Bridge at Lake Sumter Landing
 

I saw an note on the other online newsleter about problems with the bridge across Lake Sumter, and that the repairs were going to cost an incredibly large amount. It said that the cost of the repairs would be covered by the CDDs south of 466. I haven't seen anything else about it. Has anyone else seen this, or did I dream it???? If it is true, why are the CDDs south of 466 the only ones responsible for the costs? The bridge was there long before a lot of us had even heard of the Villages. If it is a state road, why would the state not be responsible for any repairs or upkeep????? Or at the least, why not the Developer. The CDDs south of 466 are certainly not the only users, or even the primary users of this road.

You didn't dream it!
I saw the article in the online newspaper about the CDDs south of 466 being responsible for paying for $$$ repairs to the Sumter Bridge. :confused:
I guess because the Bridge is located in Sumter County, not Marion or Lake.
I vote we have toll collectors and charge anyone using the Bridge!

Isn't Morris a public road - repairs should be paid by Sumter County (i.e. 90% Sumter County Villages tax money and probably a good amount from state 2).

.

No, Morris is a cat.:icon_wink:

Maybe we could hire a troll to live under the bridge

There is a small piece on this bridge problem buried in either the VHA or the POA newspapers this week. When we first bought here the Black Kow company used to mine black cow fertilizer somewhere around that area and we were somewhat surprised when they developed there, we thought it was all boggy land, but they obviously had to get permission to build - it will be interesting.

Am I wrong in thinking the North side and the South Side have different forms of Government? Someone much smarter than me, please explain.

If the county does not own the land someone gave them permission to build a street on that land, as in our neighborhoods. What is the law on maintaining the land beneath a road? Is it the responsibility of the county or the landowner upon which the road is built. If a sinkhole develops on a highway, who has to fix it? Is it relevant that the land would be fine but for the extra stress which the road caused to the land causing it to become unstable? Whose responsibility was it to determine the suitability of that land for the construction of a bridge? Does the land owner (us) have a right to say, we want a bridge and here is some land, so now county you must build it regardless of the suitability of the land? Or is it the county or state engineer's job to say, No this is not a suitable location without enhancing the land or the supports or building the bridge in a different manner. Can we, the land owners, revoke our permission to use the land or has the land been deeded to the county? Someone knows the answers, I just ask some questions

Janet Tutt is hosting a District 8 Town Hall Meeting on February 26 at 6:00pm at Sea Breeze Rec Center. Anyone impacted may wish to attend the meeting and ask questions.

The article in the on-line news said that the district owns the land that the bridge sits on, and the county owns the bridge. Since it is the land that is sinking, causing the bridge to sink, the district must pay to shore up the land.

Most of the time that roads are built, doesn't the state or other municipality buy the land that the road sits on? Therefore that entity is responsible for the road.

[QUOTE=janmcn;1007496]The article in the on-line news said that the district owns the land that the bridge sits on, and the county owns the bridge. Since it is the land that is sinking, causing the bridge to sink, the district must pay to shore up the land.


Which came first - the chicken or the egg???

[quote=gomoho;1007501]This is the way it was explained at a meeting I attended but now I wonder who owns the land under 466. How do you build a road/bridge on non road/bridge property?

Doesn't this topic come up yearly? And nothing happens. Perhaps a local urban legend.

.


Yes, that is how I understood it. But it does not seem to address the issue of who determined how to build the bridge, what supports it needed, and who determined that the land was solid enough to proceed. Whomever did that engineering, soil testing, or whatever should it would seem be liable for their error in determining the solidity of the ground and the type of bridge which it could support. That is why engineers have insurance to cover such error and omissions. I'm sure the district did not design the bridge, but if it did then our designers were at fault and we should be going after them for their error.

Can Morris eat at Square 1 Burgers??

Because both items are a benefit to all of us. AND I would have to say that is not a high price at all given that four to six designer homes cost that same amount. If the gubmunt did it, the bid would go much higher.

I imagine that Blueash is right too. But the developers are still using the same firms. I bet if challenged, they will fix it. They have done several repairs on the sinking ground in one area in the last few years.

I understand your concern, but the developer did not sell the bonds that are under the IRS scrutiny. We did as residents of the various districts, thus it's our bill to pay and not the developer.

But if the developer established the CDDs improperly to retain control over the development, and the CDD isn't really a governmental agency controlled by the residents, why should the residents be liable?

The IRS can break thru a "shell game" if they determine something is such.

The list of IRS Legal Payments as reported by the VCDD at the January 2015 Amenity Authority Committee meeting at Savannah Regional Recreation Center can be found by down loading the PDF of their 01/07/15 meeting and then go to page 58.

