Steep increases in PWAC funding attributed to Community Development District 12

[GoodLife]

see article at online news site

Steep increases in the Project Wide Advisory Committee funding are being attributed to Community Development District 12.
Community Development District 6 and 8 supervisors on Friday asked some pointed questions about increases to be paid for PWAC, which is made up of CDDs 5 through 12.
CDD 6 could see a 15 percent increase in its funding for PWAC. The CDD 6 PWAC budget for this year was $1.8 million and is projected to swell to $2.1 million next year.
There have been suspicions that the PWAC increases were for the Morse Boulevard bridge embankment project, but $2.1 million already has been tucked away for the possibility of that work.
Budget Director Barbara Kays on Friday said the PWAC increases are largely attributable to CDD 12, which includes the Village of Fenney, becoming a part of PWAC.
“I am confused as to how we are getting to this number,” said CDD 6 Supervisor John Calandro.
He indicated it appeared that existing CDD 6 residents would be paying for the upkeep of the multi-modal paths, landscaping and stormwater basins in CDD 12.
CDD 6 last month voted to keep its maintenance assessment at the same level for the coming fiscal year. Instead of raising the assessment, CDD 6 will dip into its reserves to make up the difference, something about which a CDD 6 supervisor expressed concern.
CDD 8 Supervisor Sal Torname said he is “troubled” by his district’s rising costs for PWAC.
He pointed out that 53 percent of the money CDD 8 residents are paying in maintenance assessment fees is going to PWAC. CDD 8 residents will not see an increase in the maintenance assessment rate for next year, even though the budget is increasing by $247,923. The difference is being made up by tapping into working capital.
“It is inevitable we will be forced to look at our assessment rate,” he said.
Torname called for tougher scrutiny of the PWAC budget.
It was pointed out that new golf cart bridges are going up over State Road 44 and the Florida Turnpike to connect the newer areas to The Villages.
“That infrastructure is ultimately going to come under our jurisdiction for maintenance,” noted CDD 8 Supervisor Duane Johnson.

[vintageogauge]

And?

[Kannon451]

Good life,
Thank you for your time and effort to keep us informed.

[Goldwingnut]

Once again that other web site had demonstrated its ability to selectively edit facts in an attempt to create outrage amongst the residents of The Villages.

It’s time to look at the numbers that are being discussed. Let’s start with District 12 as it appears to be the target of most of the badmouthing.

District 12 last year consisted mainly of the Village of Fenney last year and had a contribution to the project wide fund of $604,084, this year Phase 2 of District 12 was included in the budget doubling the size of the district and increasing their contribution to $1,744,088, an increase of $1,140,002. While this is a substantial increase (189%) it also makes since as there is more property going to be maintained, as they have more property they have more costs and will pay more.

The Project Wide budget for next fiscal year went up $1,937,808 over the current fiscal year of this District 12’s increased costs and contribution was $1,140,002 or a net increase of $797,806 to be distributed among districts 5 through 11, Brownwood, and Lake Sumter Landing.

This other $800K of increase is what is having to be absorbed by the other districts as an increase, well, almost. There is an additional $754,581 that needs to be added to this $797,806 bringing the total to $1,552,387. The $754,581 was Project Wide Working Capital funds that were used this fiscal year to fund the budget as the working capital budget was over funded. It was determined to be better to not to increase assessments to the districts (and residents) last year with this fund being over funded and instead draw the fund down by supplementing the budget. So, we all dodged the bullet last year for maintenance assessment increase because the working capital budget had been building up over the last few years. The excesses are now back in line and it’s time to pay bills.

This $1.55M in increases is with needs to be understood. There are two major sources of this increase: 1) contracted services increases and 2) increased maintenance costs.

The contracted services are the biggest increase and includes all the services that are not self-executed by the District staff – landscaping maintenance, villa road maintenance, irrigation system maintenance, pond maintenance, tree maintenance, the list is many and numerous – all of these services have had substantial increases. All of these services are competitively bid and, in most cases, contracts are awarded based on lowest price. There are many reasons why these costs have gone up but the bottom line is that the businesses that perform this work are not charities and must make a profit to survive, if their costs go up, their prices go up, we have to pay the increases.

The increased maintenance cost is, while it seems redundant of above is a different issue, the result of the districts aging and infrastructures needing higher levels of maintenance and replacement due to age. The Capital Improvement Plan covers these items and is project to be $280K. This cost will continue to increase annually as the areas south of CR466 continue to age.

