Amenity Fees and the "cap"

[Goldwingnut]

I recently received the below email concerning the Amenity Fee and provided the following responses.

“Good morning, Don
May I trouble with a couple of questions ?
1. Are there any actual HOA’s in The Villages that actually pay HOA dues instead of the usual amenity fees through their CDDs ?
2. Is there a site whereby you can type in an address and it tells you what village the home is in ?
Thanks for your reply and for your videos”

The genesis of the first question is clearly and effort to understand and avoid the rising Amenity fee, to which I provided the below response:

There are a few HOAs within The Villages community, their fees however are in addition to the Amenity Fee that EVERY homeowner agrees to pay upon purchase. What you will ultimately find is that these HOA fees will increase more than the Amenity Fee will. The Amenity Fee is tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and can go up no greater than the CPI. The HOA fees are not constrained by the CPI but instead will adjust based on the actual cost changes for the services to be provided by the HOA. The CPI has traditionally fallen short of actual cost increases, so it is a constant losing battle to keep costs down each year to ensure that Repair and Replacement Fund (R&R) money (saving account) is not used to cover the annual operating costs.

There has been a lot of talk about a "cap" on the Amenity Fee. There was never a "cap", there was what was known as a "Deferral Rate" on the Amenity Fee that was for 1 year and was subsequently renewed annually for 8 years. The purpose of the Deferral Rate was to allow an equalization of the Amenity Fee that varied widely over the community.

Just to be clear – the “cap” exists in no one’s purchase agreement and no one has a written agreement that the amenity fee would never go above a certain amount. They may have been informed of the Deferral Rate’s existence by their sales representative, but it was never guaranteed. I’ve looked through hundreds of documents and even offered a $10,000 reward for some to produce such a document. No such documents exist.
At the time of the discontinuation of the Deferral Rate, over 85% of the homes in The Villages were at or within 95% of the Deferral Rate. The budget projections at that time, based on the current trends at the time, showed a revenue shortfall within 2 years that increased more each year after. This shortfall would have necessitated expenditure of the R&R funds just to maintain the current level of services. The only way to maintain the status quo under the Deferral Rate would have been to either a) decrease the service offered by the Amenity Divisions, b) defer facility maintenance and replacements, and/or c) close facilities. None of these were deemed an acceptable alternative.

There have been many comments made to the effect of “I don’t play golf (pick an activity), I shouldn’t have to pay for it”, “I’m over 80 (pick an age) and don’t use the amenities as much anymore, I shouldn’t have to pay as much”, “the rising cost of the Amenity Fee is going to price me out of my home and I’ll have to move”, and “this is just the developer getting rich at our expense”. To these short sighted and uninformed comments, I offer the following:

I don’t play pickleball, tennis, or use the pools, and the list goes on and on. The amenities are a package deal, no one likely uses ALL the amenities, what you don’t use someone else does and vice versa. Pricing the amenities piecemeal would be both administratively burdensome and cost prohibitive due the tremendous amount of additional overhead costs and would eliminate a large number of activities available to all the residents, a large number of these activities appeal to the less active or physically able residents. Executive golf only represents about 7% of the total amenity budgets (championship golf is not an amenity, it is a privately owned business and is not funded by the amenities budgets).

On age, how much did you use the amenities when you first moved here? If you are like most, a lot more than we did as we continue to age. It’s give-and-take for each person and activity. IF the Amenity Fee was age biased, what is the magic age? It’s different for each person. How would you enforce it? You’re 75 now, you can’t play pickleball anymore or you’re now 80 you can’t use the executive golf courses because they aren’t covered by your Amenity Fee. None of this is feasible. The activities that the older segment of the population engage in may be some of those eliminated as I discussed in the pervious paragraph, those more expensive on a “per person” basis – they would be the ones paying for the rec centers (the biggest cost in the budgets) and not the golfers.

IF the Amenity Fee CPI adjustments are going to price someone out of their home, I would have to ask about the other cost increases – food, energy, medical expenses, etc. – that have increased at a far greater rate. Everyone’s financial situation is different and unique, and we all have different needs and priorities, our financial plans for retirement must include considerations for these as well as continued cost increases must be a part of one’s financial plan for retirement. To blame the Amenity Fee CPI adjustments for losing one’s home or ability to live in a location or community is simply not taking the personally responsible for not planning for one’s future. I know, understand, and am sympathetic to the fact that one’s situation may have changed through the course of one’s retirement. Plans must then change to compensate, I/we should not be held financially responsible for someone else's unwillingness to change, which is what this comment asks for.

The Developer owns only a very small part of the amenities, and that amount is about to get even smaller with the sale of the amenities in CDD 12 & 13 to the Sumter Landing Amenities Division (SLAD). Of the amenities that they don’t own, only a very small number of services are provided by the developer for these, the largest of these is IT services that are competitively bid on every few years by the District government. IT services and Communication services represent a very small percentage of $200+ million amenities budgets. The annual adjustments they make to the Prevailing Rate (the rate paid by new homes and resales purchased during the year) are a necessity for them to balance their continuously rising cost of operations. They only receive the Amenity Fee on the homes purchased in the areas where they own the amenities – currently all areas below SR44. Amenity fees north of SR44 go to the SLAD and RAD – both government bodies. The developer has the advantage of using a balance sheet to determent what the new Prevailing Rate will be and doesn’t have to live under the constraints of the CPI for new houses they sell. Yes they want to make a profit on these funds, but it is a marginal process as their costs increase each time a new amenity is open, this happens long before the revenues from new home sales cover these costs. Unlike the SLAD/RAD owned facilities, the developer has the additional expense of having to pay taxes on these properties as long as they own them. The developer isn’t getting rich on the Amenity Fee, in fact looking at the current 2025 Prevailing Rate of $199/month and the past inflation rates it would not be a stretch to say they didn’t raise it any higher to prevent breaking that glass ceiling of $200/month.

A majority of the people who have purchased in The Villages did so because of the wide variety of Amenities that are available to everyone. These amenities come at a cost that we all agreed to pay when we purchased our homes. You purchased a home in a community with an overhead expense that you agreed to pay for, you didn’t get a rich uncle to take care of your every need and want in that purchase.

For the second question, go to this page of the DistrictGov.org website:
Find My District - The Villages Community Development Districts (https://www.districtgov.org/districts/finder/)

Many may not like what I have written here, reality sucks. I have to stay grounded in reality and not lose sight of the realities that many forget exists outside the bubble of The Villages. Many have said, accused, or inferred that I am somehow indebted or compensated by the developer, these are untrue statements and ignorant lip service, and I openly challenge anyone to provide any proof to the contrary. Bring it! I will openly discuss and disprove this in the town square without fear.

Do I love where I live? Absolutely! Is it a perfect utopia? Absolutely NOT, it has its many flaws and shortcomings that I am unafraid to openly discuss and have done so many times in the past. I did spend nearly 20 years in management within the construction industry and have seen the right and the wrong way to do construction and run a business, and The Villages is an exemplary case of the right way to do this business.

[rustyp]

Ouch! Someone must have trodden on a thistle.

[kansasr]

Thanks Don. We appreciate you always taking the time to explain in detail aspects The Villages financial structure that are very complex and difficult to grasp, even for those of us who have lived here for a long time.

[UsuallyLurking]

On Tuesday, Feb. 18, at 9 AM at the Savannah Center, the AAC will hold a workshop of ways to deal with the cap. This is not the first time they have done this. At the last meeting it was discovered that there are clauses in both the AAC and PWAC originating documents to the effect that their actions cannot create a circumstance in which homeowners in one area are treated differently than homeowners in another area. This was taken to mean that both the AAC and PWAC would have to agree on a cap (or deferral, whatever you want to call it). The last time, PWAC wasn't interested, and given the impending sale of amenities to PWAC it is fair to say they will be less inclined to do so. (Incidentally, it is acknowledged that PWAC does have the authority to set a "maximum" amenity fee, should they choose to do so -- see the Responsibilities section of the Sumter Landing Amenity Division area of the PWAC page on the district web site: Project Wide Advisory - The Villages Community Development Districts (https://www.districtgov.org/districts/committees/project-wide-advisory/))

[onfire]

#2 Getting Around - The Villages Community Development Districts (https://www.districtgov.org/how-to/getting-around/) there's a street listing that you can search for an address to find the village name, district and unit name.

[jarodrig]

Thank you for your quick and thorough response. As always , we all appreciate what you do !

[jimhoward]

Is there some sort of backstory here that we newcomers need to understand?

If the OP is just a regular resident and has no connection with the developer, why are people emailing him questions about the amenity fees?

And why the justification of the fees by the OP? I mean its fine, the TOTV can be a soapbox, and his logic is probably right, but he has nothing to do with them right?

[Marathon Man]

Is there some sort of backstory here that we newcomers need to understand?

If the OP is just a regular resident and has no connection with the developer, why are people emailing him questions about the amenity fees?

And why the justification of the fees by the OP? I mean its fine, the TOTV can be a soapbox, and his logic is probably right, but he has nothing to do with them right?

Don is a former CDD 10 Supervisor and is currently a Sumter County Commissioner. He is a well-known producer of YouTube videos concerning all things The Villages.

[ElDiabloJoe]

Is there some sort of backstory here that we newcomers need to understand?

If the OP is just a regular resident and has no connection with the developer, why are people emailing him questions about the amenity fees?

And why the justification of the fees by the OP? I mean its fine, the TOTV can be a soapbox, and his logic is probably right, but he has nothing to do with them right?
If by OP you are referring to Goldwing Nut, people are emailing him because he has a wide, introspective, and qualified understanding of the goings-on that most do not. His YT videos have long been full of insight, research, and commentary fueled by his experience and knowledge in both construction management and as a County Commissioner. THAT is largely why people are emailing him questions about the amenity fees. When one wants answers, one goes to experts.

[jimhoward]

Don is a former CDD 10 Supervisor and is currently a Sumter County Commissioner. He is a well-known producer of YouTube videos concerning all things The Villages.

If by OP you are referring to Goldwing Nut, people are emailing him because he has a wide, introspective, and qualified understanding of the goings-on that most do not. His YT videos have long been full of insight, research, and commentary fueled by his experience and knowledge in both construction management and as a County Commissioner. THAT is largely why people are emailing him questions about the amenity fees. When one wants answers, one goes to experts.

Thank you, and to poster #7. I have seen and enjoyed the videos. But did not know the bio.

[rustyp]

I recently received the below email concerning the Amenity Fee and provided the following responses.

“Good morning, Don
May I trouble with a couple of questions ?
1. Are there any actual HOA’s in The Villages that actually pay HOA dues instead of the usual amenity fees through their CDDs ?
2. Is there a site whereby you can type in an address and it tells you what village the home is in ?
Thanks for your reply and for your videos”

The genesis of the first question is clearly and effort to understand and avoid the rising Amenity fee, to which I provided the below response:

There are a few HOAs within The Villages community, their fees however are in addition to the Amenity Fee that EVERY homeowner agrees to pay upon purchase. What you will ultimately find is that these HOA fees will increase more than the Amenity Fee will. The Amenity Fee is tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and can go up no greater than the CPI. The HOA fees are not constrained by the CPI but instead will adjust based on the actual cost changes for the services to be provided by the HOA. The CPI has traditionally fallen short of actual cost increases, so it is a constant losing battle to keep costs down each year to ensure that Repair and Replacement Fund (R&R) money (saving account) is not used to cover the annual operating costs.

There has been a lot of talk about a "cap" on the Amenity Fee. There was never a "cap", there was what was known as a "Deferral Rate" on the Amenity Fee that was for 1 year and was subsequently renewed annually for 8 years. The purpose of the Deferral Rate was to allow an equalization of the Amenity Fee that varied widely over the community.

Just to be clear – the “cap” exists in no one’s purchase agreement and no one has a written agreement that the amenity fee would never go above a certain amount. They may have been informed of the Deferral Rate’s existence by their sales representative, but it was never guaranteed. I’ve looked through hundreds of documents and even offered a $10,000 reward for some to produce such a document. No such documents exist.
At the time of the discontinuation of the Deferral Rate, over 85% of the homes in The Villages were at or within 95% of the Deferral Rate. The budget projections at that time, based on the current trends at the time, showed a revenue shortfall within 2 years that increased more each year after. This shortfall would have necessitated expenditure of the R&R funds just to maintain the current level of services. The only way to maintain the status quo under the Deferral Rate would have been to either a) decrease the service offered by the Amenity Divisions, b) defer facility maintenance and replacements, and/or c) close facilities. None of these were deemed an acceptable alternative.

There have been many comments made to the effect of “I don’t play golf (pick an activity), I shouldn’t have to pay for it”, “I’m over 80 (pick an age) and don’t use the amenities as much anymore, I shouldn’t have to pay as much”, “the rising cost of the Amenity Fee is going to price me out of my home and I’ll have to move”, and “this is just the developer getting rich at our expense”. To these short sighted and uninformed comments, I offer the following:

I don’t play pickleball, tennis, or use the pools, and the list goes on and on. The amenities are a package deal, no one likely uses ALL the amenities, what you don’t use someone else does and vice versa. Pricing the amenities piecemeal would be both administratively burdensome and cost prohibitive due the tremendous amount of additional overhead costs and would eliminate a large number of activities available to all the residents, a large number of these activities appeal to the less active or physically able residents. Executive golf only represents about 7% of the total amenity budgets (championship golf is not an amenity, it is a privately owned business and is not funded by the amenities budgets).

On age, how much did you use the amenities when you first moved here? If you are like most, a lot more than we did as we continue to age. It’s give-and-take for each person and activity. IF the Amenity Fee was age biased, what is the magic age? It’s different for each person. How would you enforce it? You’re 75 now, you can’t play pickleball anymore or you’re now 80 you can’t use the executive golf courses because they aren’t covered by your Amenity Fee. None of this is feasible. The activities that the older segment of the population engage in may be some of those eliminated as I discussed in the pervious paragraph, those more expensive on a “per person” basis – they would be the ones paying for the rec centers (the biggest cost in the budgets) and not the golfers.

IF the Amenity Fee CPI adjustments are going to price someone out of their home, I would have to ask about the other cost increases – food, energy, medical expenses, etc. – that have increased at a far greater rate. Everyone’s financial situation is different and unique, and we all have different needs and priorities, our financial plans for retirement must include considerations for these as well as continued cost increases must be a part of one’s financial plan for retirement. To blame the Amenity Fee CPI adjustments for losing one’s home or ability to live in a location or community is simply not taking the personally responsible for not planning for one’s future. I know, understand, and am sympathetic to the fact that one’s situation may have changed through the course of one’s retirement. Plans must then change to compensate, I/we should not be held financially responsible for someone else's unwillingness to change, which is what this comment asks for.

