. what I am suggesting is that if we keep adding what amenities will pay for the day will come when we will be told we go bust or we up the fees.
Think social security, etc. All contracts were made to be broken. We have some residents living here that have a lot of wants and never seem to balance them with need or the ability to pay and believe it should be shared by the community.

How does taking an educational course become defined as an amenity? How does a dog park become an amenity? You want to take a course pay the tuition. You want to own a dog pay the freight and take responsibility for your choice. I do not see these two items as defined as amenities and hence the comparison to golf, etc and the aforementioned are a real stretch.

I play golf but I have never utilized another amenity here and I don't object to paying amenities for rec centers, outdoor pools, golf pickle ball. I understood that when I signed on. However I don't pay for someone's golf lessons or their equipment or their golf cart or their trail fees or their tee time fees or their golf cart garages.

I thought the bond paid for infrastructure like rec. centers and outdoor pools.... but I could be wrong. The definition of amenity is: any feature that provides comfort, convenience, or pleasure. I am a golfer... so "free" executive golf is important to me. But why would executive golf be considered an amenity where a dog park would not? There just might be more dog owners than golfers.
And if you are required to "pay the freight" to own a dog, then should you "pay the freight" to play an executive course? (more than the trail fees?) I believe both executive golf and dog ownership are two things that many Villagers are passionate about.

[Barefoot]

And if you are required to "pay the freight" to own a dog, then should you "pay the freight" to play an executive course? (more than the trail fees?) I believe both executive golf and dog ownership are two things that many Villagers are passionate about.:agree:

[biker1]

I can't see a day when the language controlling the increase in the amenity fee changes. What additional amenities have been added recently (that aren't scaled to the increase in the number of houses)?

biker:

Respectively.... I understand how the amenities work. what I am suggesting is that if we keep adding what amenities will pay for the day will come when we will be told we go bust or we up the fees.
Think social security, etc. All contracts were made to be broken. We have some residents living here that have a lot of wants and never seem to balance them with need or the ability to pay and believe it should be shared by the community.

How does taking an educational course become defined as an amenity? How does a dog park become an amenity? You want to take a course pay the tuition. You want to own a dog pay the freight and take responsibility for your choice. I do not see these two items as defined as amenities and hence the comparison to golf, etc and the aforementioned are a real stretch.

I play golf but I have never utilized another amenity here and I don't object to paying amenities for rec centers, outdoor pools, golf pickle ball. I understood that when I signed on. However I don't pay for someone's golf lessons or their equipment or their golf cart or their trail fees or their tee time fees or their golf cart garages.

[rubicon]

I thought the bond paid for infrastructure like rec. centers and outdoor pools.... but I could be wrong. The definition of amenity is: any feature that provides comfort, convenience, or pleasure. I am a golfer... so "free" executive golf is important to me. But why would executive golf be considered an amenity where a dog park would not? There just might be more dog owners than golfers.
And if you are required to "pay the freight" to own a dog, then should you "pay the freight" to play an executive course? (more than the trail fees?) I believe both executive golf and dog ownership are two things that many Villagers are passionate about.

Actually this conversation is moot because the amenities fees are not slated, at least at this time to fund another LLC. Nor am I interested in hurting anyone's feelings but it is good to have such conversation to be sure we all agree that we are going in the same and right direction. I am respectful to every individual and their position on such matters

I am not sure as to what the bond paid for nor am I sure if dog parks were a part of the deal the Developer made when he sold off such assets to the District. I believe I do but for the sake of discussion I'll acquiesce to your position.

However I would not define a dog as an amenity by any stretch of the imagination. I do recognize that dog owners take umbrage over such comments. But owning a dog isn't like throwing a softball. In point of fact many dog owners view their dog as a part of their family and I am respectful of that fact.

For the sake of discussion let's say I buy into your argument and pay my freight piece meal for any amenity available. I'll wager I'd come ahead price wise, rather than paying a monthly fee per family.

In fact this also may be of benefit paying the fees per usage for two reasons. 1) Like the internet, phone water electricity, etc the more you use the more you pay 2) cost to renters should be double what residents would have to pay.

I have heard unsolicited comments from some golfers that play golf three + times a day. I don't begrudge them but would they do so if they had to pay for each round? Some residents have frequent guess who utilized the amenities full time while other residents have no guest or guest that don't golf, etc. See where I am going with this ?