District 12 is also paying a part of these increases, of the $1,140K increase they are paying next fiscal year, about $236K of this increase is their portion of these cost increases.

Yes, the District 12 budget increased significantly but it is not the cause of the increases that the individual districts are seeing. In fact, the additional acreage added to District 12 results in a lower cost to each of the districts because of the way these costs are distributed. Each district has a fixed acreage that represents a percentage of the total acreage, District 12’s additional acreage increases the total and decreases the other district’s percentage of the whole. This happened previously when District 11 (Fruitland Park area) was added.

As for the comment of the money set aside for the island revetment work, the other web site’s statement makes this sound a nefarious undertaking by PWAC, it is far from that. PWAC has been anticipating this cost and has been setting aside funds to cover the work. Until the true costs are known – the $1.7M frequently mentioned is an engineering estimate not a firm price – these funds will continue to be held in reserve. I don’t want to delve further into this topic now as it is complex and lots of misinformation is flying about.

The budgeting process and operation of The Villages as a community is extremely complex and each budget and entity is different from the others. For those residents and Supervisors that are “concerned” or “troubled” or that may want “tougher scrutiny” of the Project Wide and Amenities budgets I would suggest educating yourselves by attending the monthly meetings and annual budget workshops that occur and are open to the public for examination, comments, and input. All the information is there for the asking.

And for those that love to get on the “the developer needs to pay more” bandwagon, they are. Almost the entire increase in the District 12 budget and project wide assessment associated with Phase 2 of District 12 (about $1.6M) is paid by the developer. Phase 2 of District 12 includes the Villages of McClure, Marsh Bend, De Luna, Linden, and Monarch Grove, which if you have been watching my drone videos, are still very much under construction. They will continue to pay the annual maintenance assessment on each home until it is sold, built or not.

Just for informational purposes, Districts 9 and 12 are nearly identical in size and have similar project wide assessments. Last year Districts 12 was about the same size as 11 and paid a similar assessment to the project wide funding. All of the numbers and information I have given here are available for everyone to review on the districtgov.org web site.

As for that other site, its articles are frequently yellow journalism at its lowest level with sensualism being an obvious part of their business model in order to drive web traffic and their profits. It is sad that they have chosen to take the route of maligning the community, developer, and the residents that they so often do when a much better service would be to educate and inform, but then I guess there is little to be made that way.

My fellow residents I urge you all to educate yourselves and try to understand how this unique and incredible community we all live in works and functions, this is the purpose of many of my posts. If we leave it up to those that shout the loudest about every little thing, then that mob rule mentality will surely ruin both this community and our retirements.

[jdguscinski]

Goldwing - there is NO way that district 9 and 12 are the same size!!!

[graciegirl]

There will be no upcharge to any of us personally. This is internal savings and disbursements. Monies have been targeted for these things, including the bridge repair. There have been monies every year to paint and keep this place in good repair. Deep breaths.


Relax. Nothing is changing. There has never been one of those horrible assessments like golf course communities have suffered elsewhere. PLEASE read what Goldwing said above again. And then read it again.

NO. I don't work for the developer. I don't know any of them.

[graciegirl]

Once again that other web site had demonstrated its ability to selectively edit facts in an attempt to create outrage amongst the residents of The Villages.

It’s time to look at the numbers that are being discussed. Let’s start with District 12 as it appears to be the target of most of the badmouthing.

District 12 last year consisted mainly of the Village of Fenney last year and had a contribution to the project wide fund of $604,084, this year Phase 2 of District 12 was included in the budget doubling the size of the district and increasing their contribution to $1,744,088, an increase of $1,140,002. While this is a substantial increase (189%) it also makes since as there is more property going to be maintained, as they have more property they have more costs and will pay more.

The Project Wide budget for next fiscal year went up $1,937,808 over the current fiscal year of this District 12’s increased costs and contribution was $1,140,002 or a net increase of $797,806 to be distributed among districts 5 through 11, Brownwood, and Lake Sumter Landing.

This other $800K of increase is what is having to be absorbed by the other districts as an increase, well, almost. There is an additional $754,581 that needs to be added to this $797,806 bringing the total to $1,552,387. The $754,581 was Project Wide Working Capital funds that were used this fiscal year to fund the budget as the working capital budget was over funded. It was determined to be better to not to increase assessments to the districts (and residents) last year with this fund being over funded and instead draw the fund down by supplementing the budget. So, we all dodged the bullet last year for maintenance assessment increase because the working capital budget had been building up over the last few years. The excesses are now back in line and it’s time to pay bills.