The Developer owns only a very small part of the amenities, and that amount is about to get even smaller with the sale of the amenities in CDD 12 & 13 to the Sumter Landing Amenities Division (SLAD). Of the amenities that they don’t own, only a very small number of services are provided by the developer for these, the largest of these is IT services that are competitively bid on every few years by the District government. IT services and Communication services represent a very small percentage of $200+ million amenities budgets. The annual adjustments they make to the Prevailing Rate (the rate paid by new homes and resales purchased during the year) are a necessity for them to balance their continuously rising cost of operations. They only receive the Amenity Fee on the homes purchased in the areas where they own the amenities – currently all areas below SR44. Amenity fees north of SR44 go to the SLAD and RAD – both government bodies. The developer has the advantage of using a balance sheet to determent what the new Prevailing Rate will be and doesn’t have to live under the constraints of the CPI for new houses they sell. Yes they want to make a profit on these funds, but it is a marginal process as their costs increase each time a new amenity is open, this happens long before the revenues from new home sales cover these costs. Unlike the SLAD/RAD owned facilities, the developer has the additional expense of having to pay taxes on these properties as long as they own them. The developer isn’t getting rich on the Amenity Fee, in fact looking at the current 2025 Prevailing Rate of $199/month and the past inflation rates it would not be a stretch to say they didn’t raise it any higher to prevent breaking that glass ceiling of $200/month.

A majority of the people who have purchased in The Villages did so because of the wide variety of Amenities that are available to everyone. These amenities come at a cost that we all agreed to pay when we purchased our homes. You purchased a home in a community with an overhead expense that you agreed to pay for, you didn’t get a rich uncle to take care of your every need and want in that purchase.

For the second question, go to this page of the DistrictGov.org website:
Find My District - The Villages Community Development Districts (https://www.districtgov.org/districts/finder/)

Many may not like what I have written here, reality sucks. I have to stay grounded in reality and not lose sight of the realities that many forget exists outside the bubble of The Villages. Many have said, accused, or inferred that I am somehow indebted or compensated by the developer, these are untrue statements and ignorant lip service, and I openly challenge anyone to provide any proof to the contrary. Bring it! I will openly discuss and disprove this in the town square without fear.

Do I love where I live? Absolutely! Is it a perfect utopia? Absolutely NOT, it has its many flaws and shortcomings that I am unafraid to openly discuss and have done so many times in the past. I did spend nearly 20 years in management within the construction industry and have seen the right and the wrong way to do construction and run a business, and The Villages is an exemplary case of the right way to do this business.

My amenities bill for years 2018 2019 and 2020 was $155.00/month. Yes the .00 cents is correct (statistically almost impossible if there wasn't a top stop). I have the receipts. The CPI for 2017 - 2.1% 2018 - 2.4% 2019 - 1.8% 2020 - 1.2%. If there wasn't a cap how is this explained?

Excerpt from the POA Bulletin 2019:

Deferral Amenity Rate - Each District that
has been assigned Amenity Fees – the Village
Center Community District (VCCDD - north of
CR 466) and the Sumter Landing Community
Development District (SLCDD – south of CR
466, but north of CR 44), have been given the
discretion to defer CPI adjustments. Each has
established a Deferral Amenity Fee Rate – a
maximum rate that an increase by CPI will not
exceed – of $155 that is renewed annually by
resolution. Once a homeowner reaches this rate,
the CPI increase is “frozen.”

True this top stop is not in my deed. However for the education of newbies it was practiced.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

My amenities bill for years 2018 2019 and 2020 was $155.00/month. Yes the .00 cents is correct (statistically almost impossible if there wasn't a top stop). I have the receipts. The CPI for 2017 - 2.1% 2018 - 2.4% 2019 - 1.8% 2020 - 1.2%. If there wasn't a cap how is this explained?

You might've missed it here in his post:

There was never a "cap", there was what was known as a "Deferral Rate" on the Amenity Fee that was for 1 year and was subsequently renewed annually for 8 years.

It appears that those three years were the last of the 8 years that the same rate was renewed.

[rustyp]

You might've missed it here in his post:



It appears that those three years were the last of the 8 years that the same rate was renewed.

Thanks - you are bringing back memories. I do remember wondering if in real estate law there is a "right of persistence clause" would there not be something similar in this case. Also the the POA article revealed the AAC and the PWAC had the right to set the amount up to the CPI index separately. There was a lot of strong arming that went on to get the AAC to eliminate the deferral rate. It appears there may be some buyer's regret occurring.

Is there a legal requirement that the AAC has to act in concert to the PWAC?

[Babubhat]

In the words of the great Bob Sheppard, be Clear, concise, correct. You are the voice of sanity when so much posted is lacking those elements.

[Joe Sacco]

Thank You Don! Love it!

[onfire]

Deferral Amenity Rate - Each District that
has been assigned Amenity Fees

Exactly, a deferral rate.

Deferral is a postponement of an action or event, non-permanent by definition.

[Rocksnap]

I’m just glad there are some on here that understand how these fees work. I’m definitely it one of them. Thanks Don!

[dewilson58]

I’m just glad there are some on here that understand how these fees work. I’m definitely it one of them. Thanks Don!

"I’m definitely it one of them." ??????????

[Goldwingnut]

One thing I didn't mention in the original post was that the deferrals enacted by the implementation of the Deferral Rate can and could still be implemented at any time. When the recommendations of the PWAC and AAC to discontinue the Deferral Rate were acted on by the SLCDD and VCCDD respectively no reinstatement of deferred CPI adjustments were executed. These deferral reinstatements are still an option and could be executed by SLCDD and VCCDD at any time if the need arises.

The PWAC and AAC act in an advisory role to the respective owning districts and have no authority to take action on properties they have no ownership of (the laws are funny about things like this). Yes, the AAC has no authority over the amenities they do not own, their authority was only over the use and expenditure of the funds received in the lawsuit that enabled the AAC creation. Careful review of the establishing documents for both committees validated this.

The reality of the PWAC (in its amenity role) and the AAC is that they shield the responsible CDDs (SLCDD and VCCDD) from having to deal with the residents directly. After dealing with resident inputs the committees make recommendations to the responsible CDD, then the CDDs make the final decisions and take the necessary actions to execute those decisions. Neither CDD has ever overridden the recommendations of their respective committee, doing so would effectively end the protections they receive from the committee and they would have to deal with the residents directly, something they probably would like to continue to avoid doing.

[GoldenOwl]

This is very interesting...I have lived in The Villages for 4 years and have seen my amenity fee go up every year. $172.19, $186.97, $194.56 and now $200.90 a month. Is this normal? I am in CDD8.

[karenzeee]

Thanks Don for the very detailed explanation! I will be referring many to this post who ask us about the amenity fees.

Find My District - The Villages Community Development Districts (https://www.districtgov.org/districts/finder/) - This link providing all the home information/Village/County and more is AWESOME and very helpful! :coolsmiley:

[Bill14564]

This is very interesting...I have lived in The Villages for 4 years and have seen my amenity fee go up every year. $172.19, $186.97, $194.56 and now $200.90 a month. Is this normal? I am in CDD8.

Find the section of your deed restrictions that mentions the amenity fee. You will see that it increases every year based on the CPI. Yes, this is normal.

[Janie123]

This is very interesting...I have lived in The Villages for 4 years and have seen my amenity fee go up every year. $172.19, $186.97, $194.56 and now $200.90 a month. Is this normal? I am in CDD8.
Yes, the CPI from Dec to Dec for the last 4 years was 7.0, 6.5, 3.4, and 2.9. The increase date is tied to the purchase month of the house. Your increases were in line with these percentages. CPI does go down so I’m going to say, the amenities fee can go down too. Or they just hold the line in those years and eventually it catches back up.

Consumer Price Index Data from 1913 to 2025 (https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008/)

[Nevinator]

Thank you, Don. Exactly the kind of answers I would expect from you: Thoughtful, well reasoned, on point, and a good dose of common sense.

[Nell57]

When we bought our first home in 2009 my realtor pointed out that what you are buying in The Villages is the Lifestyle. Whether we purchased a $200K home or million dollar home, all amenities are open to all residents. We all enjoy the same country clubs, pools , golf courses, rec centers and social clubs. It’s like being a kid again…I get to go out everyday and play with my friends.
When I compare our amenity fees to other communities with HOA’s this Lifestyle is still an incredible bargain.
The day may come when I am no longer active in the community, due to health reasons. If I find the fees onerous, or can’t get the care that I require, I might need to look elsewhere.
I hope that day never comes.

[Birdrm]

Thanks Don, I have always said how could it even be possible to cap the amenities, just looking at the past 5 years the inflation was about 20%. How could any district pay for their increased expenses and not raise the fee. Just look at McDonalds and their prices today compared to 5 years ago and that is just how business works, when expenses increase then the prices (amenity fee) increases.

[DrHitch]

To all,
Since Don's original post was so detailed and lengthy, there is NO NEED TO QUOTE the post in your reply.....just saying " on behalf of a friend".. haha

[DrHitch]

We rented a townhouse on Avenida Sonoma in the heart of Spanish Springs....that street does indeed have its own COA (community owners association)....they pay extra in addition to the amenity fee....a LOT more....but it covers much of the exterior maintenance of these clustered (duplex) townhouses.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I liken the increases as a result of the deferral cancellation to the tax situation in Sumter County.

Everyone enjoyed low low taxes for a long long time, because that was what "the people" wanted. It's what they voted for, and what their representatives delivered.

The costs climbed ever upward, slowly, every year, until one year when they realized there wasn't enough buffer in the county coffers to cover the costs of - much of anything. The county was growing, more people = more wear and tear on the infrastructure, and more need for more utility work, and more need for more schools, and more curbing, more lights, more trash pickup, more traffic lights and stop signs, more fire department garages, more police, more everything. Inflation continued to rise, and maintaining what they HAD wasn't enough anymore. They had to add MORE STUFF to accommodate MORE PEOPLE. So they said they had to raise the taxes significantly. And everyone freaked out.

The alternative would be to NOT have all those improvements, that wouldn't have been needed for another 20 years if the farms hadn't been gutted and replaced by thousands of single-family homes. We'd be driving on roads with pot-holes or dirt roads, there'd be no traffic lights, no road striping, no extra fire departments, no more police, no place for area businesses to live, no place for their kids to go to school.

Low taxes = low services. It's just a fact of life. High taxes don't always mean high services, but low taxes always means low services. The same goes for amenities. Don't forget all those amenities are overseen and run by employees. Most of them are minimum-wage employees. Minimum wage has gone up several dollars per hour over the past few years. If the amenity fees don't increase, eventually, you'll have to cut the amenities or accept disrepair as the new normal.

[Veracity]

Many have said, accused, or inferred that I am somehow indebted or compensated by the developer, these are untrue statements and ignorant lip service, and I openly challenge anyone to provide any proof to the contrary.

On the other hand, many people, like me, have never made these accusations. We are the ones who value all the useful information that you have gained through your extensive research, personal experiences, and service on The Villages CDD & PWAC boards as well as the Sumter County Board of County Commissioners. We appreciate your willingness to share this information and your opinions (both positive and negative) regarding all things Villages (including past, current, and future Villages projects) on various social media forums and through your Goldwingnut video productions. Keep up the great work.

[azcindy]

I recently received the below email concerning the Amenity Fee and provided the following responses.

“Good morning, Don
May I trouble with a couple of questions ?
1. Are there any actual HOA’s in The Villages that actually pay HOA dues instead of the usual amenity fees through their CDDs ?
2. Is there a site whereby you can type in an address and it tells you what village the home is in ?
Thanks for your reply and for your videos”

The genesis of the first question is clearly and effort to understand and avoid the rising Amenity fee, to which I provided the below response:

There are a few HOAs within The Villages community, their fees however are in addition to the Amenity Fee that EVERY homeowner agrees to pay upon purchase. What you will ultimately find is that these HOA fees will increase more than the Amenity Fee will. The Amenity Fee is tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and can go up no greater than the CPI. The HOA fees are not constrained by the CPI but instead will adjust based on the actual cost changes for the services to be provided by the HOA. The CPI has traditionally fallen short of actual cost increases, so it is a constant losing battle to keep costs down each year to ensure that Repair and Replacement Fund (R&R) money (saving account) is not used to cover the annual operating costs.

There has been a lot of talk about a "cap" on the Amenity Fee. There was never a "cap", there was what was known as a "Deferral Rate" on the Amenity Fee that was for 1 year and was subsequently renewed annually for 8 years. The purpose of the Deferral Rate was to allow an equalization of the Amenity Fee that varied widely over the community.

Just to be clear – the “cap” exists in no one’s purchase agreement and no one has a written agreement that the amenity fee would never go above a certain amount. They may have been informed of the Deferral Rate’s existence by their sales representative, but it was never guaranteed. I’ve looked through hundreds of documents and even offered a $10,000 reward for some to produce such a document. No such documents exist.
At the time of the discontinuation of the Deferral Rate, over 85% of the homes in The Villages were at or within 95% of the Deferral Rate. The budget projections at that time, based on the current trends at the time, showed a revenue shortfall within 2 years that increased more each year after. This shortfall would have necessitated expenditure of the R&R funds just to maintain the current level of services. The only way to maintain the status quo under the Deferral Rate would have been to either a) decrease the service offered by the Amenity Divisions, b) defer facility maintenance and replacements, and/or c) close facilities. None of these were deemed an acceptable alternative.

There have been many comments made to the effect of “I don’t play golf (pick an activity), I shouldn’t have to pay for it”, “I’m over 80 (pick an age) and don’t use the amenities as much anymore, I shouldn’t have to pay as much”, “the rising cost of the Amenity Fee is going to price me out of my home and I’ll have to move”, and “this is just the developer getting rich at our expense”. To these short sighted and uninformed comments, I offer the following:

I don’t play pickleball, tennis, or use the pools, and the list goes on and on. The amenities are a package deal, no one likely uses ALL the amenities, what you don’t use someone else does and vice versa. Pricing the amenities piecemeal would be both administratively burdensome and cost prohibitive due the tremendous amount of additional overhead costs and would eliminate a large number of activities available to all the residents, a large number of these activities appeal to the less active or physically able residents. Executive golf only represents about 7% of the total amenity budgets (championship golf is not an amenity, it is a privately owned business and is not funded by the amenities budgets).

On age, how much did you use the amenities when you first moved here? If you are like most, a lot more than we did as we continue to age. It’s give-and-take for each person and activity. IF the Amenity Fee was age biased, what is the magic age? It’s different for each person. How would you enforce it? You’re 75 now, you can’t play pickleball anymore or you’re now 80 you can’t use the executive golf courses because they aren’t covered by your Amenity Fee. None of this is feasible. The activities that the older segment of the population engage in may be some of those eliminated as I discussed in the pervious paragraph, those more expensive on a “per person” basis – they would be the ones paying for the rec centers (the biggest cost in the budgets) and not the golfers.