Now we come to dog parks. Again a dog owner should pay an association fee for the building and maintenance of dog parks. Your dog your responsibility. I'd also wager that if dog parks charged a monthly fee soon the dog parks would be empty.

I truly have little issue with dog , dog parks etc . And I am not rallying against the monthly amenity fee.

My focus is on the financial affect suggestions made by residents have on the amenity fee because if it is not tightly controlled and defined it can lead to disastrous results. And, over the pass 10 years that I have lived here some residents have come up with crackpot suggestions leaving me wondering if they believe money for their suggestions materializes out of thin air?

Finally the definition you offer as to "amenity" is very troubling to me because it is much too broad and ambiguous. For example some resident may find comfort, convenience and pleasure with a call girl so should we foot his bill?

Personal Best Regards:

[Carla B]

Back to the subject, The LLC. According to testimony cited in the Ocala District Court order, the LLC was self-sustaining and even paid minimal rental for room use to the Charter School from course fees. LLC argued that having to pay for interpreters would drive course fees so high that enrollment would fall and the LLC would fail. Maybe the District, which is subject to the ADA, will try to spread the cost of interpreters over all the courses offered so that the burden is less for each course, but still low enough to attract enrollment.

[Jim 9922]

I thought the bond paid for infrastructure like rec. centers and outdoor pools.... but I could be wrong. .

The Bond paid for land improvements and the land infrastructure and utility improvements such as overall grading, water runoff, vegetation clearing, streets, sewer, sanitation, street lights, signage, etc. In most States and many areas of Florida this is rightly included in the price of the new home. By "bonding out" these costs the "selling price" of the new home appears to be less.
The cost of the rec centers, pools, executive courses, etc is carried by the Developer, and owned by it, and leased to our CDD's. They are not "owned" by the residents until actually sold to our CDD organizations. This was just done for most facilities South of HY 466 in which the residents thru our CDD organizations committed to about $30,000 of debt per residence unit to now "own" the facilities.
So, in reality, the true "cost" of the home you bought with all those beautiful amenities really cost, on average, an extra $60,000 plus interest over 15 or 20 years. (about $30,000 original "bond" and the subsequent $30,000 amenities facilities purchase).
I'm not saying good or bad, or over or under priced, but that is just how it works in TV.

[HogPilot]

I agree that the resident should incur the cost. The LLC classes are not free. There is a cost associated with each class paid by the user. This cost is not passed onto the community. Glad to hear efforts are being made to bring it back.

[Mikeod]

The
The cost of the rec centers, pools, executive courses, etc is carried by the Developer, and owned by it, and leased to our CDD's. They are not "owned" by the residents until actually sold to our CDD organizations. This was just done for most facilities South of HY 466 in which the residents thru our CDD organizations committed to about $30,000 of debt per residence unit to now "own" the facilities.
So, in reality, the true "cost" of the home you bought with all those beautiful amenities really cost, on average, an extra $60,000 plus interest over 15 or 20 years. (about $30,000 original "bond" and the subsequent $30,000 amenities facilities purchase).
I'm not saying good or bad, or over or under priced, but that is just how it works in TV.
I don't think this is correct. The residential CDDs will not own any of the amenities within their district. All are and will be owned by the central districts. Our amenity fees cover the bonds and interest issued by the central districts to purchase the amenities from the Developer. North of 466 the AAC controls that amount of the amenity fees not earmarked to bond service, but the amenities are still owned by VCCDD.

[SALYBOW]

Increases in the amenities fees are tied to the CPI.