This $1.55M in increases is with needs to be understood. There are two major sources of this increase: 1) contracted services increases and 2) increased maintenance costs.

The contracted services are the biggest increase and includes all the services that are not self-executed by the District staff – landscaping maintenance, villa road maintenance, irrigation system maintenance, pond maintenance, tree maintenance, the list is many and numerous – all of these services have had substantial increases. All of these services are competitively bid and, in most cases, contracts are awarded based on lowest price. There are many reasons why these costs have gone up but the bottom line is that the businesses that perform this work are not charities and must make a profit to survive, if their costs go up, their prices go up, we have to pay the increases.

The increased maintenance cost is, while it seems redundant of above is a different issue, the result of the districts aging and infrastructures needing higher levels of maintenance and replacement due to age. The Capital Improvement Plan covers these items and is project to be $280K. This cost will continue to increase annually as the areas south of CR466 continue to age.

District 12 is also paying a part of these increases, of the $1,140K increase they are paying next fiscal year, about $236K of this increase is their portion of these cost increases.

Yes, the District 12 budget increased significantly but it is not the cause of the increases that the individual districts are seeing. In fact, the additional acreage added to District 12 results in a lower cost to each of the districts because of the way these costs are distributed. Each district has a fixed acreage that represents a percentage of the total acreage, District 12’s additional acreage increases the total and decreases the other district’s percentage of the whole. This happened previously when District 11 (Fruitland Park area) was added.

As for the comment of the money set aside for the island revetment work, the other web site’s statement makes this sound a nefarious undertaking by PWAC, it is far from that. PWAC has been anticipating this cost and has been setting aside funds to cover the work. Until the true costs are known – the $1.7M frequently mentioned is an engineering estimate not a firm price – these funds will continue to be held in reserve. I don’t want to delve further into this topic now as it is complex and lots of misinformation is flying about.

The budgeting process and operation of The Villages as a community is extremely complex and each budget and entity is different from the others. For those residents and Supervisors that are “concerned” or “troubled” or that may want “tougher scrutiny” of the Project Wide and Amenities budgets I would suggest educating yourselves by attending the monthly meetings and annual budget workshops that occur and are open to the public for examination, comments, and input. All the information is there for the asking.

And for those that love to get on the “the developer needs to pay more” bandwagon, they are. Almost the entire increase in the District 12 budget and project wide assessment associated with Phase 2 of District 12 (about $1.6M) is paid by the developer. Phase 2 of District 12 includes the Villages of McClure, Marsh Bend, De Luna, Linden, and Monarch Grove, which if you have been watching my drone videos, are still very much under construction. They will continue to pay the annual maintenance assessment on each home until it is sold, built or not.

Just for informational purposes, Districts 9 and 12 are nearly identical in size and have similar project wide assessments. Last year Districts 12 was about the same size as 11 and paid a similar assessment to the project wide funding. All of the numbers and information I have given here are available for everyone to review on the districtgov.org web site.

As for that other site, its articles are frequently yellow journalism at its lowest level with sensualism being an obvious part of their business model in order to drive web traffic and their profits. It is sad that they have chosen to take the route of maligning the community, developer, and the residents that they so often do when a much better service would be to educate and inform, but then I guess there is little to be made that way.

My fellow residents I urge you all to educate yourselves and try to understand how this unique and incredible community we all live in works and functions, this is the purpose of many of my posts. If we leave it up to those that shout the loudest about every little thing, then that mob rule mentality will surely ruin both this community and our retirements.

Thank you again Goldwing.

[Bogie Shooter]

Goldwing - there is NO way that district 9 and 12 are the same size!!!

Please define size. Acreage, residents, roof tops??

[twoplanekid]

While I can understand the reasons for the Project Wide fees, District 10 Project Wide fees account for some 64% of the projected District 10 spending for 18-19. That’s taking $2,195,000 out of the budget. I also am aware that District 10 has one representative on the Project wide committee. So, we have a little say as to how the Project Wide fees are spent.

Still, the maintenance fees we pay in our District should be spent in our District. That’s what the State of Florida originally intended when they established CDDs. It’s hard for me to get over that feeling.

[Topspinmo]

Aaaaaaaa, relax and drink some koolaid :beer3::beer3: amenities are going up. Follow the yellow brick road!