IF the Amenity Fee CPI adjustments are going to price someone out of their home, I would have to ask about the other cost increases – food, energy, medical expenses, etc. – that have increased at a far greater rate. Everyone’s financial situation is different and unique, and we all have different needs and priorities, our financial plans for retirement must include considerations for these as well as continued cost increases must be a part of one’s financial plan for retirement. To blame the Amenity Fee CPI adjustments for losing one’s home or ability to live in a location or community is simply not taking the personally responsible for not planning for one’s future. I know, understand, and am sympathetic to the fact that one’s situation may have changed through the course of one’s retirement. Plans must then change to compensate, I/we should not be held financially responsible for someone else's unwillingness to change, which is what this comment asks for.

The Developer owns only a very small part of the amenities, and that amount is about to get even smaller with the sale of the amenities in CDD 12 & 13 to the Sumter Landing Amenities Division (SLAD). Of the amenities that they don’t own, only a very small number of services are provided by the developer for these, the largest of these is IT services that are competitively bid on every few years by the District government. IT services and Communication services represent a very small percentage of $200+ million amenities budgets. The annual adjustments they make to the Prevailing Rate (the rate paid by new homes and resales purchased during the year) are a necessity for them to balance their continuously rising cost of operations. They only receive the Amenity Fee on the homes purchased in the areas where they own the amenities – currently all areas below SR44. Amenity fees north of SR44 go to the SLAD and RAD – both government bodies. The developer has the advantage of using a balance sheet to determent what the new Prevailing Rate will be and doesn’t have to live under the constraints of the CPI for new houses they sell. Yes they want to make a profit on these funds, but it is a marginal process as their costs increase each time a new amenity is open, this happens long before the revenues from new home sales cover these costs. Unlike the SLAD/RAD owned facilities, the developer has the additional expense of having to pay taxes on these properties as long as they own them. The developer isn’t getting rich on the Amenity Fee, in fact looking at the current 2025 Prevailing Rate of $199/month and the past inflation rates it would not be a stretch to say they didn’t raise it any higher to prevent breaking that glass ceiling of $200/month.

A majority of the people who have purchased in The Villages did so because of the wide variety of Amenities that are available to everyone. These amenities come at a cost that we all agreed to pay when we purchased our homes. You purchased a home in a community with an overhead expense that you agreed to pay for, you didn’t get a rich uncle to take care of your every need and want in that purchase.

For the second question, go to this page of the DistrictGov.org website:
Find My District - The Villages Community Development Districts (https://www.districtgov.org/districts/finder/)

Many may not like what I have written here, reality sucks. I have to stay grounded in reality and not lose sight of the realities that many forget exists outside the bubble of The Villages. Many have said, accused, or inferred that I am somehow indebted or compensated by the developer, these are untrue statements and ignorant lip service, and I openly challenge anyone to provide any proof to the contrary. Bring it! I will openly discuss and disprove this in the town square without fear.

Do I love where I live? Absolutely! Is it a perfect utopia? Absolutely NOT, it has its many flaws and shortcomings that I am unafraid to openly discuss and have done so many times in the past. I did spend nearly 20 years in management within the construction industry and have seen the right and the wrong way to do construction and run a business, and The Villages is an exemplary case of the right way to do this business.

Thank you Don! Always appreciate your well thought out and factual answers. Nothing is perfect as you say, but I can't wait to move to The Villages!

Cindy

[coleprice]

Thank you Don for your thorough explanation. You addresses several of my concerns, which I sincerely appreciate. Additionally, I'd like to encourage you and others serving in a similar capacity to control costs so that Amenity Fees are minimized. For example, things like "Community Watch" and people at the Gates should be minimized or eliminated.

[rsmurano]

Our amenity fees are cheap for what we get. There is no other place that offers you the same activities for this low of a fee. We lived in a 55+ community and we paid more for 99% less activities.
If you are a coach potato and don’t do anything, there are other places you can live in that have $0 or low fees, that have 0 activities or a small subdivision might have no fees

[BrianL99]

Our amenity fees are cheap for what we get. There is no other place that offers you the same activities for this low of a fee. We lived in a 55+ community and we paid more for 99% less activities.
If you are a coach potato and don’t do anything, there are other places you can live in that have $0 or low fees, that have 0 activities or a small subdivision might have no fees

So on the subject of Amenities, here's the question that always pops into my mind.

Does the Developer have the unlimited right to add residences, who will all have unlimited rights to all the existing amenities, regardless of where they're located?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Recreational Centers, can he still keep adding homes, which have unlimited rights to the already constructed Recreational Centers & Pools?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Executive Golfs courses, do the folks in those newer villages (presumably South), have the unlimited right to inundate the existing Executive Courses in the North?

Does the Developer have the unequivocal right to decide how many Executive Golf courses, pools, recreational centers, etc., are needed to serve a given population?

As near as I can see, there's no obligation for the Developer to provide "x number of Executive Golf course holes, per x number of residences" ... nor any obligation to do the same with Recreational Centers or any other amenity. It seems he's the sole judge of what's necessary or fair?

Amy I missing something, besides the obvious that some things are "market driven".

[dewilson58]

Amy I missing something, besides the obvious that some things are "market driven".

"But Ya Doesn't Havta Call Me Amy."

[Goldwingnut]

So on the subject of Amenities, here's the question that always pops into my mind.

Does the Developer have the unlimited right to add residences, who will all have unlimited rights to all the existing amenities, regardless of where they're located?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Recreational Centers, can he still keep adding homes, which have unlimited rights to the already constructed Recreational Centers & Pools?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Executive Golfs courses, do the folks in those newer villages (presumably South), have the unlimited right to inundate the existing Executive Courses in the North?

Does the Developer have the unequivocal right to decide how many Executive Golf courses, pools, recreational centers, etc., are needed to serve a given population?

As near as I can see, there's no obligation for the Developer to provide "x number of Executive Golf course holes, per x number of residences" ... nor any obligation to do the same with Recreational Centers or any other amenity. It seems he's the sole judge of what's necessary or fair?

Amy I missing something, besides the obvious that some things are "market driven".

The developer does not have unlimited rights to add additional residential units in the existing CDD, they do however usually retain a small number. A few years ago they had approximately 300 amenity contracts associated with the RAD (north of 466) and has exercised a few of these options over the last few years.

With respect to the number of amenities provided in the new areas, yes by all means it is their sole right and judgment to determine how many new amenities they build in these areas, no the residents don't get a say in it. It's their money, their land, and their business model, and they can do whatever they legally want to, so yes, they get to be the sole judge. That being said, they've been at this a very long time and know their market better than anyone, including the residents, why would stop feeding the goose that laid the golden eggs - why would they stop building the amenities that are key to driving home sales? Sure, you can feast on goose for dinner and enjoy the feast - reap additional profits by saving on new amenities - but this is very short term and would lead to hunger/failure very quickly. All your hypothetical “IF”s are simply “what if they start mutilating the goose”, they are much better business people than that.

The developer can continue to build as long as they want and within the limits of the development agreements continue to grow The Villages. Within these development agreements there is verbiage that provides guidance on equitable amenities – “don’t kill the goose, feed the goose regularly”; most is probably unnecessary.

There is an ebb & flow to the number of homes versus number of amenities, 40+ years of history clearly indicates they clearly understand this and adjust accordingly. Golf courses are a prime example, some areas do not lend themselves to golf courses or sometimes they try something new – pitch & putts. As homes continue to be built, so do the homes. For the golf courses there are at least 5 executive and 3 more championship courses under construction or planned, with I’m sure many more to follow.

Not everything is perfect, a prime example is the small number of swimming pools north of 466 in CDD 3 & 4. Perceptions are also not perfect, the number of golf courses compared to the actual number of homes (not the perceived number) is much closer to the norm than most perceive.

Bottom line is, until you pony up and put your money at risk like they have, you don’t get a say in what the future holds and what they build, and they get to make all the decisions. Until then, just like in the financial ads, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance and cannot be guaranteed. I’m no gambler and don’t like taking unnecessary risks, in the case of The Villages, to me it’s as close to a sure thing as I can get for the place I’ve retired.

[Bogie Shooter]

So on the subject of Amenities, here's the question that always pops into my mind.

Does the Developer have the unlimited right to add residences, who will all have unlimited rights to all the existing amenities, regardless of where they're located?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Recreational Centers, can he still keep adding homes, which have unlimited rights to the already constructed Recreational Centers & Pools?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Executive Golfs courses, do the folks in those newer villages (presumably South), have the unlimited right to inundate the existing Executive Courses in the North?

Does the Developer have the unequivocal right to decide how many Executive Golf courses, pools, recreational centers, etc., are needed to serve a given population?

As near as I can see, there's no obligation for the Developer to provide "x number of Executive Golf course holes, per x number of residences" ... nor any obligation to do the same with Recreational Centers or any other amenity. It seems he's the sole judge of what's necessary or fair?

Amy I missing something, besides the obvious that some things are "market driven".
Sure seems obvious after reading a couple posts after this one or was this just a little trolling………

[rustyp]

So on the subject of Amenities, here's the question that always pops into my mind.

Does the Developer have the unlimited right to add residences, who will all have unlimited rights to all the existing amenities, regardless of where they're located?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Recreational Centers, can he still keep adding homes, which have unlimited rights to the already constructed Recreational Centers & Pools?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Executive Golfs courses, do the folks in those newer villages (presumably South), have the unlimited right to inundate the existing Executive Courses in the North?

Does the Developer have the unequivocal right to decide how many Executive Golf courses, pools, recreational centers, etc., are needed to serve a given population?

As near as I can see, there's no obligation for the Developer to provide "x number of Executive Golf course holes, per x number of residences" ... nor any obligation to do the same with Recreational Centers or any other amenity. It seems he's the sole judge of what's necessary or fair?

Amy I missing something, besides the obvious that some things are "market driven".

The developer does not have unlimited rights to add additional residential units in the existing CDD, they do however usually retain a small number. A few years ago they had approximately 300 amenity contracts associated with the RAD (north of 466) and has exercised a few of these options over the last few years.

With respect to the number of amenities provided in the new areas, yes by all means it is their sole right and judgment to determine how many new amenities they build in these areas, no the residents don't get a say in it. It's their money, their land, and their business model, and they can do whatever they legally want to, so yes, they get to be the sole judge. That being said, they've been at this a very long time and know their market better than anyone, including the residents, why would stop feeding the goose that laid the golden eggs - why would they stop building the amenities that are key to driving home sales? Sure, you can feast on goose for dinner and enjoy the feast - reap additional profits by saving on new amenities - but this is very short term and would lead to hunger/failure very quickly. All your hypothetical “IF”s are simply “what if they start mutilating the goose”, they are much better business people than that.

The developer can continue to build as long as they want and within the limits of the development agreements continue to grow The Villages. Within these development agreements there is verbiage that provides guidance on equitable amenities – “don’t kill the goose, feed the goose regularly”; most is probably unnecessary.

There is an ebb & flow to the number of homes versus number of amenities, 40+ years of history clearly indicates they clearly understand this and adjust accordingly. Golf courses are a prime example, some areas do not lend themselves to golf courses or sometimes they try something new – pitch & putts. As homes continue to be built, so do the homes. For the golf courses there are at least 5 executive and 3 more championship courses under construction or planned, with I’m sure many more to follow.

Not everything is perfect, a prime example is the small number of swimming pools north of 466 in CDD 3 & 4. Perceptions are also not perfect, the number of golf courses compared to the actual number of homes (not the perceived number) is much closer to the norm than most perceive.

Bottom line is, until you pony up and put your money at risk like they have, you don’t get a say in what the future holds and what they build, and they get to make all the decisions. Until then, just like in the financial ads, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance and cannot be guaranteed. I’m no gambler and don’t like taking unnecessary risks, in the case of The Villages, to me it’s as close to a sure thing as I can get for the place I’ve retired.

Until I (we) pony up ?
Paradise Center $40 mil lawsuit
Brownwood water tower
Lake Sumter shoreline reclaim
Lake Sumter boardwalk

As long as there is money in the pot someone will figure out how to spend it.

Want a sure thing ? Here is my sure thing. There will never be another deferral rate. We will index amenities to CPI index and never miss a beat. We will fall behind and institute special bailout funds.

Still it is close to Utopia here however some people make it sound like the king just keeps on giving and the peasants keep on taking. No the peasants are paying their share just as they agreed to do.

[kkingston57]

I recently received the below email concerning the Amenity Fee and provided the following responses.

“Good morning, Don
May I trouble with a couple of questions ?
1. Are there any actual HOA’s in The Villages that actually pay HOA dues instead of the usual amenity fees through their CDDs ?
2. Is there a site whereby you can type in an address and it tells you what village the home is in ?
Thanks for your reply and for your videos”

The genesis of the first question is clearly and effort to understand and avoid the rising Amenity fee, to which I provided the below response:

There are a few HOAs within The Villages community, their fees however are in addition to the Amenity Fee that EVERY homeowner agrees to pay upon purchase. What you will ultimately find is that these HOA fees will increase more than the Amenity Fee will. The Amenity Fee is tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and can go up no greater than the CPI. The HOA fees are not constrained by the CPI but instead will adjust based on the actual cost changes for the services to be provided by the HOA. The CPI has traditionally fallen short of actual cost increases, so it is a constant losing battle to keep costs down each year to ensure that Repair and Replacement Fund (R&R) money (saving account) is not used to cover the annual operating costs.

There has been a lot of talk about a "cap" on the Amenity Fee. There was never a "cap", there was what was known as a "Deferral Rate" on the Amenity Fee that was for 1 year and was subsequently renewed annually for 8 years. The purpose of the Deferral Rate was to allow an equalization of the Amenity Fee that varied widely over the community.

Just to be clear – the “cap” exists in no one’s purchase agreement and no one has a written agreement that the amenity fee would never go above a certain amount. They may have been informed of the Deferral Rate’s existence by their sales representative, but it was never guaranteed. I’ve looked through hundreds of documents and even offered a $10,000 reward for some to produce such a document. No such documents exist.
At the time of the discontinuation of the Deferral Rate, over 85% of the homes in The Villages were at or within 95% of the Deferral Rate. The budget projections at that time, based on the current trends at the time, showed a revenue shortfall within 2 years that increased more each year after. This shortfall would have necessitated expenditure of the R&R funds just to maintain the current level of services. The only way to maintain the status quo under the Deferral Rate would have been to either a) decrease the service offered by the Amenity Divisions, b) defer facility maintenance and replacements, and/or c) close facilities. None of these were deemed an acceptable alternative.