I have taken many courses at LLC and have paid for everyone of them. I paid for them at LLC but most were conducted elsewhere. How would a persons "burning desire to learn something new" be any different than a persons burning desire to golf, bowl, play cards, do crafts etc? These are all covered by the amenity fees. This is TV. We all moved here to remain active. The ability to take lessons or a course in many, many thins is what gives TV it;s appeal,
:MOJE_whot: Welcome back LLC

[Advogado]

The Bond paid for land improvements and the land infrastructure and utility improvements such as overall grading, water runoff, vegetation clearing, streets, sewer, sanitation, street lights, signage, etc. In most States and many areas of Florida this is rightly included in the price of the new home. By "bonding out" these costs the "selling price" of the new home appears to be less.
The cost of the rec centers, pools, executive courses, etc is carried by the Developer, and owned by it, and leased to our CDD's. They are not "owned" by the residents until actually sold to our CDD organizations. This was just done for most facilities South of HY 466 in which the residents thru our CDD organizations committed to about $30,000 of debt per residence unit to now "own" the facilities.
So, in reality, the true "cost" of the home you bought with all those beautiful amenities really cost, on average, an extra $60,000 plus interest over 15 or 20 years. (about $30,000 original "bond" and the subsequent $30,000 amenities facilities purchase).
I'm not saying good or bad, or over or under priced, but that is just how it works in TV.
A correction and further explanation to the above:

Amenity facilities are never sold to "our" CDDs. The developer sells them to one of the three commercial CDDs that he controls. Thus, the amenity facilities are never actually owned by the residents.

In the past, those developer-contolled CDDs issued tax-exempt bonds to pay the developer. The IRS has now forbidden the issuance of tax-exempt bonds for that purpose. Consequently the bonds currently being issued are taxable.

Thus, the calculation of the true cost of buying a house is overstated. The true cost is the ostensible purchase price plus the amount of the infrastructure bond allocated that house--which is not disclosed in developer advertising. It is erroneous math to add in the amenities facilities purchase.

[Mleeja]

I think you all are missing an important point in this discussion. The previous LLC classes were being offered to the public in general. I recall there were three levels of fees with folks outside The Villages paying the most. If The Villages operate the LLC is it still going to be offered to all comers or just The Villages residents. If the classes are going to be open to all, I do want any of my amenity fees going to the LLC. It has to be self funded just like it was in the past.

[Advogado]

I think you all are missing an important point in this discussion. The previous LLC classes were being offered to the public in general. I recall there were three levels of fees with folks outside The Villages paying the most. If The Villages operate the LLC is it still going to be offered to all comers or just The Villages residents. If the classes are going to be open to all, I do want any of my amenity fees going to the LLC. It has to be self funded just like it was in the past.
I don't believe anybody is proposing to use amenity fees to cover any of the costs of the new LLC. The proposal seems to be to have the VCCDD establish an enterprise fund to run the LLC. As I understand it, an enterprise fund is merely an accounting method to allow a municipal government to set up separate books for a self-funded activity.

Since the VCCDD reportedly concedes that it is subject to the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act with regard to its programs, a more troubling question is: How will the VCCDD deal with the allegedly unreasonable demands being made by the plaintiffs under that Act? In other words, won't the VCCDD find itself in the same position as the charter school was in when the charter school was running the LLC?

[mulligan]

Probably not because when the school was involved, there was government money (state and federal) being spent to house the program. If recreation does it, it's private.

[JoMar]

There was also a win for the District and the Charter School in the United States District Court last Wednesday. As reported by the other news service, " Concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims, the district court held that the Resident Groups are not a service, program, or activity of the Districts, nor are they an instrumentality of the Districts, meaning that the Districts are therefore not subject to the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act based on the activities of these groups. Similarly, the district court concluded that the Districts had not run afoul of the Fair Housing Acts because Plaintiffs are not denied access to facilities covered by the FHA, and the Resident Groups are not themselves a service of the Districts". The saga will continue.

[EPutnam1863]

The deaf are entitled to reasonable accommodations provided in a program or service funded by Federal funds. Unfortunately due to the widely varying hearing losses, some of them cannot benefit from most listening devices but require sign language interpreters instead. They can be very costly - as much as $100-$150 per hour with a minimum of two hours. There are classes that require these services but there are also classes that would not require their constant presences.

Just because the deaf have the legal right to such services should not have to mean it is ok for them to abuse their rights by refusing to make compromises or by demanding such services when they do not really need them.

Further these interpreting services are obtained on contract only, so if the deaf student misses or drops out of a class, these interpreters are still paid to the end of the contract.

[EPutnam1863]

As of now (February 20, 2017 at 1:26), the jury in the LLC case is now in deliberations. I pity the jury because there are 30 plaintiffs and four elements.