[VApeople]

There has never been one of those horrible assessments like golf course communities have suffered elsewhere.

That is what we saw happen in Virginia.

A developer would build a golf course so he could sell house lots for more money. After he had made all the money he could, he would turn the course over to the home owners, who would then have to find a way to pay for the maintenance.

We saw quite a few nice courses, like Beacon Hill in Leesburg VA, close down because the home owners could not support it.

[VApeople]

Still, the maintenance fees we pay in our District should be spent in our District.

I disagree.

I am not a Socialist by any means, but I do think we need to look out for each other. If one area of TV starts to deteriorate, we are all going to see our home values and quality of lifestyle decrease.

If I have a skin cancer on my left arm, my right arm has to work harder to make enough money to treat the cancer. If my right arm refuses and the cancer spreads, the right arm will eventually suffer as well.

[Bjeanj]

Goldwingnut, yours is the most cogent of all the comments regarding this issue. Well-articulated, fact-driven, and I appreciate your comments.

In addition, I agree with you regarding the other news site. Anyone can set up a website and call it a news site, despite poor language usage, multiple spelling errors and typos, and poor reporting (who, what where, when and why). If supported solely by advertising, one must be cautious about whose advertising dollars it attracts.

[twoplanekid]

I disagree.

I am not a Socialist by any means, but I do think we need to look out for each other. If one area of TV starts to deteriorate, we are all going to see our home values and quality of lifestyle decrease.

If I have a skin cancer on my left arm, my right arm has to work harder to make enough money to treat the cancer. If my right arm refuses and the cancer spreads, the right arm will eventually suffer as well.

in my post ->

While I can understand the reasons for the Project Wide fees,

It’s hard for me to get over that feeling.


I understand your point yet hate to see larger amounts taken out of the local CDD every year going to the Project Wide fund where our local control is minimal.

64% of CDD 10 funds are now going to the Project Wide fees. Some might say that we should do away with CDDs and dump all of the monies into a city wide The Villages fund. However, that would take an act of the Florida State Legislature which will never happen.

[Goldwingnut]

Goldwing - there is NO way that district 9 and 12 are the same size!!!

You have to look at the numbers that are used for budgeting purposes, in this case Assessable Acres, the residential areas. In CDD9 that number is 1170 acres and CDD12 it is 1185 acres, so very close is size and therefore their portion of the Project Wide is nearly equal.

Home count is greatly different in the two districts, CDD9 has 5409 homes and CDD12 will have approximately 3637 homes according to the CDD12 documents. This works out to 4.62 homes/acre for CDD9 and 3.15 h/a for CDD12.

Actual acreage for the two districts also vary significantly with CDD9 being 1286 acres and CDD12 at 1490 acres. This 200 acre difference is basically amenity and common areas, with CDD12 having a lot more of the district properties being dedicated to amenities and open spaces that any other district. Amenities are funded from a different budget and not a part of the Project Wide Fund budget.

What this translates to is that CDD12 has more assessable acreage per home and will have higher maintenance assessments.

The budgeting process in this case doesn't look at the actual number of homes but the number of acres that fall under the Project Wide Fund responsibility. In this respect they are nearly the same size.

[Goldwingnut]

While I can understand the reasons for the Project Wide fees, District 10 Project Wide fees account for some 64% of the projected District 10 spending for 18-19. That’s taking $2,195,000 out of the budget. I also am aware that District 10 has one representative on the Project wide committee. So, we have a little say as to how the Project Wide fees are spent.

Still, the maintenance fees we pay in our District should be spent in our District. That’s what the State of Florida originally intended when they established CDDs. It’s hard for me to get over that feeling.

The Project Wide Fund actually works in all of our favor in the long run. Because of the way the allocation process is set up nearly all of the monies contributed by each district are utilized to maintain the areas within the respective district.

What the PWF allows for is simplification of budgeting and allows the combined districts requirements to take advantage of the economies of scale of letting one large contract for a service instead of 10 smaller contract. This also allows for a consistency of service between the districts. The fact that the majority of the maintenance funding for each district goes to the PWF shows that we are able to take advantage of these economies for a majority of the services.