There have been many comments made to the effect of “I don’t play golf (pick an activity), I shouldn’t have to pay for it”, “I’m over 80 (pick an age) and don’t use the amenities as much anymore, I shouldn’t have to pay as much”, “the rising cost of the Amenity Fee is going to price me out of my home and I’ll have to move”, and “this is just the developer getting rich at our expense”. To these short sighted and uninformed comments, I offer the following:

I don’t play pickleball, tennis, or use the pools, and the list goes on and on. The amenities are a package deal, no one likely uses ALL the amenities, what you don’t use someone else does and vice versa. Pricing the amenities piecemeal would be both administratively burdensome and cost prohibitive due the tremendous amount of additional overhead costs and would eliminate a large number of activities available to all the residents, a large number of these activities appeal to the less active or physically able residents. Executive golf only represents about 7% of the total amenity budgets (championship golf is not an amenity, it is a privately owned business and is not funded by the amenities budgets).

On age, how much did you use the amenities when you first moved here? If you are like most, a lot more than we did as we continue to age. It’s give-and-take for each person and activity. IF the Amenity Fee was age biased, what is the magic age? It’s different for each person. How would you enforce it? You’re 75 now, you can’t play pickleball anymore or you’re now 80 you can’t use the executive golf courses because they aren’t covered by your Amenity Fee. None of this is feasible. The activities that the older segment of the population engage in may be some of those eliminated as I discussed in the pervious paragraph, those more expensive on a “per person” basis – they would be the ones paying for the rec centers (the biggest cost in the budgets) and not the golfers.

IF the Amenity Fee CPI adjustments are going to price someone out of their home, I would have to ask about the other cost increases – food, energy, medical expenses, etc. – that have increased at a far greater rate. Everyone’s financial situation is different and unique, and we all have different needs and priorities, our financial plans for retirement must include considerations for these as well as continued cost increases must be a part of one’s financial plan for retirement. To blame the Amenity Fee CPI adjustments for losing one’s home or ability to live in a location or community is simply not taking the personally responsible for not planning for one’s future. I know, understand, and am sympathetic to the fact that one’s situation may have changed through the course of one’s retirement. Plans must then change to compensate, I/we should not be held financially responsible for someone else's unwillingness to change, which is what this comment asks for.

The Developer owns only a very small part of the amenities, and that amount is about to get even smaller with the sale of the amenities in CDD 12 & 13 to the Sumter Landing Amenities Division (SLAD). Of the amenities that they don’t own, only a very small number of services are provided by the developer for these, the largest of these is IT services that are competitively bid on every few years by the District government. IT services and Communication services represent a very small percentage of $200+ million amenities budgets. The annual adjustments they make to the Prevailing Rate (the rate paid by new homes and resales purchased during the year) are a necessity for them to balance their continuously rising cost of operations. They only receive the Amenity Fee on the homes purchased in the areas where they own the amenities – currently all areas below SR44. Amenity fees north of SR44 go to the SLAD and RAD – both government bodies. The developer has the advantage of using a balance sheet to determent what the new Prevailing Rate will be and doesn’t have to live under the constraints of the CPI for new houses they sell. Yes they want to make a profit on these funds, but it is a marginal process as their costs increase each time a new amenity is open, this happens long before the revenues from new home sales cover these costs. Unlike the SLAD/RAD owned facilities, the developer has the additional expense of having to pay taxes on these properties as long as they own them. The developer isn’t getting rich on the Amenity Fee, in fact looking at the current 2025 Prevailing Rate of $199/month and the past inflation rates it would not be a stretch to say they didn’t raise it any higher to prevent breaking that glass ceiling of $200/month.

A majority of the people who have purchased in The Villages did so because of the wide variety of Amenities that are available to everyone. These amenities come at a cost that we all agreed to pay when we purchased our homes. You purchased a home in a community with an overhead expense that you agreed to pay for, you didn’t get a rich uncle to take care of your every need and want in that purchase.

For the second question, go to this page of the DistrictGov.org website:
Find My District - The Villages Community Development Districts (https://www.districtgov.org/districts/finder/)

Many may not like what I have written here, reality sucks. I have to stay grounded in reality and not lose sight of the realities that many forget exists outside the bubble of The Villages. Many have said, accused, or inferred that I am somehow indebted or compensated by the developer, these are untrue statements and ignorant lip service, and I openly challenge anyone to provide any proof to the contrary. Bring it! I will openly discuss and disprove this in the town square without fear.

Do I love where I live? Absolutely! Is it a perfect utopia? Absolutely NOT, it has its many flaws and shortcomings that I am unafraid to openly discuss and have done so many times in the past. I did spend nearly 20 years in management within the construction industry and have seen the right and the wrong way to do construction and run a business, and The Villages is an exemplary case of the right way to do this business.

Created a lot of posts for a fee that has gone up to approximately $175 a month from $155 in 4 years. 10 years ago we looked into buying a townhome. Grass cutting and pool was the biggest expenses and cost was $300

[BrianL99]

The developer does not have unlimited rights to add additional residential units in the existing CDD, they do however usually retain a small number. A few years ago they had approximately 300 amenity contracts associated with the RAD (north of 466) and has exercised a few of these options over the last few years.


Wasn't my question, Don. I understand the rights the Developer maintains with the existing CDD's and some may have room for expansion. My question revolves around adding additional property and CDD's to "The Villages".




With respect to the number of amenities provided in the new areas, yes by all means it is their sole right and judgment to determine how many new amenities they build in these areas, no the residents don't get a say in it. It's their money, their land, and their business model, and they can do whatever they legally want to, so yes, they get to be the sole judge.



I'm not questioning the realities of the market nor the Developer's track record. My basic question is, does the Developer have an unlimited right to keep adding CDD's all the way to Tampa or Orlando, all of which are entitled to use the existing amenities?

It's only a conceptual question, as I don't play golf on the Executive Golf courses, nor have I ever stepped foot in a Recreational Center, other than to pick up a Guest Pass.

I've developed Condominium projects in other states. In many cases, when selling units, we retain the right to add additional land and phases to the project, all of which will become "part of the whole" when complete and entitled to use any amenity constructed with the original phase.

At least in the states I've developed Condominiums, the possibility of adding other (future) land (phases) to an existing Condominium, has to be specifically addressed in the Declaration and it typically isn't unlimited.

Is that how The Villages is structured? Is there no limit to the potential expansion of The Villages and all homes added, become part of the whole and entitled to use of any and all amenities?

I'm not asking if the Developer would, might, shouldn't or wouldn't build all the way to Tampa and not build any amenities. I agree that market conditions are self-limiting and a determining factor.

My question is, does the Developer have the unlimited right to to grant access to the existing amenities, to as many homes as he wants.




Bottom line is, until you pony up and put your money at risk like they have, you don’t get a say in what the future holds and what they build, and they get to make all the decisions.


Therein lies the crux of the dichotomy.

The Developer no longer owns the majority of the amenities (assuming the recent sale has been consummated), yet they have the exclusive right to determine the intensity of use the Amenities (they no longer own) are subjected to? They get to decide the "pools per person ratio" for their new CDD's and at the same time, change the current "pools per person ratio" in the existing CDD's? I have to be missing something here.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Created a lot of posts for a fee that has gone up to approximately $175 a month from $155 in 4 years. 10 years ago we looked into buying a townhome. Grass cutting and pool was the biggest expenses and cost was $300

It's $199 now for amenity fees. We don't have that grass cutting or pool expense, since we mow our own lawn and don't have our own pool. So I guess that means we're living $101 less expensively than you are.

[Maker]

DON: Can this be fixed?
If someone pays $215/month, and someone else pays $195/month....
Can anyone list the extra amenities that extra $20/month pays for?
Seems unfair that there are different rates for identical amenities.

[BrianL99]

Until I (we) pony up ?
Paradise Center $40 mil lawsuit
Brownwood water tower
Lake Sumter shoreline reclaim
Lake Sumter boardwalk

As long as there is money in the pot someone will figure out how to spend it.

Want a sure thing ? Here is my sure thing. There will never be another deferral rate. We will index amenities to CPI index and never miss a beat. We will fall behind and institute special bailout funds.

Still it is close to Utopia here however some people make it sound like the king just keeps on giving and the peasants keep on taking. No the peasants are paying their share just as they agreed to do.

100% correct.

Not only does the team absorb the penalty yards the Ref's impose, the goal line keeps moving farther away.

[Bill14564]

DON: Can this be fixed?
If someone pays $215/month, and someone else pays $195/month....
Can anyone list the extra amenities that extra $20/month pays for?
Seems unfair that there are different rates for identical amenities.

Does anyone pay $215/month?

I pay a bit less than the new rate of $199 but my rate will be increasing around April and will put me pretty close. All rates should be close to the new contractual rate or will adjust to be close to the rate. (If yours is less then lucky you).

My rate was set to the contractual rate when I purchased, just s my deed restrictions said it would. My rate adjusted every year with the CPI just as the deed restrictions said it would. What more can I ask for other than the rate follows the restrictions I agreed to when I purchased?

[Dilligas]

Is there some sort of backstory here that we newcomers need to understand?

If the OP is just a regular resident and has no connection with the developer, why are people emailing him questions about the amenity fees?

And why the justification of the fees by the OP? I mean its fine, the TOTV can be a soapbox, and his logic is probably right, but he has nothing to do with them right?

Don Wiley has been the source of "the facts" for several years. His thorough knowledge of TV and TV government along with his voice of reason and fact has been the desperate need of any website, and especially TOTV's soapbox. He has been a VCCD commissioner and County Commissioner.

He manages to remove the personal, political, and emotional aspects of many OPs and gives the facts. We all need that now.

[kcrazorbackfan]

Thanks for your insight on the amenity fees. Like you said, not all will be pleased with your explanation. It was very informative.

[Bogie Shooter]

DON: Can this be fixed?
If someone pays $215/month, and someone else pays $195/month....
Can anyone list the extra amenities that extra $20/month pays for?
Seems unfair that there are different rates for identical amenities.

You can fix by sending a check of twenty dollars monthly…….until you get caught up to the $215.:wave:

[tophcfa]

My question is, does the Developer have the unlimited right to grant access to the existing amenities, to as many homes as he wants.

Therein lies the crux of the dichotomy.

The Developer no longer owns the majority of the amenities (assuming the recent sale has been consummated), yet they have the exclusive right to determine the intensity of use the Amenities (they no longer own) are subjected to? They get to decide the "pools per person ratio" for their new CDD's and at the same time, change the current "pools per person ratio" in the existing CDD's?.

Very good, logical, and reasonable question. The man behind the curtain certainly exercised significantly influence over the AAC to allow them the ability to offer full residential amenities so they could add apartments to Spanish Springs and build Villas where the Clubhouse used to be at Hacienda Hills.

That was in a mature area, fully built out many years ago, where the existing amenities are already fully utilized and the developer didn’t have the right to grant new amenities to residential units in the AAC jurisdiction. In addition, the northern areas are finding it increasingly more difficult to get desirable tee times on the Executive golf courses, as the southern areas continue to be built out way faster than holes per rooftop are being added.

[Indydealmaker]

I recently received the below email concerning the Amenity Fee and provided the following responses.

“Good morning, Don
May I trouble with a couple of questions ?
1. Are there any actual HOA’s in The Villages that actually pay HOA dues instead of the usual amenity fees through their CDDs ?
2. Is there a site whereby you can type in an address and it tells you what village the home is in ?
Thanks for your reply and for your videos”

The genesis of the first question is clearly and effort to understand and avoid the rising Amenity fee, to which I provided the below response:

There are a few HOAs within The Villages community, their fees however are in addition to the Amenity Fee that EVERY homeowner agrees to pay upon purchase. What you will ultimately find is that these HOA fees will increase more than the Amenity Fee will. The Amenity Fee is tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and can go up no greater than the CPI. The HOA fees are not constrained by the CPI but instead will adjust based on the actual cost changes for the services to be provided by the HOA. The CPI has traditionally fallen short of actual cost increases, so it is a constant losing battle to keep costs down each year to ensure that Repair and Replacement Fund (R&R) money (saving account) is not used to cover the annual operating costs.

There has been a lot of talk about a "cap" on the Amenity Fee. There was never a "cap", there was what was known as a "Deferral Rate" on the Amenity Fee that was for 1 year and was subsequently renewed annually for 8 years. The purpose of the Deferral Rate was to allow an equalization of the Amenity Fee that varied widely over the community.

Just to be clear – the “cap” exists in no one’s purchase agreement and no one has a written agreement that the amenity fee would never go above a certain amount. They may have been informed of the Deferral Rate’s existence by their sales representative, but it was never guaranteed. I’ve looked through hundreds of documents and even offered a $10,000 reward for some to produce such a document. No such documents exist.
At the time of the discontinuation of the Deferral Rate, over 85% of the homes in The Villages were at or within 95% of the Deferral Rate. The budget projections at that time, based on the current trends at the time, showed a revenue shortfall within 2 years that increased more each year after. This shortfall would have necessitated expenditure of the R&R funds just to maintain the current level of services. The only way to maintain the status quo under the Deferral Rate would have been to either a) decrease the service offered by the Amenity Divisions, b) defer facility maintenance and replacements, and/or c) close facilities. None of these were deemed an acceptable alternative.

There have been many comments made to the effect of “I don’t play golf (pick an activity), I shouldn’t have to pay for it”, “I’m over 80 (pick an age) and don’t use the amenities as much anymore, I shouldn’t have to pay as much”, “the rising cost of the Amenity Fee is going to price me out of my home and I’ll have to move”, and “this is just the developer getting rich at our expense”. To these short sighted and uninformed comments, I offer the following:

I don’t play pickleball, tennis, or use the pools, and the list goes on and on. The amenities are a package deal, no one likely uses ALL the amenities, what you don’t use someone else does and vice versa. Pricing the amenities piecemeal would be both administratively burdensome and cost prohibitive due the tremendous amount of additional overhead costs and would eliminate a large number of activities available to all the residents, a large number of these activities appeal to the less active or physically able residents. Executive golf only represents about 7% of the total amenity budgets (championship golf is not an amenity, it is a privately owned business and is not funded by the amenities budgets).

On age, how much did you use the amenities when you first moved here? If you are like most, a lot more than we did as we continue to age. It’s give-and-take for each person and activity. IF the Amenity Fee was age biased, what is the magic age? It’s different for each person. How would you enforce it? You’re 75 now, you can’t play pickleball anymore or you’re now 80 you can’t use the executive golf courses because they aren’t covered by your Amenity Fee. None of this is feasible. The activities that the older segment of the population engage in may be some of those eliminated as I discussed in the pervious paragraph, those more expensive on a “per person” basis – they would be the ones paying for the rec centers (the biggest cost in the budgets) and not the golfers.