VCDD Amenity Authority Committee - AAC

Information on who the IRS claims sold the bonds can be found reading the PDF 5701 Notice of Proposed Issue found here->

Village Community Development Districts


I would hope that the IRS would lose the case or a settlement is created that is fair to all concerned.

Sorry for the off topic – I will ask the powers to be about the bridge issue when I attend the Wednesday 8 A.M. VCDD questions and answers session.

getting back on subject; big heavy bridge built few years ago over wet sandy marsh land soil? Looks like too much eye candy design and not enough foundation work to me?:ohdear:

The bridge was built by The Villages, or their contractors, and opened for traffic about the time that Lake Sumter Landing opened in August 2004.

Since TV had it built, one can only assume that they did the engineering studies, etc, and got all the proper permits.

But this is STILL Florida.

Sinking Bridge
 

We are constantly told when we question the security of the gates that we cannot deny entrance as our street are public streets maintained by the taxpayers of Sumter County.Morse Boulevard is a public road.Why then should only Village residents pay for repairs to a public road?

I wonder if there is an agreement between TV and Sumter Cnty regarding responsibility division for issues like this?

It is not the street or the bridge that is in need of repairs, it is the land beneath the bridge, which is owned by the district, which is sinking and needs shored up.

This work has a price tag of between $500,000 and $1.5 million. Only those districts south of CR466 (Districts 5 through 11) will be required to pay for the work.

This is a very different situation. When a government (Sumter Cnty) owns a roadway I believe it typically owns land to the sides, land below, and air above that roadway. This is why I believe there is some agreement in place with TV regarding differentiation of responsibility.

:ho:

Didn't anyone actually read the article??? Here it is. Emphasis added by me.

Attached is an aerial view. Note the island.

Bridge at Lake Sumter Landing
 

As I said, this is an unusual situation. In a normal arrangement the island would transfer to the government agency through a process known as eminent domain before it would spend a penny to put in a road.

I think Ms. Tutt will also be speaking February 17 at 7 PM at Lake Miona Rec Center.

It doesn't make sense that a public bridge on Morse Blvd, which has been built and is owned by Sumter County, would be built on private property. :confused:

I admit this is something I should know, but don't. Have the areas south of 466 been turned over to the residents at this point, like they have been turned over above 466? I was under the impression they had not, but like I said, I don't know. I was also under the impression that when a private road was turned over to the state, county, etc., the governing agency accepts responsibility for all associated areas. For instance, you would not be able to have a bridge over the water without the water/land, so it is kind of a package deal. Anyhow, I think that the primary responsibility should rest with the builder/contractor/developer/state, etc. before it is up to the residents. We have been here 4 years, but I would be very angry if we had just lived here for several months. I am a fan of the Morse family, but for something like this, I cannot believe they would not offer to be responsible.

I suspect that there is an easement for the street (as there often is for streets). It isn't all that uncommon for governments to obtain easements rather than outright buy land. Much cheaper and, if they later move the bridge or road, easier to stop using the land. And the county isn't responsible for maintaining the grass, plants, etc on that piece of land.

Think about it - do you really want the county to do the landscaping?

I see no reason to think that. Sometimes big businesses are run by ethical people and I suspect that is true here. Twenty years ago they weren't rich, just hard working.

I urge everyone to go to this meeting. I won't . I am satisfied it will work out to everyone's best interest. A million and a half for such a big project is not much at all. No one can blame anyone for the land settling.

Under Florida law the CCD is a government of sorts and it may well be the CCD that owns the land, thus not truly privately held, unless of course you think that our CCD structure is somehow privately held. Think of the road for your home. Who owns that road? Is it Sumter County, or the state of Florida, or the US Federal government. No, it is I believe owned by the CCD. Your bonds built it and your fees maintain it. So this is not an issue of a government highway on private land but rather a public highway built on land owned by a different government. (perhaps using the term government too loosely).

Now that is the real issue. There are experts and engineers and geologists who are exactly responsible for that feature. Why there even is a high school module to introduce students to the field
https://www.teachengineering.org/vie...d_lesson03.xml

If in just 10 years the soundness of the ground foundation of the bridge is failing it suggests to me that the experts used for the assessment failed in their work. They would seem to be the ones who should be held responsible unless of course they did warn of issues and the builders proceeded without heeding the expert concerns.

cutting corners could be the culprit....

I could say..."you get what you pay for" but we all know that "quality" is not job one with the villages construction......they prefer "speed", and you pay the big bucks anyway....

You work for another developer???????????????????????????

There is no evidence to support what you just said. They build them fast but they do it very skillfully.

We watched this home being built and team after team of skilled workers built it.