The other way that the PWF works in each districts' favor is for the maintenance of common properties and special projects. If a piece of district property has an expense the cost is distributed among all the districts. For example, if a pumping station in your district, CDD10, were to take a lighting hit that destroyed the pump, building, and emergency generator causing $500K of damage, CDD10 would not absorb all of this cost, it would come out of the PWF and all the districts would in essence would pay a proportionate share of the costs. An example of a special project would be the golf cart traffic light at the Colony area, this is in CDD7 but obviously residents from other districts reap the benefits of the traffic light, so the costs are shared by all. Year-for-year, each district does not receive back 100% of their contribution to the PWF, some years it will be more than 100%, some years less.

The need for the PWF goes back to the essential requirement that all no district (and its residents) would be unfairly burdened or advantaged at the expense of another. Without these interlocal governmental agreements the need for special maintenance assessments in each district would become commonplace every time an additional expense comes up.

[Bogie Shooter]

in my post ->

While I can understand the reasons for the Project Wide fees,

It’s hard for me to get over that feeling.


I understand your point yet hate to see larger amounts taken out of the local CDD every year going to the Project Wide fund where our local control is minimal.

64% of CDD 10 funds are now going to the Project Wide fees. Some might say that we should do away with CDDs and dump all of the monies into a city wide The Villages fund. However, that would take an act of the Florida State Legislature which will never happen.

And that is a good thing...………………………………...

[Bogie Shooter]

The Project Wide Fund actually works in all of our favor in the long run. Because of the way the allocation process is set up nearly all of the monies contributed by each district are utilized to maintain the areas within the respective district.

What the PWF allows for is simplification of budgeting and allows the combined districts requirements to take advantage of the economies of scale of letting one large contract for a service instead of 10 smaller contract. This also allows for a consistency of service between the districts. The fact that the majority of the maintenance funding for each district goes to the PWF shows that we are able to take advantage of these economies for a majority of the services.

The other way that the PWF works in each districts' favor is for the maintenance of common properties and special projects. If a piece of district property has an expense the cost is distributed among all the districts. For example, if a pumping station in your district, CDD10, were to take a lighting hit that destroyed the pump, building, and emergency generator causing $500K of damage, CDD10 would not absorb all of this cost, it would come out of the PWF and all the districts would in essence would pay a proportionate share of the costs. An example of a special project would be the golf cart traffic light at the Colony area, this is in CDD7 but obviously residents from other districts reap the benefits of the traffic light, so the costs are shared by all. Year-for-year, each district does not receive back 100% of their contribution to the PWF, some years it will be more than 100%, some years less.

The need for the PWF goes back to the essential requirement that all no district (and its residents) would be unfairly burdened or advantaged at the expense of another. Without these interlocal governmental agreements the need for special maintenance assessments in each district would become commonplace every time an additional expense comes up.

Thank you for your fact based posts. It is refreshing to not read, "I think" or "maybe" based posts.
BTW your videos are fantastic!!:BigApplause:

[twoplanekid]

Caring that thought further, what % of funds should local CDDs control if master contracts and centralized budgeting are more efficient. It’s stated on the District web site that the Project Wide Advisory Committee, one supervisor from Districts from 5 thru 11 will provide input, explore issues and provide advice and recommendations to the SLCDD on issues related to the maintenance of Project Wide Improvements and to provide input, explore issues and provide recommendations on issues related to SLCDD owned Amenity facilities. So, real control still rests with SLCDD?

[Goldwingnut]

Thank you for your fact based posts. It is refreshing to not read, "I think" or "maybe" based posts.
BTW your videos are fantastic!!:BigApplause:

Thanks I try to provide the facts on the real issues, what I put in the videos is based on investigation, observations, a little deductive reasoning, and a sprinkling of logic. The videos are on hold for a week or two until I get the drone back from repair. Had a little accident and did some damage to the camera gimbal, let's just say that "the stupid shall be punished".

[golf2140]

Thanks I try to provide the facts on the real issues, what I put in the videos is based on investigation, observations, a little deductive reasoning, and a sprinkling of logic. The videos are on hold for a week or two until I get the drone back from repair. Had a little accident and did some damage to the camera gimbal, let's just say that "the stupid shall be punished".

Great posts. I just have one question I hope you can answer. Why are all the districts not included?

[Barefoot]

Goldwing, a lot of us depend on people like you to provide us with insightful comments.
Thank you. :ho:

[Goldwingnut]

Caring that thought further, what % of funds should local CDDs control if master contracts and centralized budgeting are more efficient. It’s stated on the District web site that the Project Wide Advisory Committee, one supervisor from Districts from 5 thru 11 will provide input, explore issues and provide advice and recommendations to the SLCDD on issues related to the maintenance of Project Wide Improvements and to provide input, explore issues and provide recommendations on issues related to SLCDD owned Amenity facilities. So, real control still rests with SLCDD?