IF the Amenity Fee CPI adjustments are going to price someone out of their home, I would have to ask about the other cost increases – food, energy, medical expenses, etc. – that have increased at a far greater rate. Everyone’s financial situation is different and unique, and we all have different needs and priorities, our financial plans for retirement must include considerations for these as well as continued cost increases must be a part of one’s financial plan for retirement. To blame the Amenity Fee CPI adjustments for losing one’s home or ability to live in a location or community is simply not taking the personally responsible for not planning for one’s future. I know, understand, and am sympathetic to the fact that one’s situation may have changed through the course of one’s retirement. Plans must then change to compensate, I/we should not be held financially responsible for someone else's unwillingness to change, which is what this comment asks for.

The Developer owns only a very small part of the amenities, and that amount is about to get even smaller with the sale of the amenities in CDD 12 & 13 to the Sumter Landing Amenities Division (SLAD). Of the amenities that they don’t own, only a very small number of services are provided by the developer for these, the largest of these is IT services that are competitively bid on every few years by the District government. IT services and Communication services represent a very small percentage of $200+ million amenities budgets. The annual adjustments they make to the Prevailing Rate (the rate paid by new homes and resales purchased during the year) are a necessity for them to balance their continuously rising cost of operations. They only receive the Amenity Fee on the homes purchased in the areas where they own the amenities – currently all areas below SR44. Amenity fees north of SR44 go to the SLAD and RAD – both government bodies. The developer has the advantage of using a balance sheet to determent what the new Prevailing Rate will be and doesn’t have to live under the constraints of the CPI for new houses they sell. Yes they want to make a profit on these funds, but it is a marginal process as their costs increase each time a new amenity is open, this happens long before the revenues from new home sales cover these costs. Unlike the SLAD/RAD owned facilities, the developer has the additional expense of having to pay taxes on these properties as long as they own them. The developer isn’t getting rich on the Amenity Fee, in fact looking at the current 2025 Prevailing Rate of $199/month and the past inflation rates it would not be a stretch to say they didn’t raise it any higher to prevent breaking that glass ceiling of $200/month.

A majority of the people who have purchased in The Villages did so because of the wide variety of Amenities that are available to everyone. These amenities come at a cost that we all agreed to pay when we purchased our homes. You purchased a home in a community with an overhead expense that you agreed to pay for, you didn’t get a rich uncle to take care of your every need and want in that purchase.

For the second question, go to this page of the DistrictGov.org website:
Find My District - The Villages Community Development Districts (https://www.districtgov.org/districts/finder/)

Many may not like what I have written here, reality sucks. I have to stay grounded in reality and not lose sight of the realities that many forget exists outside the bubble of The Villages. Many have said, accused, or inferred that I am somehow indebted or compensated by the developer, these are untrue statements and ignorant lip service, and I openly challenge anyone to provide any proof to the contrary. Bring it! I will openly discuss and disprove this in the town square without fear.

Do I love where I live? Absolutely! Is it a perfect utopia? Absolutely NOT, it has its many flaws and shortcomings that I am unafraid to openly discuss and have done so many times in the past. I did spend nearly 20 years in management within the construction industry and have seen the right and the wrong way to do construction and run a business, and The Villages is an exemplary case of the right way to do this business.

Thank you, Don! Uninformed opinions and unverified rumors sow the seeds of needless dissatisfaction .

[Marathon Man]

Very good, logical, and reasonable question. The man behind the curtain certainly exercised significantly influence over the AAC to allow them the ability to offer full residential amenities so they could add apartments to Spanish Springs and build Villas where the Clubhouse used to be at Hacienda Hills.

That was in a mature area, fully built out many years ago, where the existing amenities are already fully utilized and the developer didn’t have the right to grant new amenities to residential units in the AAC jurisdiction. In addition, the northern areas are finding it increasingly more difficult to get desirable tee times on the Executive golf courses, as the southern areas continue to be built out way faster than holes per rooftop are being added.

I have lived south of 44 for several years now. None of us travel north to play golf. We have all the golf that we need down here. The myth that the southern expansion affects golf in the north is a myth. Perhaps more golfers are moving into TV north. Why is that not considered?

[BrianL99]

Therein lies the crux of the dichotomy.

The Developer no longer owns the majority of the amenities (assuming the recent sale has been consummated), yet they have the exclusive right to determine the intensity of use the Amenities (they no longer own) are subjected to? They get to decide the "pools per person ratio" for their new CDD's and at the same time, change the current "pools per person ratio" in the existing CDD's? I have to be missing something here.

Very good, logical, and reasonable question. The man behind the curtain certainly exercised significantly influence over the AAC to allow them the ability to offer full residential amenities so they could add apartments to Spanish Springs and build Villas where the Clubhouse used to be at Hacienda Hills.

That was in a mature area, fully built out many years ago, where the existing amenities are already fully utilized and the developer didn’t have the right to grant new amenities to residential units in the AAC jurisdiction. In addition, the northern areas are finding it increasingly more difficult to get desirable tee times on the Executive golf courses, as the southern areas continue to be built out way faster than holes per rooftop are being added.

I have asked that same question of many people and never seem to get an answer, other than the Developer is a very smart and conscientious business person, who won't "kill the golden goose".

The original developer is probably the smartest developer in American history. If you believe what TV veterans says, he was a great guy, who was as concerned with his customers' quality of life, as he was with making money. We've moved farther down the family chain. Attitudes change, priorities change and market conditions change.

When Spanish Springs was build in 1994, there were about 5000 homes in The Villages.

Between the construction of Lake Sumter Landing and Brownwood Paddock, approximately 30,000 homes were added. About 35,000 homes have been added since the opening of Brownwood Paddock.

The neighborhood changes.

[BrianL99]

I have lived south of 44 for several years now. None of us travel north to play golf. We have all the golf that we need down here. The myth that the southern expansion affects golf in the north is a myth. Perhaps more golfers are moving into TV north. Why is that not considered?

Because it's a fact, not a myth.

I don't know anything about Executive Golf (so my answer isn't related to Amenity Fees), but up until this year, there was only (1) 18 hole golf course located in what most folks consider the "south". Now there are 2. The quality of the 2 courses in the south, don't compare with the other 18 or 27 hole courses.

I get it. When the expansion to the south was going on, the golf business was in the toilet. The Developer surely saw the writing on the wall and cut back on golf course investment ... everyone did. Covid changed the world of golf.

To suggest the addition of 30,000+ homes hasn't affected access to existing golf courses, defies logic.

[biker1]

I believe the following numbers are essentially correct, someone please correct if not so. When we moved here in 2014, there were approximately 1500 homes per executive golf course. Since then, approximately 30,000 new homes have been built and 10 new executive course have been added (plus 4 Pitch and Putts). The ratio of homes to executive courses appears to have changed.

Because it's a fact, not a myth.

I don't know anything about Executive Golf (so my answer isn't related to Amenity Fees), but up until this year, there was only (1) 18 hole golf course located in what most folks consider the "south". Now there are 2. The quality of the 2 courses in the south, don't compare with the other 18 or 27 hole courses.

I get it. When the expansion to the south was going on, the golf business was in the toilet. The Developer surely saw the writing on the wall and cut back on golf course investment ... everyone did. Covid changed the world of golf.

To suggest the addition of 30,000+ homes hasn't affected access to existing golf courses, defies logic.

[Bill14564]

I believe the following numbers are essentially correct, someone please correct if not so. When we moved here in 2014, there were approximately 1500 homes per executive golf course. Since then, approximately 30,000 new homes have been built and 10 new executive course have been added (plus 4 Pitch and Putts). The ratio of homes to executive courses appears to have changed.

You would also need to know how many homes there were when you moved in order to calculate the new ratio.

In 2014 the Brownwood area was still being built out. Perhaps the desired ratio was 1,700 homes per course and would be reached when Brownwood was complete. If that was the case then the 14 courses you mentioned would support 23,800 of the 30,000 homes. The additional 6,200 homes would represent the completion of the Brownwood area and the additional 200 homes per course planned for when you arrived.

[biker1]

When we moved in, there were, IIRC, 32 executives and about 49,000 homes. Today, I believe there are about 80,000 homes and 42 executives. I am not counting the Pitch and Putts. So, we have gone from about 1500 homes per executive to about 1900 homes per executive. You can certainly do the calculations using the Pitch and Putts but I doubt there are many people putting in requests for the Pitch and Putts based on the large number of tee times available on the Pitch and Putts 3 days in advance. The net impact is tee times are noticeably harder to obtain for the executives via the request system during snowbird season. My requests are denied frequently with a large number of courses and a wide time window. There really aren't any issues outside of snowbird season. In an ideal world, we would have about 52 executives but it is what it is. I have been running large groups for over 10 years. We play the Pitch and Putts when the executive requests are denied; that is typically 3 out of 4 weeks per month during snowbird season.

You would also need to know how many homes there were when you moved in order to calculate the new ratio.

In 2014 the Brownwood area was still being built out. Perhaps the desired ratio was 1,700 homes per course and would be reached when Brownwood was complete. If that was the case then the 14 courses you mentioned would support 23,800 of the 30,000 homes. The additional 6,200 homes would represent the completion of the Brownwood area and the additional 200 homes per course planned for when you arrived.

[Mark57]

I think you explain our amenities system very clearly and thanks for that.

[BrianL99]

When we moved in, there were, IIRC, 32 executives and about 49,000 homes. Today, I believe there are about 80,000 homes and 42 executives. I am not counting the Pitch and Putts. So, we have gone from about 1500 homes per executive to about 1900 homes per executive.

Population of TV: The Villages New Home Sales: 2003-Present | Inside the Bubble (https://www.insidethebubble.net/new-home-sales/)

There were about 33 Executive Golf courses in TV, in 2014. (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/executive-courses-villages-golf-course-conditions-472/executive-course-ratings-friendly-challenging-147593/)

In 2016 there were 36 Executive courses (see attached, the document won't download for me).

[tophcfa]

When we moved in, there were, IIRC, 32 executives and about 49,000 homes. Today, I believe there are about 80,000 homes and 42 executives. I am not counting the Pitch and Putts. So, we have gone from about 1500 homes per executive to about 1900 homes per executive. You can certainly do the calculations using the Pitch and Putts but I doubt there are many people putting in requests for the Pitch and Putts based on the large number of tee times available on the Pitch and Putts 3 days in advance. The net impact is tee times are noticeably harder to obtain for the executives via the request system during snowbird season. My requests are denied frequently with a large number of courses and a wide time window. There really aren't any issues outside of snowbird season. In an ideal world, we would have about 52 executives but it is what it is. I have been running large groups for over 10 years. We play the Pitch and Putts when the executive requests are denied; that is typically 3 out of 4 weeks per month during snowbird season.

Good and accurate information. This is our tenth winter owning a home in the Villages and our experience getting t times during busy season on the Executives is the same. The last three years or so are not even comparable to 9 or 10 years ago. This winter seems no worse than last year, but things will change when it warms up.

[BrianL99]

In the interest of full disclosure.

Not the same as the Executive Courses here, but illustrative of what others face.

I went to Naples to play golf last week, it was about 10-15 degrees warmer.

I played all private golf courses, all of which cost over $10,000/year in dues.

My friends who hosted me are lucky if they can get 2-3 Tee Times per week, if they want to play golf before 1 PM. Almost every club uses the Chelsea System for allocating Tee Times (as does The Villages, I believe).

[Goldwingnut]

Almost every club uses the Chelsea System for allocating Tee Times (as does The Villages, I believe).

The Villages golf system is a home grown and unique system. Because of the number of courses, the point system, shared system of Executive & Championship, and the voulme of Tee times it is very complex. About 5 years ago when PWAC was dealing with the contract for it and put it back out to bid, they received no bids except for TSG (designer and provider of the system), the feedback they received from the other bidders was 1) it was too complex for their system, 2) the volume of reservations was more than they could sustain, 3) too many courses, and 4) too many variable for scheduling.

TSG still maintains the system, their contact has an annual CPI adjustment, and they have become more receptive to changes to the software - the first change made was to allow paying of annual trail fees online instead of having to go to a Regional Rec Center.

[biker1]

I started seeing my tee time requests (for a group of about 16) being denied regularly about 5 years ago. Prior to that, it was a rare event. In the last several years, I started excluding those with more than 3 points. I don't think it has made much of a difference. An average points total over about 2 has a good probability of being denied with 25 courses and a 4 hour time window.

Good and accurate information. This is our tenth winter owning a home in the Villages and our experience getting t times during busy season on the Executives is the same. The last three years or so are not even comparable to 9 or 10 years ago. This winter seems no worse than last year, but things will change when it warms up.

[Goldwingnut]

Many have asserted that the Developer is no longer involved with the existing Villages (at least those south of 466, not sure what the specifics of the historic area or Marion County section might be). If that is the case, then the Developer bowing out should have no impact at all.

On the other hand, it could be that many of the companies being contracted with are Developer-owned or associated. In that case, if he took his toys and goes home, the CDDs may be left scrambling to fill the gaps.

If you take the time to review the annual audits of the various CDDs that are performed by an independent auditor you'll see that very little is contracted with developer owned companies, the two biggest are TSG for IT support and The Villages Media Group for advertising.

[Bill14564]

If you take the time to review the annual audits of the various CDDs that are performed by an independent auditor you'll see that very little is contracted with developer owned companies, the two biggest are TSG for IT support and The Villages Media Group for advertising.

I don’t have the time or interest (or resources for that matter) to trace ownership of those companies. With the number of companies the Developer owns it could be extremely difficult to trace all the connections. Plus, I also included companies only associated with the Developer whether they are wholly owned or not.

The point I was trying to make is that the impact of the Developer leaving looks negligible but might have impacts that won’t be seen unless it happened.

[BrianL99]

The Villages golf system is a home grown and unique system. Because of the number of courses, the point system, shared system of Executive & Championship, and the voulme of Tee times it is very complex. About 5 years ago when PWAC was dealing with the contract for it and put it back out to bid, they received no bids except for TSG (designer and provider of the system), the feedback they received from the other bidders was 1) it was too complex for their system, 2) the volume of reservations was more than they could sustain, 3) too many courses, and 4) too many variable for scheduling.

TSG still maintains the system, their contact has an annual CPI adjustment, and they have become more receptive to changes to the software - the first change made was to allow paying of annual trail fees online instead of having to go to a Regional Rec Center.

I think you may find that TSG has licensed some aspects of their system from Chelsea Systems or has some sort of deal with them. The point system is almost identical, albeit the TV system has more variables than most users.

Chelsea is in Coral Gables and is now owned by Northstar, who one of the biggest players in the country club and golf world. I can't believe they wouldn't be interested in TV's business and wouldn't respond to an RFP, unless they already have a piece the action.