[EPutnam1863]

Actually I should not have said "LLLC case" in my previous posting. What I should have said "Damages." I believe this is what this trial is all about...to assess damages if any. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. After reading all the available documents, it is my opinion that none of the plaintiffs should be awarded any damages because it is clear that they did not care enough to pursue the issue without taking it to court.. But the jury may likely want to sweeten the deal for them by awarding at least the attorney's fees.

[EPutnam1863]

Back to the subject, The LLC. According to testimony cited in the Ocala District Court order, the LLC was self-sustaining and even paid minimal rental for room use to the Charter School from course fees. LLC argued that having to pay for interpreters would drive course fees so high that enrollment would fall and the LLC would fail. Maybe the District, which is subject to the ADA, will try to spread the cost of interpreters over all the courses offered so that the burden is less for each course, but still low enough to attract enrollment.

I am not sure of interpreting costs in that area, so I can make only an educated guess based on my own experiences with such services. Let's assume interpreting services would cost $100 per hour with a minimum of two hours. Some of the classes last 4-12 weeks, so let's assume just one deaf student registers for a 6-week class. This would cost $1200 plus expenses for each of the two interpreters. This is for just one student. Even if the deaf student drops out, the interpreters and their expenses (gas, mileage) will continue to be paid to the end of the contract.

And what if there are not enough interpreters?

DNS and CART are the ways to go. With much improved technology these days, the deafies need to learn how to work with these devices which will then free them up and make them not so dependent on human interpreters.

[EPutnam1863]

The LLC should be self supporting and not be subsidies by our amenities. People invite a pandora's box by such suggestions and my concern that amenity fees already climbing will go out of control.

If a resident has a burning desire to learn something new I applaud that effort but that resident should bear the cost not the community. The LLC found it difficult to continue financially closing the school down. This is a nice gesture but a suggestion that will move us in the wrong direction.

I doubt very much that the wheelchair-bound residents had to pay for the ramps. ADA applies to ALL who qualify as disabled or having disabilities and not being able to function as one without disabilities does.

[Mleeja]

I agree that the LLC should be self supporting and non-profit. The cost to comply with the ADA requirements should be built into the cost of the classes. The original LLC was open to all including those outside The Villages. I have not seen if this will be the case with the new LLC. Will the fee structure be such that non villagers pay more? (They should).

[EPutnam1863]

LLLC would not have to comply with ADA requirements if it received no public funds and its classes were not held in a building funded (in whole or part) by public funds. What this means is that they would not even have to provide ramps nor elevators nor bathroom stalls for the physically disabled as long as they are private, meaning not open to the general public.

[EPutnam1863]

See Deaf win right to interpreters from The Villages - Orlando Sentinel (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-villages-deaf-interpreters-20170228-story.html)

[Mleeja]

See Deaf win right to interpreters from The Villages - Orlando Sentinel (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-villages-deaf-interpreters-20170228-story.html)

1. The Orlando Sentinel, or its writer is no fan of The Villages. They cannot be trusted to offer an unbiased review. They are correct the jury made an award.

2. Please read the lawsuit before making comments. The LLLC did not receive public funds or private funds. The LLLC was self funded. They paid rent to The Charter School to use their facilities. The LLLC did state in the deposition that the cost of obtaining interpeters would be cost prohibitive. Apparently the jury disagreed. The case is not over until the decision to appeal the decision is made.

3. Since the LLLC was self funded, they made the decision to close the doors rather than to take on the cost of providing interperters and passing the cost to the students.

[EPutnam1863]

1. The Orlando Sentinel, or its write is no fan of The Villages. They cannot be trusted to offer an unbiased review. They are correct the jury made an award.

2. Please read the lawsuit before making comments. The LLLC did not receive public funds or private funds. The LLLC was self funded. They paid rent to The Charter School to use their facilities. The LLLC did state in the deposition that the cost of obtaining interpeters would be cost prohibitive. Apparently the jury disagreed. The case is not over until the decision to appeal the decision is made.

3. Since the LLLC was self funded, they made the decision to close the doors rather than to take on the cost of providing interperters and passing the cost to the students.

I noticed several errors in the Sentinel article. Not all the plaintiffs were awarded. Louis is not a lawyer.

Janet Tutt did say LLLC may reopen this fall and that it would be in compliance with ADA.