Great questions TwoPlane, I'll try to answer them.

What percentage will depend on the composition of the district, how much of the district property fall under Project Wide directions, how much burden is put on the central district office for services, how many deed compliance issues and ARC submissions there are, utility costs (think street lights here), district specific engineering services, irrigation water and maintenance costs (think in cul de sacs and villa entrances), and budgetary reserves and working capital status. There is no set percentage but the big determiner will be the amount of public/green areas. Because of the amount of green space in CDD12 one can assume that it will be a higher percentage that the other districts. It is not unreasonable for the majority of the funds to go towards the PWF to cover the majority of the big ticket items in the budget.

Resolution 13-05 established the PWAC in 2013 to provide direction on project wide issues. To date there has not been an instance were SLCDD did not follow the direction given by PWAC, but yes, SLCDD still has the ultimate power on the Project Wide Fund and issues.

Similarly Resolution 17-11 empowered the PWAC with the same responsibilities as the Amenities Authority Committee for amenities south of CR466 as the AAC has north of CR466. The charter for the AAC was the blueprint for the PWAC amenities responsibilities, in fact they read almost identical. One of the most important changes that PWAC implemented to R17-11 at the request of the CDD10 representative is the final statement of section 3 of R17-11 "Should the SLCDD not agree with the PWAC recommendations and if a delay will not adversely affect the Amenity Fund or operations, a joint meeting shall be scheduled between SLCDD and PWAC to discuss the Amenity recommendation prior to final action of the SLCDD." It's not as strong a mediation requirement as was desired but it does give PWAC an avenue of redress over a SLCDD veto, something we did not have before.

In both these responsibilities of the PWAC, yes SLCDD does have the ultimate control.

One has to of course ask the final question, why even have PWAC if they have no "authority". The answer to this, in my opinion, is simple and lies with the election process of the SLCDD Supervisors. In the residential CDDs at a given point the supervisors are elected by the registered voters of the CDD, prior to this point they are "land owner" elected. In the commercial CDDs there are no residents so all the Supervisors are land owner elected. This means that each land owner is give 1 vote for each acre or portion there of in the election, a land owner with 4 1/4 acres of land has 5 votes in the election. In the case of SLCDD the majority land owner is The Villages of Lake-Sumter (or one of their many other companies) or as they are commonly known as "the developer". So the developer basically, within the bounds of state laws, controls the SLCDD and as such controls the Project Wide responsibilities and the amenities between CR466 and SR44. Back to the original question, why even have the PWAC? Simple, they do what PWAC tell them to do, if something goes amiss they can look back and say "it's not our fault, this is what PWAC told us to do". Since PWAC comes from the elected officials of the residential CDDs, they are carrying out the residents wishes. They can pass the buck when things go bad. This is just my opinion, but if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...

[twoplanekid]

As others have stated, thanks for the great replies and insight!

[Goldwingnut]

Great posts. I just have one question I hope you can answer. Why are all the districts not included?

Another good question, this one I'm not 100% sure on the answer as I focus my efforts on the areas south of CR466.

As I understand it, the districts north of CR466 at some point in their history made the decision to be responsibility for their own district properties and not have a interlocal government agreement for common maintenance and benefit. CDD4 being in Marion County may have had some play in this decision due to all the road residential road maintenance fall to the district unlike in Sumter County were only the villa roads fall to the district for maintenance.

As for amenities, the original amenities sale (north of CR466) was followed by a law suit with some damages awarded and the establishment of the AAC.

Again, I'm no expert on the north end, I only looked into the history and studied it's workings for a short while 4 years ago after I moved to The Villages. I didn't dwell on it much after I realized it organization and operations were basically irrelevant to the working south of CR466 where I live. No offense is meant to the residents north of CR466 but it is sufficiently different and separate to south of CR466 that it didn't matter much to me to learn. I have too many other thing rattling around in my head to try to recall all these old details at this point.

What is important to all of the residents both north and south of CR466 is that there are agreements in place requiring equal treatment and access regardless of the amenity and residence location. The easy example of what cannot happen is that someone golfing on the opposite side of CR466 of where they own a home cannot be charged a $5 cart fee while someone from the amenity side of CR466 is only charged $4. This kind of treatment cannot occur.

If someone knows the facts (not an opinion or an "I think") on exactly what transpired and why north of CR466 please educate us all.