[justjim]

The monthly fee ($8) for Village.net hasn’t changed. It must be profitable. When something isn’t broke why fix it?

[BrianL99]

very little is contracted with developer owned companies, the two biggest are TSG for IT support and The Villages Media Group for advertising.

How could the "advertising budget" for the District, be in the same ball park as the IT support budget?

[MrChip72]

The monthly fee ($8) for Village.net hasn’t changed. It must be profitable. When something isn’t broke why fix it?

If you go by that, people would still be using typewriters.

The golf system needs to be updated and mobile apps made available. I've worked in software development my whole career. It's likely that a newer system would easier to use and cheaper to maintain.

The villages golf system would not be very difficult at all to rewrite into a modern system accessible by web or smartphone apps.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

If you take the time to review the annual audits of the various CDDs that are performed by an independent auditor you'll see that very little is contracted with developer owned companies, the two biggest are TSG for IT support and The Villages Media Group for advertising.

They own the bank. They own the squares. They own the properties upon which the businesses around the squares exist. They own the new developments, UNTIL such time as they hand them off to the CDDs, which doesn't happen until they're finished with that area's buildout. They own the real estate agency that has exclusive rights to represent all new construction. They own the mortgage company. They own the Sharon Morse center. They own properties outside The Villages (the Publix/Winn-Dixie strip mall next to Spanish Springs). They own the properties upon which many medical centers are located, and the buildings the people running those centers pay rent on.

At some point - maybe not in our lifetimes, but at some point - there will be an "end of the line" of the family, and that end of the line will say "nope, not interested." Given that they own SO MUCH of all this - what will happen to it all when they finally walk away? They can. There's nothing stopping them from simply rejecting any lease renewals on properties they rent out, and letting those leases expire, and shutting down all the buildings, disconnecting services, and walking away.

They could sell it all, one piece at a time, to whoever they feel like selling it to, liquidate the whole shebang. And there is nothing we can do about it because - they own it all. No more medical centers, no more live music on the squares, no more businesses IN the squares, no more performances at the Sharon Morse Center, and heck - they could probably even shut down the Charter schools.

What guarantees - in writing - do we residents of The Villages have, that this won't happen? What measures have the CDDs and other government structures taken to ensure the continued running of the community in perpetuity?

[rustyp]

They own the bank. They own the squares. They own the properties upon which the businesses around the squares exist. They own the new developments, UNTIL such time as they hand them off to the CDDs, which doesn't happen until they're finished with that area's buildout. They own the real estate agency that has exclusive rights to represent all new construction. They own the mortgage company. They own the Sharon Morse center. They own properties outside The Villages (the Publix/Winn-Dixie strip mall next to Spanish Springs). They own the properties upon which many medical centers are located, and the buildings the people running those centers pay rent on.

At some point - maybe not in our lifetimes, but at some point - there will be an "end of the line" of the family, and that end of the line will say "nope, not interested." Given that they own SO MUCH of all this - what will happen to it all when they finally walk away? They can. There's nothing stopping them from simply rejecting any lease renewals on properties they rent out, and letting those leases expire, and shutting down all the buildings, disconnecting services, and walking away.

They could sell it all, one piece at a time, to whoever they feel like selling it to, liquidate the whole shebang. And there is nothing we can do about it because - they own it all. No more medical centers, no more live music on the squares, no more businesses IN the squares, no more performances at the Sharon Morse Center, and heck - they could probably even shut down the Charter schools.

What guarantees - in writing - do we residents of The Villages have, that this won't happen? What measures have the CDDs and other government structures taken to ensure the continued running of the community in perpetuity?

Beginning of the end?

Electronic headline this morning:
"Despite encompassing dozens of individual neighborhoods, a retirement website collectively ranked The Villages as the second most popular active adult community, one spot behind a subdivision in Ocala that took the top spot." :shrug:

[dewilson58]

They own the bank. They own the squares. They own the properties upon which the businesses around the squares exist. They own the new developments, UNTIL such time as they hand them off to the CDDs, which doesn't happen until they're finished with that area's buildout. They own the real estate agency that has exclusive rights to represent all new construction. They own the mortgage company. They own the Sharon Morse center. They own properties outside The Villages (the Publix/Winn-Dixie strip mall next to Spanish Springs). They own the properties upon which many medical centers are located, and the buildings the people running those centers pay rent on.

At some point - maybe not in our lifetimes, but at some point - there will be an "end of the line" of the family, and that end of the line will say "nope, not interested." Given that they own SO MUCH of all this - what will happen to it all when they finally walk away? They can. There's nothing stopping them from simply rejecting any lease renewals on properties they rent out, and letting those leases expire, and shutting down all the buildings, disconnecting services, and walking away.

They could sell it all, one piece at a time, to whoever they feel like selling it to, liquidate the whole shebang. And there is nothing we can do about it because - they own it all. No more medical centers, no more live music on the squares, no more businesses IN the squares, no more performances at the Sharon Morse Center, and heck - they could probably even shut down the Charter schools.

What guarantees - in writing - do we residents of The Villages have, that this won't happen? What measures have the CDDs and other government structures taken to ensure the continued running of the community in perpetuity?


This is nothing more than fear-mongering.

Yep, there are billions of dollars of value in these agreements/transactions and "the family" is just going to end them and throw away the value. :loco::loco::loco:

The second statement is even more silly. They sell the agreements/transactions/properties and the new buyer just shuts everything down and ignores their billion dollar investment. Again........:loco::loco::loco:

[dewilson58]

Beginning of the end?

:

Just wait five minutes and a new article will be out and a new ranking will be published. Nothing new.

:oops:

[Goldwingnut]

Beginning of the end?

Electronic headline this morning:
"Despite encompassing dozens of individual neighborhoods, a retirement website collectively ranked The Villages as the second most popular active adult community, one spot behind a subdivision in Ocala that took the top spot." :shrug:

A dozen years ago when Debbie and I started looking at a retirement community to move to we looked OTOW 55+'s #1 community in this article, and about a dozen others. We back shelved TV initially because we were concerned about the price and size of the community. During our months of looking here in Florida (we live just outside Winter Haven in Haines City, so it was all easy day trips for us to look) we looked at well over two dozen communities and weighed the +'s and -"s of each. Many of the smaller ones either had reached or were near their end of life for development and showed the disinterest by their developer in sustaining the community, "resident owned" quickly turned into a red flag. There was a commonality between ALL of the larger and growing communities that without exception ALWAYS surfaced in listening to the sales pitch, a statement to the effect of "Our community is better than The Villages because..." and there was always some nuance that they felt made them better.

I made a lot of notes on each community, there were many things to like about each- location, floor plans, unique features, etc. and many things to dislike - HOA fees & rules, cost, limited amenities, location, etc.. The "we're better than TV" comments quickly became another line item I tracked.

One thing I learned long ago, when every business compares themselves to another business, they are telling you who their main competition is. When every business compares themselves to the same business, you know who the best is, they are all telling you.

I looked at OTOW twice before making a final decision, the prices were less than TV, and they were close to a lot of businesses in Ocala - big winner on both points without doubt. But the downsides stood out like a sore thumb- limited amenities and activities, but most importantly a felling of desolation permeated the community - no one outside, no one at the pool, no one being active outside, no one using the community center, nobody around and when you did see someone not a wave or a smile was returned in exchange, the place felt like a graveyard. OTOW quickly moved to the BOTL (bottom of the list).

Even after buying in TV I ventured back to OTOW "just to make sure", over the years I've made multiple trips there and even looked at expanding my home photo business there. Working in Gainesville for 3 years while living in TV I saw their signs a lot on I75, and they kept drawing me in, I felt compelled to "look again" - the power of effective advertising. I made the right decision.

I've visited several other 55+ communities since retiring nearly 7 years ago, curious yes, in search of greener pastures, perhaps. In fact Margaritaville in on my list to visit next - AFTER this COLD weather passes. Something about the name is drawing me to the bar...

Don't loose sight of the fact that 55+ is a for profit website and they want clicks for their advertisers ads. Take a look at who's advertising and compare that to their list of "best places", 1+1=2, money talks. Based on my personal experience, there may be many communities that can give TV a run for their money for a variety of reasons, but in my opinion OTOW wouldn't make the short list.

[Goldwingnut]

How could the "advertising budget" for the District, be in the same ball park as the IT support budget?

TVMG is the primary printing company used by the District for everything from forms to be filled out to the Rec News insert, they also do lots of advertising for recreation events on WVLG which is also a part of the TVMG, it's a bundled package. The District office works to combine the service needed by all the entities they support into as few contacts as possible to help realize cost savings (the Costco effect?).

When last I did a detailed budget review before leaving the CDD10 board and PWAC the combined numbers for all CDDs and amenities were about $1M with TVMG and about $4M with TSG - pretty much a drop in the bucket for the combined budgets that these contracts provide service to. The combined amenities budgets is about $225M this year and there are many more budget that draw support from these contracts for support.

[BrianL99]

TVMG is the primary printing company used by the District for everything from forms to be filled out to the Rec News insert, they also do lots of advertising for recreation events on WVLG which is also a part of the TVMG, it's a bundled package. The District office works to combine the service needed by all the entities they support into as few contacts as possible to help realize cost savings (the Costco effect?).


Thanks Don. When you add printing into the equation, it's a no-brainer. & at $1m vs $4M it's not even close.

I'd suggest the IT Budget is a huge number, but at 2% of budget, it's obviously inline.

[ElDiabloJoe]

...

One thing I learned long ago, when every business compares themselves to another business, they are telling you who their main competition is. When every business compares themselves to the same business, you know who the best is, they are all telling you.
...
Exactly right!
...
...I've visited several other 55+ communities since retiring nearly 7 years ago, curious yes, in search of greener pastures, perhaps. In fact Margaritaville in on my list to visit next - AFTER this COLD weather passes. Something about the name is drawing me to the bar...
....
We visited all three of the existing Latitudes Margaritavilles (Hilton Head, Daytona, Watersound near 30A).
My greatest fear with them, besides their microcosm-like size compared to The Villages, is what happens when they reach buildout and the Developer pulls out. The sales office and staff go away, the subsidies go away, the resort pool needs acid-washing and replastering, etc..

That being said, they have one HUGE advantage over The Villages, imho. Their home floorpans and the interior design of the model homes are superior. None of the "shotgun" style Village floorplans wherein you walk in the front door and see straight out to the lanai. No, the floorpans are comfortable, well laid out, and interesting. The way they made the plans with the smallest square footage so usable is impressive. I'm speaking of the cottage and villa plans such as the dreamsicle, bamboo, Jamaica, and Nevis for example. For what it is worth, the interior design of the models at Hilton Head is more impressive than the other two properties.

My concerns stated in the first paragraph are why we opted against Latitude Margaritaville. We did a Lifestyle visit (I think they call it a StayNPlay) at theDaytona property. Aside from the ability to drive the golf cart off property to a Publix or to their version of a town center, there wasn't a whole lot of other use for a cart. Their town centers, by the way, consist of a gym, a business center for faxing, etc., a small performance area, and bar/grill. So, essentially a single restaurant. In my experiences it was not well used. I fear it will not be able to sustain itself once that sales office goes away.

Looking forward to hearing your insights after your visit.

[MX rider]

My SIL and her husband live in Del Webb Stone Creek in Ocala. We went there to visit and were surprised at the lack of activity on a beautiful day. Hardly anyone outdoors.

One thing we found out when we looked at other +55 communities was how expensive golf is. Usually 1 or 2 courses and membership was very expensive.

Many HOA fees were way north of $500 and golf not included.

[RL Lemke]

Bottom line is, until you pony up and put your money at risk like they have, you don’t get a say in what the future holds and what they build, and they get to make all the decisions.

When I was working, I developed Special Districts, which The Villages is one of the only two in Florida. My experience with this form of development yields a great deal of comfort with how the family has continued with the program initiated some 30 years ago with Spanish Springs.

I also take comfort seeing that the next generation of the family is stepping up to continue the family business.

As Don says, it is a risk. 30+ years of inertia indicates the risk is small. I take a great deal of comfort in relying on a family development program, as opposed to my decades of experience in dealing with government.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Interesting (not really) that a few people criticize me for asking the question, and the person I asked the question to instead answered one of the people criticizing me - and no one has answered the question.

It's not fearmongering. It's not doomsaying. It's a direct, clearly worded, well-detailed question. If you aren't capable of answering it, that's fine. But it's a question I had before I moved in that no one would answer, and it's a question I've seen here on ToTV by other people, though worded differently.

So far, my only take-away from the non-answers I've seen is:

"Nope, nothing in writing. But we all trust the Morse Family to never stop, and their descendants who inherit this place will love doing it and keep doing it, or will sell to buyers who have the same vested interest in keeping the theme of this community intact. We believe, because of some faith in some unspoken, unwritten thing, that any new buyers will NOT turn the squares into strip malls or apartment buildings or parking lots for office parks, and leave the residents to their own devices."

That's my take-away. That you believe what you believe, because you believe it. Not because anyone has given you any assurances that it'll be any different.

That's okay, you're allowed to have your beliefs. But it does answer the question with a "nope - nothing in writing, no guarantees."

[BrianL99]

When I was working, I developed Special Districts, which The Villages is one of the only two in Florida. .

There are over 400 CDD's in Florida.

There are nearly 2000 Special Districts in Florida.

[Bill14564]

Interesting (not really) that a few people criticize me for asking the question, and the person I asked the question to instead answered one of the people criticizing me - and no one has answered the question.

It's not fearmongering. It's not doomsaying. It's a direct, clearly worded, well-detailed question. If you aren't capable of answering it, that's fine. But it's a question I had before I moved in that no one would answer, and it's a question I've seen here on ToTV by other people, though worded differently.

So far, my only take-away from the non-answers I've seen is:

"Nope, nothing in writing. But we all trust the Morse Family to never stop, and their descendants who inherit this place will love doing it and keep doing it, or will sell to buyers who have the same vested interest in keeping the theme of this community intact. We believe, because of some faith in some unspoken, unwritten thing, that any new buyers will NOT turn the squares into strip malls or apartment buildings or parking lots for office parks, and leave the residents to their own devices."

That's my take-away. That you believe what you believe, because you believe it. Not because anyone has given you any assurances that it'll be any different.

That's okay, you're allowed to have your beliefs. But it does answer the question with a "nope - nothing in writing, no guarantees."

No, there is nothing in writing to prevent the Developer from walking away, allowing the leases to end, and letting all the properties go to seed. They can do whatever they want with their properties and if they want to lose millions in leases each year they could do it.

That is not something that is going to keep me up at night.

As far as the Developer deciding to sell and a new owner choosing to close the squares in favor of mini strip malls….I won’t live to see it so again, not something that will keep me up at night.

[RL Lemke]

There are over 400 CDD's in Florida.

There are nearly 2000 Special Districts in Florida.

Indeed you are right in that Florida does have numerous Special Districts of various types and for various purposes.

What I had read was that Reedy Creek (WDW) and The Villages were the two with over 2,500 acres. But reading more now, I see that Florida is embracing this form of development, which has been successfully employed in many other states as a means to develop infrastructure without imposing a financial burden on people outside the district boundaries.

The situation with The Villages has become a hybrid, in that cities have incorporated so much of the new development. Though the developer continues to use bond sales to finance infrastructure, the cities layer their services and taxes.

It is this layering of taxation which caused me to complete a property tax analysis for the three counties, and various cities. My conclusion is that property tax rates range from 0.88% of FMV in unincorporated Sumter County to 1.34% of FVM for unincorporated Marion County. Add to that the assessment for each city.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-8kRRsP5/0/Lj8WKJr9b6PDZgcDqjwQg7zGgsF4PSQ99Hb642fRq/O/i-8kRRsP5.jpg

I find that property taxes are more consequential than the Amenity Fee.

[BrianL99]

Indeed you are right in that Florida does have numerous Special Districts of various types and for various purposes.

What I had read was that Reedy Creek (WDW) and The Villages were the two with over 2,500 acres. But reading more now, I see that Florida is embracing this form of development, which has been successfully employed in many other states as a means to develop infrastructure without imposing a financial burden on people outside the district boundaries.
...

I find that property taxes are more consequential than the Amenity Fee.


I think maybe you're confusing the purpose of CDD's. Some other states have similar entities, primarily California & Texas, I believe.

The purpose generally isn't to "protect" anyone from the burden of infra-structure, it's used to develop areas that generally wouldn't be developed, if private developers had to invest (or borrow) and use their own funds to construct the specific infrastructure for the proposed development. They facilitate large scale development, that otherwise wouldn't take place (at least that's how it works in Florida and what the enabling legislation stated as its goal).

Local taxes have nothing to do with TV's infra-structure nor the CDD's nor Amenity fees. IMO, the overlay of the city on top of the CDD, is a boondoggle for the city & county. They get the tax revenue, with minimal exposure.

The Bond Payment on lots in The Villages, along with the associated "Maintenance Fees", are infrastructure related.

Amenity Fees are .... Amenity related.

[RL Lemke]

Appears we are talking around each other. Probably would find a lot of common understanding if we met to discuss. I have been a board member for a multi billion dollar special district for decades, vacating my position for the relocation. I’ve also developed thousands of lots in special districts. Declarant for many planned communities and district development. While the terms may vary between states, the concepts remain the same.

It is this experience which provides me comfort with how the developers for The Villages are proceeding, how the sub-districts, the CCDs, function and how the various costs will affect my budget.

The coming $199 per household amenity fee is a real value, compared to every one of the other 55+ communities we looked closely at out west.

[BrianL99]

The coming $199 per household amenity fee is a real value, compared to every one of the other 55+ communities we looked closely at out west.

The "coming $199 per household amenity fee"? That bus left the station a long time ago. I think mine is $215 or $220.

It is a great deal, but if I understand what Don Wiley said, Amenity Fees have been artificially "capped" (deferred) for years. I've also attended a few Advisory Committee meetings & District Budget meetings and I suspect that huge monthly increases are right around the corner.

If you were in the business, you must know a little about how these things work. Take a look at the District Budget some day and attend a couple of their Budget Meetings. I guaranty you, you'll walk away shaking your head and wondering what planet you landed on.

[BrianL99]

Probably would find a lot of common understanding if we met to discuss. .


I've owned 10-15 motorcycles (only 1 BMW) & taught an MSF course for a short while .. does that count?

[Papa_lecki]

They own the bank. They own the squares. They own the properties upon which the businesses around the squares exist. They own the new developments, UNTIL such time as they hand them off to the CDDs, which doesn't happen until they're finished with that area's buildout. They own the real estate agency that has exclusive rights to represent all new construction. They own the mortgage company. They own the Sharon Morse center. They own properties outside The Villages (the Publix/Winn-Dixie strip mall next to Spanish Springs). They own the properties upon which many medical centers are located, and the buildings the people running those centers pay rent on.

At some point - maybe not in our lifetimes, but at some point - there will be an "end of the line" of the family, and that end of the line will say "nope, not interested." Given that they own SO MUCH of all this - what will happen to it all when they finally walk away? They can. There's nothing stopping them from simply rejecting any lease renewals on properties they rent out, and letting those leases expire, and shutting down all the buildings, disconnecting services, and walking away.

They could sell it all, one piece at a time, to whoever they feel like selling it to, liquidate the whole shebang. And there is nothing we can do about it because - they own it all. No more medical centers, no more live music on the squares, no more businesses IN the squares, no more performances at the Sharon Morse Center, and heck - they could probably even shut down the Charter schools.

What guarantees - in writing - do we residents of The Villages have, that this won't happen? What measures have the CDDs and other government structures taken to ensure the continued running of the community in perpetuity?

While the developer’s family are Billionaires, that fortune is locked up in the real estate and the cash flow it generates. As wealthy families move along in time, that fortune is shared with more people (Schwartz to Morse - now to three sibling then to how many Morse grandchildren).

At some point, they will liquidate the Villages, probably in 2 or 3 generations. At that time, there probably won’t be much undeveloped land left - and they will be selling the commercial real estates and the other assets.
Nothing we need to worry about - probably our kids dont even need to worry about it.

[Goldwingnut]

The "coming $199 per household amenity fee"? That bus left the station a long time ago. I think mine is $215 or $220.

It is a great deal, but if I understand what Don Wiley said, Amenity Fees have been artificially "capped" (deferred) for years. I've also attended a few Advisory Committee meetings & District Budget meetings and I suspect that huge monthly increases are right around the corner.

If you were in the business, you must know a little about how these things work. Take a look at the District Budget some day and attend a couple of their Budget Meetings. I guaranty you, you'll walk away shaking your head and wondering what planet you landed on.

Might want to double check your monthly amenity fee in your water will, I don't think $215-220 is mathematically possible, yet. Above $200, is possible, but few are there, yet.

My first few budget meeting years ago when I first started on CDD10's board defiantly had me shaking my head. Some studying and working through the process brought enlightenment and understanding. The complexities exist because of the laws put in place to keep local governments from running amuck. In retrospect the CDD budgets are a walk in the park compared to the county budget. I first started looking at the county budgets about 7 years ago, long before I ever considered running for the BOCC, it is a quagmire of accounts and funds that first appear to be a shell game trying to hide money. In reality it's just the opposite, it's about accountability, transparency, and traceability and once you understand it you can trace every penny from source to expenditure. Granted, tracing it might even challenge Rube Goldberg, but it can be done.

While the potential exists to reinstate some or even all of the deferred CPI adjustments, that potential continues to decrease as new properties are sold and properties that received the deferral are resold and their Amenity Fee is adjusted to the current Prevailing rate. As the percentage of properties that have existing deferrals in effect decreases and resultant revenue increases diminishes, the potential fallout from such an increase probably doesn't justify the diminishing gains.

I do disagree with you on the potential of a "huge monthly increases" coming, there is no mechanism or legal avenue to enable these increases in the governing documents (deed restrictions). The deed restrictions only give 3 methods of increasing the Amenity Fee - the creep, the reset, and the gimme.
The Creep is simply the annual CPI adjustment that allow the Amenity Fee to creep up slowly.
The Reset is when an existing property is sold the amenity fee is reset to the current Prevailing Rate - this one saves us (the budget) from the pitfall of the Creep as the CPI never keeps up with the real cost increases, but the Prevailing Rate, as I've stated previously, comes from a balance sheet that looks at the real costs to operate the amenities.
The Gimme is one that to my knowledge has never been used, it allow for an adjustment of the Amenity Fee if a majority of the residents approve of adding a new amenity, then the Amenity Fee can be raised an amount to cover the additional operating and R&R expenses. The residents demand "Gimme a covered pool in every neighborhood" then the response is "Gimme another $5/month to cover the costs". Given the way some people squeal about a nickel increase in the cost of anything, a Gimme will never happen.

[Goldwingnut]

This has been an engaging discussion with a lot of good questions. Some of the questions/statements a so full of conjecture, hyperbole, and "what ifs" about the sky falling that they are simply better ignored.

Between this thread and the host of comments made on a pseudo-news website recently, tonight story about CDD8 was a real hoot, I'm going to talk about this topic on my Sunday afternoon broadcast this week.

Fair warning, if you are of the mindset that a cap is need, rising amenity fees are going to cause me to move, or the developer is getting rich by raising my rate, I suggest you take an extra dose of your blood pressure medicine Sunday morning because I'm going to really set you off. Unlike when I was a CDD supervisor and county business now, I have no restrictions on this topic and I will speak my mind and let you know the truth, no matter how painful it may be.

Until Sunday, I need to refocus on getting #152 finish before the broadcast.

[BrianL99]

Might want to double check your monthly amenity fee in your water will, I don't think $215-220 is mathematically possible, yet. Above $200, is possible, but few are there, yet.

My first few budget meeting years ago when I first started on CDD10's board defiantly had me shaking my head. Some studying and working through the process brought enlightenment and understanding. The complexities exist because of the laws put in place to keep local governments from running amuck. In retrospect the CDD budgets are a walk in the park compared to the county budget. I first started looking at the county budgets about 7 years ago, long before I ever considered running for the BOCC, it is a quagmire of accounts and funds that first appear to be a shell game trying to hide money. In reality it's just the opposite, it's about accountability, transparency, and traceability and once you understand it you can trace every penny from source to expenditure. Granted, tracing it might even challenge Rube Goldberg, but it can be done.

While the potential exists to reinstate some or even all of the deferred CPI adjustments, that potential continues to decrease as new properties are sold and properties that received the deferral are resold and their Amenity Fee is adjusted to the current Prevailing rate. As the percentage of properties that have existing deferrals in effect decreases and resultant revenue increases diminishes, the potential fallout from such an increase probably doesn't justify the diminishing gains.

I do disagree with you on the potential of a "huge monthly increases" coming, there is no mechanism or legal avenue to enable these increases in the governing documents (deed restrictions). The deed restrictions only give 3 methods of increasing the Amenity Fee - the creep, the reset, and the gimme.
The Creep is simply the annual CPI adjustment that allow the Amenity Fee to creep up slowly.
The Reset is when an existing property is sold the amenity fee is reset to the current Prevailing Rate - this one saves us (the budget) from the pitfall of the Creep as the CPI never keeps up with the real cost increases, but the Prevailing Rate, as I've stated previously, comes from a balance sheet that looks at the real costs to operate the amenities.
The Gimme is one that to my knowledge has never been used, it allow for an adjustment of the Amenity Fee if a majority of the residents approve of adding a new amenity, then the Amenity Fee can be raised an amount to cover the additional operating and R&R expenses. The residents demand "Gimme a covered pool in every neighborhood" then the response is "Gimme another $5/month to cover the costs". Given the way some people squeal about a nickel increase in the cost of anything, a Gimme will never happen.

I tried to check my amenity fee this morning, but without a bill & my PIN, I was stymied. I know I pay +/- $305, when my Irrigation is shut off. I'm fairly certain it's over $200, but not $225. The truth is, the monthly Amenity Fee is a drop in the bucket and doesn't come close to my weekly golf budget, so I don't pay much attention to it.

I don't disagree the overall philosophy of the District, is transparency. They make a solid effort to provide all the information and detail anyone could possibly want. As you point out, it's a quagmire of information and very difficult and complicated to sort through.

The "Gimme" is the wild card in my opinion, but in a different way than you characterize it.

The "spending creep", driven by residents' (IMO) unrealistic expectations of existing services/amenities, produces a "hidden creep". Community Watch being a prime example. Residents expect more and more from Community Watch and spending creeps, without any legitimate way to fund their unrealistic expectations. Golf course maintenance is another one. While I disagree with the way the Executive Courses are maintained, I don't think anyone is stealing money. The District is spending what they say they're spending, but it's not enough to produce conditions acceptable to residents.

Because of the current funding/budget parameters in place to control "fees", the District is in a tenuous position. They need funding to meet Residents' expectations, but they're limited in their ability to raise fees. If you're forced (by artificial restraints) to fund an operating budget without the ability to generate sufficient revenue, you're left with in the unenviable position of needing to borrow (or Bond), to provide the needed financial resources to pay the bills. Which based on the limited budget meetings I've intended, I think is happening. (& if asked 6-8 months ago, I could give specific examples, but I no longer recall the specifics that set me off last year.)

So with respect to: "I do disagree with you on the potential of a "huge monthly increases" coming, there is no mechanism or legal avenue to enable these increases in the governing documents (deed restrictions)."

I respectfully disagree with your contention. The way you spend more money than you have, is you borrow it. Whether you "borrow it" from the Social Security System as the US Congress does, or borrow it in some other way, it's the only way to get it. The structure of the Amenity Fee "guarantees per the governing documents", leave no alternative.

Which means at some point, you have to "pay the piper", in the same way our children & grandchildren will eventually have to address the Federal Deficit (& in no way should that be interpreted as "political". I'm talking economics and certainly don't mean to invite political discourse).

JMO, YMMV.

[Goldwingnut]

I tried to check my amenity fee this morning, but without a bill & my PIN, I was stymied. I know I pay +/- $305, when my Irrigation is shut off. I'm fairly certain it's over $200, but not $225. The truth is, the monthly Amenity Fee is a drop in the bucket and doesn't come close to my weekly golf budget, so I don't pay much attention to it.

I don't disagree the overall philosophy of the District, is transparency. They make a solid effort to provide all the information and detail anyone could possibly want. As you point out, it's a quagmire of information and very difficult and complicated to sort through.

The "Gimme" is the wild card in my opinion, but in a different way than you characterize it.

The "spending creep", driven by residents' (IMO) unrealistic expectations of existing services/amenities, produces a "hidden creep". Community Watch being a prime example. Residents expect more and more from Community Watch and spending creeps, without any legitimate way to fund their unrealistic expectations. Golf course maintenance is another one. While I disagree with the way the Executive Courses are maintained, I don't think anyone is stealing money. The District is spending what they say they're spending, but it's not enough to produce conditions acceptable to residents.

Because of the current funding/budget parameters in place to control "fees", the District is in a tenuous position. They need funding to meet Residents' expectations, but they're limited in their ability to raise fees. If you're forced (by artificial restraints) to fund an operating budget without the ability to generate sufficient revenue, you're left with in the unenviable position of needing to borrow (or Bond), to provide the needed financial resources to pay the bills. Which based on the limited budget meetings I've intended, I think is happening. (& if asked 6-8 months ago, I could give specific examples, but I no longer recall the specifics that set me off last year.)