Sorry I can't provide a better answer.

[Goldwingnut]

As others have stated, thanks for the great replies and insight!
My pleasure.

Do you have any new flyover pictures yet? Would love to see them.

[Marathon Man]

Goldwingnut is a breath of fresh air. I attend PWAC meetings and my district meetings to get information directly from the source. I DO NOT rely on the on-line "news" or discussions on TOTV for information (I can assure you it is often incomplete and inaccurate). I wish more would take the time to:

1- Attend Resident Academy and learn how this place actually works.
2- Attend their monthly CDD board meetings.
3- Attend a few PWAC or ACC meetings.

[Goldwingnut]

While I can understand the reasons for the Project Wide fees, District 10 Project Wide fees account for some 64% of the projected District 10 spending for 18-19. That’s taking $2,195,000 out of the budget. I also am aware that District 10 has one representative on the Project wide committee. So, we have a little say as to how the Project Wide fees are spent.

Still, the maintenance fees we pay in our District should be spent in our District. That’s what the State of Florida originally intended when they established CDDs. It’s hard for me to get over that feeling.

I missed part of your comments earlier, CDD10 has exactly the same say at the PWAC meeting as every other district represented there. All are equal and all only have one representative. Remember, the project wide funds are spent mainly on work common to all the districts. This collective sourcing provides for better pricing and consistency of services across the development.

[EPutnam1863]

Goldwing Nut says "...mob rule mentality will surely ruin both this community and our retirements"

It already has.

[JSR22]

Goldwing Nut says "...mob rule mentality will surely ruin both this community and our retirements"

It already has.

This community is no where near ruined. I have a wonderful home, plenty of activities and terrific friends. Why would you criticize The Villages when you don't live here?

[Goldwingnut]

Goldwing Nut says "...mob rule mentality will surely ruin both this community and our retirements"

It already has.

That's taken completely out of context, the full quote is: If we leave it up to those that shout the loudest about every little thing, then that mob rule mentality will surely ruin both this community and our retirements.

If you want to twist words and meanings you would be more at home at a different web site.

[Marathon Man]

That's taken completely out of context, the full quote is: If we leave it up to those that shout the loudest about every little thing, then that mob rule mentality will surely ruin both this community and our retirements.

If you want to twist words and meanings you would be more at home at a different web site.

Agreed. Like a web site that concerns where a person actually lives. "Can't move on" comes to mind.

[GoodLife]

Another good question, this one I'm not 100% sure on the answer as I focus my efforts on the areas south of CR466.

As I understand it, the districts north of CR466 at some point in their history made the decision to be responsibility for their own district properties and not have a interlocal government agreement for common maintenance and benefit. CDD4 being in Marion County may have had some play in this decision due to all the road residential road maintenance fall to the district unlike in Sumter County were only the villa roads fall to the district for maintenance.

As for amenities, the original amenities sale (north of CR466) was followed by a law suit with some damages awarded and the establishment of the AAC.

Again, I'm no expert on the north end, I only looked into the history and studied it's workings for a short while 4 years ago after I moved to The Villages. I didn't dwell on it much after I realized it organization and operations were basically irrelevant to the working south of CR466 where I live. No offense is meant to the residents north of CR466 but it is sufficiently different and separate to south of CR466 that it didn't matter much to me to learn. I have too many other thing rattling around in my head to try to recall all these old details at this point.

What is important to all of the residents both north and south of CR466 is that there are agreements in place requiring equal treatment and access regardless of the amenity and residence location. The easy example of what cannot happen is that someone golfing on the opposite side of CR466 of where they own a home cannot be charged a $5 cart fee while someone from the amenity side of CR466 is only charged $4. This kind of treatment cannot occur.

If someone knows the facts (not an opinion or an "I think") on exactly what transpired and why north of CR466 please educate us all.

Sorry I can't provide a better answer.

Thanks for your replies, it is a complicated issue and the online news article I posted did not go very deep into the issue which is why I posted it. However, when CDD supervisors call for closer attention to the PWAC budget and rising costs it is in everyone's interest to pay attention. If you would like to learn more about CDDs north of 466, you can start at this link

Property Owners' Association of The Villages, Inc. (http://poa4us.org/)

scroll down and click on class action lawsuit for various documents like this one.

http://poa4us.org/classaction_files/VCCDD%20Settlement%20Notice.pdf

Even billionaires do not agree to pay $40 million voluntarily without a good reason.