So with respect to: "I do disagree with you on the potential of a "huge monthly increases" coming, there is no mechanism or legal avenue to enable these increases in the governing documents (deed restrictions)."

I respectfully disagree with your contention. The way you spend more money than you have, is you borrow it. Whether you "borrow it" from the Social Security System as the US Congress does, or borrow it in some other way, it's the only way to get it. The structure of the Amenity Fee "guarantees per the governing documents", leave no alternative.

Which means at some point, you have to "pay the piper", in the same way our children & grandchildren will eventually have to address the Federal Deficit (& in no way should that be interpreted as "political". I'm talking economics and certainly don't mean to invite political discourse).

JMO, YMMV.

Each of the CDDs and Amenity divisions has capital reserves and can and has used them to fund funding shortfall from unexpected things that have happened. None of the districts are using bonds as a stopgap funding method. The only bonds that have been issued by the CDDs are for expansion - north of 466 the one I know of are in CDD4 and CDD9 when areas were added to their CDD, each a relatively small number of homes.
Florida law requires each government enitiy to have a ballanced budget (unlike the reckless federal but let's not go there). Using a bond to fund day to day operations is not a balanced budget and doesn't meet the criteria.
The amenity division (SLAD in this case) issued a bond in 2016 for the amenites between 466 and 44, this purchase has a funding provided by the included amentiy fees that came with the purchase. They are going through the same process with the current amenity purchase, with the same funding method.
You are very correct in the expectations of residents for greater services, it is up to the boards to constrain these requests and spending, and they do. The demands can go up all they want, but without the money the answer is NO.

The CDDs and Amenity Divisions are not borrowing money to fund daily operation - not living our a credit card - again like the Federal government (went there again, sorry), so the situation of "paying the piper" is not developing. It results in a lot of belt tightening every year for operating costs - not to be confused with R&R requirements which are funded out of the R&R reserves that have been built up.

[BrianL99]

Each of the CDDs and Amenity divisions has capital reserves and can and has used them to fund funding shortfall from unexpected things that have happened. None of the districts are using bonds as a stopgap funding method. The only bonds that have been issued by the CDDs are for expansion - north of 466 the one I know of are in CDD4 and CDD9 when areas were added to their CDD, each a relatively small number of homes.



Again I could be wrong, as it was last year when I attended a Budget Meeting, but I believe there was a discussion or proposal to issue a Bond and believe the Bond (in part) was proposed to fund Golf Course renovations.

Not to beat a dead horse, but a budget that's constrained by CPI increases & sale re-adjustment only, seem unrealistic. I'm sure my opinion is in the minority, but costs increase and CPI never seems to accurately reflect how much more it costs me to live.

People just don't appreciate how good we have it in The Villages, when it comes to how much we pay to maintain the lifestyle. It's a steal.

[rustyp]

This has been an engaging discussion with a lot of good questions. Some of the questions/statements a so full of conjecture, hyperbole, and "what ifs" about the sky falling that they are simply better ignored.

Between this thread and the host of comments made on a pseudo-news website recently, tonight story about CDD8 was a real hoot, I'm going to talk about this topic on my Sunday afternoon broadcast this week.

Fair warning, if you are of the mindset that a cap is need, rising amenity fees are going to cause me to move, or the developer is getting rich by raising my rate, I suggest you take an extra dose of your blood pressure medicine Sunday morning because I'm going to really set you off. Unlike when I was a CDD supervisor and county business now, I have no restrictions on this topic and I will speak my mind and let you know the truth, no matter how painful it may be.

Until Sunday, I need to refocus on getting #152 finish before the broadcast.

Thanks for the warning but I'll be watching the football playoffs Sunday. It's more entertaining when there is offense and defense.
In the morning I'll be preparing philly cheesesteaks and chicken wings before the games.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

While the developer’s family are Billionaires, that fortune is locked up in the real estate and the cash flow it generates. As wealthy families move along in time, that fortune is shared with more people (Schwartz to Morse - now to three sibling then to how many Morse grandchildren).

At some point, they will liquidate the Villages, probably in 2 or 3 generations. At that time, there probably won’t be much undeveloped land left - and they will be selling the commercial real estates and the other assets.
Nothing we need to worry about - probably our kids dont even need to worry about it.

The bold/underlined is the piece that eluded my brain. So they won't be able to just walk away within the next couple of generations and still be wealthy. All I could think of, were the ghost towns around the midwest. Certain people owned certain parts of the towns. And when they either lost interest or ran out of gold to mine, they - walked away. And left whoever stayed, with nothing to do, no one to do it with, no one to sell it to, no one telling them how things should run - and then they walked away too. Banks have gone out of business before - in my lifetime, several times. Not just "been absorbed" by other banks, but closed shop and gone out of business. Mortgage lenders and insurance companies have gone out of business because the people in charge relinquished themselves of the responsibility. Developers have gone out of business because their kids didn't want to run the family business, and they had no one else to give it to.

All of these things have happened - some within my lifetime, some within the past decade, and some long before even our own grandparents were born.

So that's why I was wondering - if there was anything set up to prevent it from happening here. The reason I wondered was because the Schwartz/Morse family owns MOST of the commercial properties, most of the retail and office and even medical space, all of the new construction and razed land reserved for future construction, AND the bank, AND the new-construction real estate company. So it seemed like - wow - what would happen if Johnny Schwartz Morse III told his daddy "Nah - the buck stops with you, dad. I'm gonna be a veterinarian."

It wasn't hyperbole, it wasn't rhetoric, it wasn't a "concern" that would affect me personally, ever. I have no kids so it wouldn't affect them either. It was more of a pondering, based on the knowledge that these things have happened, and do happen, on a smaller scale.

[kkingston57]

Because it's a fact, not a myth.

I don't know anything about Executive Golf (so my answer isn't related to Amenity Fees), but up until this year, there was only (1) 18 hole golf course located in what most folks consider the "south". Now there are 2. The quality of the 2 courses in the south, don't compare with the other 18 or 27 hole courses.

I get it. When the expansion to the south was going on, the golf business was in the toilet. The Developer surely saw the writing on the wall and cut back on golf course investment ... everyone did. Covid changed the world of golf.

To suggest the addition of 30,000+ homes hasn't affected access to existing golf courses, defies logic.

Actually Covid helped golf as it is an outdoor activity. This could be short term and only time will tell the long term affects. Golf can be very frustrating

[kkingston57]

Good and accurate information. This is our tenth winter owning a home in the Villages and our experience getting t times during busy season on the Executives is the same. The last three years or so are not even comparable to 9 or 10 years ago. This winter seems no worse than last year, but things will change when it warms up.

Plenty of good tee times this past week.

Developer needs to think about having a lower price when temperature gets below a certain temperature. Some revenue is a lot better than 0 revenue.

[kkingston57]

The Villages golf system is a home grown and unique system. Because of the number of courses, the point system, shared system of Executive & Championship, and the voulme of Tee times it is very complex. About 5 years ago when PWAC was dealing with the contract for it and put it back out to bid, they received no bids except for TSG (designer and provider of the system), the feedback they received from the other bidders was 1) it was too complex for their system, 2) the volume of reservations was more than they could sustain, 3) too many courses, and 4) too many variable for scheduling.

TSG still maintains the system, their contact has an annual CPI adjustment, and they have become more receptive to changes to the software - the first change made was to allow paying of annual trail fees online instead of having to go to a Regional Rec Center.

Met a guy who was part of the group who wrote the program. Interesting conversation. Call iit the "what if system". TOOO many variables. Personally feel system is good. If it ever fails, what a mess.

[kkingston57]

Just wait five minutes and a new article will be out and a new ranking will be published. Nothing new.

:oops:

And most rankings are paid for. Airline magazines(years ago) had the highest ranking doctors.

[Goldwingnut]

Thanks for the warning but I'll be watching the football playoffs Sunday. It's more entertaining when there is offense and defense.
In the morning I'll be preparing philly cheesesteaks and chicken wings before the games.

Any team I would have wanted is out of the picture already, so I'll stick with doing the live broadcast. On today's broadcast you can call in and share your opinion live, the phone number will be on the screen, and I'll be more than happy to take your call, listen, and allow you to share your thoughts with everyone watching.

The cheesesteaks do sound tempting...

Gold Wingnut Live #49 1/26/2025 at 3:00 PM - YouTube (https://youtube.com/live/fflQF-MkesE?feature=share)

[Maker]

Might want to double check your monthly amenity fee in your water will, I don't think $215-220 is mathematically possible, yet. Above $200, is possible, but few are there, yet.

I beg to differ on the quantity paying more than others.

At our recent neighborhood get together, the amenity fee came up. At least a quarter of people stated they are paying over $210 per month, and a few shouted out numbers over $215.

It became a very ugly topic with angry people wanting to know why they are paying more for identical services. They compared it to a store charging some people different prices for the same item.
A few wondered about filing a class action lawsuit, citing discrimination based upon age because newer homeowners (who paying more) are typically younger than present residents (paying less). And then paying more for their existing house than those buying a new house.

It really doesn't matter what budgeting process that caused different amounts. It's unfair for one house to subsidize another. It should be identical for everyone.

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO FIX THIS

[Bill14564]

I beg to differ on the quantity paying more than others.

At our recent neighborhood get together, the amenity fee came up. At least a quarter of people stated they are paying over $210 per month, and a few shouted out numbers over $215.

It became a very ugly topic with angry people wanting to know why they are paying more for identical services. They compared it to a store charging some people different prices for the same item.
A few wondered about filing a class action lawsuit, citing discrimination based upon age because newer homeowners (who paying more) are typically younger than present residents (paying less). And then paying more for their existing house than those buying a new house.

It really doesn't matter what budgeting process that caused different amounts. It's unfair for one house to subsidize another. It should be identical for everyone.

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO FIX THIS

There is nothing to be fixed so there is nothing to be done.

When you purchased the home you were told what the contractual amenity fee was and in your deed restrictions you read that it would increase every year based on the CPI. That is what you agreed to and that is what was done.

In what year did they purchase? When I looked back at the contractual amenity fee for the past several years and the maximum CPI that would have been used for adjustments, the highest number I could come up with was $207. I'm not sure that's even possible but I couldn't find a way to get higher than that. With the year they purchased I can find the contractual amenity fee at the time of the sale and if you provide the neighborhood I may be able to determine the month the rate is increased.

A simple image of a utility bill showing an amenity fee above $210 would go a long way too.

EDIT: It looks like a $210 or $215 bill might be possible. More info below.

[kansasr]

There is nothing to be fixed so there is nothing to be done.

When you purchased the home you were told what the contractual amenity fee was and in your deed restrictions you read that it would increase every year based on the CPI. That is what you agreed to and that is what was done.

In what year did they purchase? When I looked back at the contractual amenity fee for the past several years and the maximum CPI that would have been used for adjustments, the highest number I could come up with was $207. I'm not sure that's even possible but I couldn't find a way to get higher than that. With the year they purchased I can find the contractual amenity fee at the time of the sale and if you provide the neighborhood I may be able to determine the month the rate is increased.

A simple image of a utility bill showing an amenity fee above $210 would go a long way too.

Oh, look at you, dealing in facts, when most people would rather get their information from their barber's cousins's next door neighbor.....

[Eagle06]

Great explanation Don. You always have the information but there will always people who can't/won't understand. People need to be realistic, everything goes up and if you want to keep the amenities we enjoy, ALL of us need to fund them. If you don't understand how amenity fees differ in your neighborhood, head up to the District Office, they explained it to me very simply, the Amenity Fees vary widely in TV due to the "Beginning Amenity Fee" is tied to purchase date of your property. The original purchase date of our home was Dec 2020. We purchased the home in May 2022, and at that time I believe the Amenity Fee was $179 (and change), in December 2022, our Amenity Fee increased to $193.79. In December of 2023, our Amenity Fee increased to $200.89 and in December 2024 our Amenity Fee increased to $205.97. So we are paying more than some of our neighbors who have owned their homes since 2020 because of our purchase date in 2022. Still a good deal to us.

[Maker]

There is nothing to be fixed so there is nothing to be done.

When you purchased the home you were told what the contractual amenity fee was and in your deed restrictions you read that it would increase every year based on the CPI. That is what you agreed to and that is what was done.

In what year did they purchase? When I looked back at the contractual amenity fee for the past several years and the maximum CPI that would have been used for adjustments, the highest number I could come up with was $207. I'm not sure that's even possible but I couldn't find a way to get higher than that. With the year they purchased I can find the contractual amenity fee at the time of the sale and if you provide the neighborhood I may be able to determine the month the rate is increased.

A simple image of a utility bill showing an amenity fee above $210 would go a long way too.

Never infer that I am posting incorrect information. Personal attacks are prohibited here.
To prove it, here is a screen capture from a Jan 2025 bill.
Please notice the amenity fee is above $210

[Bill14564]

The prevailing rates for the last few years were $179 in 2022 then $189, $195, and now $199 for 2025.

The amenity fee increases on a home in the month it was put on the market the very first time. Particularly for resales, this is not the month you purchased, it is the month it was put on the market. I purchased in May but my fee adjusts in February.

When you purchase a home the amenity fee is set to the prevailing rate as listed above. If you purchased in 2022 your initial amenity fee was $179.

If you purchased AFTER the month your fee increases then you saw your first increase in 2023 and you should be paying between $189 and $196 now.

However, if you purchased BEFORE the month your fee increases AND IF the fee increases even on recent sales then you could be paying between $202 and $211 now. I don't know if this actually happens but it would simplify the application of the increase and it would explain claims of $210 amenity fees so perhaps it does happen.

I don't have the prevailing rate for 2021 to know what the numbers would be for a purchase in that year. Purchasing in 2023 or 2024 would not have resulted in a $215 fee today.

Still, the fact remains that the prevailing rate, adjustment month, and adjustment calculations were available at the time of purchase.

[Maker]

The prevailing rates for the last few years etc

I don't care what magic formulas are used to arrive at different rates for the same amenities. That is how it is done UNFAIRLY. That process is the cause.

Nobody gets anything extra for paying more.
Nobody gets anything removed for paying less.

[Bill14564]

I don't care what magic formulas are used to arrive at different rates for the same amenities. That is how it is done UNFAIRLY. That process is the cause.

Nobody gets anything extra for paying more.
Nobody gets anything removed for paying less.

Kinda the way people feel about homestead tax credits, Save Our Homes adjustments, and city taxes.

[dewilson58]

Only 15 more years and they will be $300 per month.

[MX rider]

The amenity fee is a bargain imo. I know numerous people paying much higher HOA fees and getting much less than us.

Our friends live in a +55 community in Bonita Springs. They pay over $500 a month for a pool and 4 pickleball courts.