[Goldwingnut]

Thanks for your replies, it is a complicated issue and the online news article I posted did not go very deep into the issue which is why I posted it. However, when CDD supervisors call for closer attention to the PWAC budget and rising costs it is in everyone's interest to pay attention. If you would like to learn more about CDDs north of 466, you can start at this link

Property Owners' Association of The Villages, Inc. (http://poa4us.org/)

scroll down and click on class action lawsuit for various documents like this one.

http://poa4us.org/classaction_files/VCCDD%20Settlement%20Notice.pdf

Even billionaires do not agree to pay $40 million voluntarily without a good reason.

GoodLife, I've read all of this previously and it is enlightening, but of course what is on the POA site is only one side of the story and provides little of the full background of the events and agreements that transpired prior to so I really don't feel in a position to take a stand one way or another over what happened and why. It is history now and a part of how The Villages operates, good, bad, or otherwise it's hard to say. Maybe one rainy afternoon when the golf courses are closed and I've nothing better to do I study up on this part of the history.

I'm sure it was painfully for the company to pay the $38M awarded, it must have certainly had a negative impact on their business. Knowing and having known many successful and financially secure people I can say without doubt that not a one of them was a Scrounge McDuck or a Richie Rich with a vault full of money overflowing that they went swimming in, they all had their money invested in businesses, working for them, and taking risks with it. Sure they may have a much more attractive checking account balance then most of us and may have had a few more Benjamins and Grants in their wallet, but not a one of them was prone to squandering their money, philanthropy yes, foolishness never.

I do find it hilarious that a District Supervisor is calling for closer scrutiny on the Project Wide budgeting process and expenditures because a) he is casting stones at the supervisors on his board that they appointed, and b) isn't that his job as both a Supervisor and as a resident, to pay attention to these matters. If CDD Supervisors are dissatisfied with the appointed PWAC member's execution of their responsibilities, each boards are free to replace the PWAC member with another member of their board at any time. As this has never happened one must assume it is easier to complain in ignorance than to take up the yoke and act in cognizance.

The budget workshop meetings and the regular monthly meetings are open to the public and the public is free to question and comment on any item of business, including the budgets and all contracts awarded, discussed at each meeting. I lived in The Villages for just over four years now and have sat through all the budget workshops and nearly every PWAC and CDD10 meeting during that time, and not once during any budget discussion can I recall a single resident or a Supervisor not on the PWAC or CDD board asking a single question or offer a comment about any budget item.

Even during the budget workshop for the Amenities budget, a $70+ Million Dollar budget, there was not a single question or comment from anyone in attendance except the supervisors on the PWAC on any budget item or cost, not even a single audience comment on the much debated and maligned Recreation News costs included in this budget. The PWAC members did ask multiple questions and had lengthy discussions about nearly budget item that did increase and about the decreased budget cost of the Recreation News.

I will tell you what I have seen at nearly every meeting, other Supervisors and residents coming to the podium and making startlingly uninformed and/or inaccurate statements, comments, and demands that mirror the inaccuracies, rumors, and innuendos that have appeared on various on-line web sites. Many of whom will continue to argue their invalid points with the board/committee members and district staff after they have been corrected and provided with the accurate information.

It must be nice for these guys to be a Monday morning quarterback, time for them to get in the game and take a few hits or shut the heck up.

[Buffalo Jim]

" It must be nice for these guys to be a Monday morning quarterback, time for them to get in the game and take a few hits or shut the heck up " .

GoldWing : Thanks for having the patience and investing the time on this issue to try to bring some rational thinking and facts to yet another matter which is being flamed with misinformation . That " other site " is generating a great deal of misleading and emotion based drivel .
Your efforts are much appreciated !

[Marathon Man]

...
I will tell you what I have seen at nearly every meeting, other Supervisors and residents coming to the podium and making startlingly uninformed and/or inaccurate statements, comments, and demands that mirror the inaccuracies, rumors, and innuendos that have appeared on various on-line web sites. Many of whom will continue to argue their invalid points with the board/committee members and district staff after they have been corrected and provided with the accurate information.
...


I have seen the same thing. It seems that many of our neighbors are willing to attend a meeting when they want to be heard, but are not willing to attend meetings to become informed.

Much of the information you get from on line sources is incomplete and inaccurate. I have seen it first hand. There have been times when I have wondered if the "reporter" was in a different meeting, even though she was sitting right behind me.

[Big O]

"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it."