Amenity Fees
 

Do the Amenity fees vary depending on when you bought your home or its purchase price?

I read an article in the paper or on THE VILLAGES NEWS (can't remember which) that said Amenity fees were going up to $159 for new sales and resales, an increase from the current $145. But we pay $148.19 so I am a little confused. (Yes I know $3 difference is not a big deal, still . . . )

Yes when you buy either resale or new, fees are now $159 per month.

Here is a post from Oct 2018 that is Headlines in todays Dec 2018 POA as news and makes it sound like all of our Amenity Fees are going up. Yet, when I read the article, I don't think my amenity fees are going up.


I do not see any recent comment. Am I not seeing something, or is this a Taboo topic in this forum?

My current amenity fee is $150.70 for a house I purchased new in February, 2016. It has increased by about 3 dollars since I bought the house. I think it is a bargain. It certainly is not a taboo topic for me.

This thread has your answers.
https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...t=Amenity+fees

We closed on a pre-owned home a little over 3 years ago in 2015. Our amenity fee for November was $153.07. In my opinion, that's a great bargain for all the wonderful amenities we get to enjoy!

The was an error in the POA article, the current Deferral Rate for areas north and south of CR466 is $155 not $145. The correct amount is stated later in the article. Your rate can be any where up to $155 depending on when you purchased and the CPI adjustments since. The Prevailing Rate of $159 is what has been established for all new sales and resales after 1 October. According to the information received by PWAC last month the $159 will also be the Defferal Rate for those under this new higher rate until a new/higher Deferral Rate is established by the AAC/PWAC.

As the POA article stated in approximately 4 years the Deferral Rate impact will be sufficient that amenities costs will be greater than the fees collected. Then we have a budget crisis on our hands. We either have to adjust the Deferral Rate higher or start deficit spending like the federal government. This is why the AAC and PWAC will be having a joint meeting in 2019 to discuss and establish a new Deferral Rate or possibly even eliminate the Deferral Rate altogether.

The costs for amenities continue to rise every year due to rising labor, material, and energy costs. There is no profit or greed factor in these costs on the operating level as all the amenities properties north of 44 are now government owned and operated. The developer does not control or operate the amenities north of 44 and has no say in the budgeting process for these costs.

The amenities rates going up is inevitable for that there is no doubt. This will of course raise the most commotion and noise because it will hit everyone in the wallet and is the most visible. The real battle that needs to be fought and people need be more in tune with is WHO establishes the rates, the developer or we as the residents through our representatives on the AAC and PWAC. It is a complex issue with many moving parts involved but as a resident and district supervisor my opinion is that we, the residents who pay for and use the amenities, should be in control of this critical portion of our community.

Thank you for your excellent summation of the situation.

I purchased new on Sept 19, 2014 between 466a and 44. My fee is 153.30. Been increasing every year.

Amenity fees
 

I side with Goldwing Nut. We don't get a vote. Okay, the increase may only be a few bucks, but the timing stinks. The investment market is in turmoil. Research shows an increasing number of Americans fearful of rising costs for everything. Spending could go down as a result, but the CPI may still rise, which could lead to further amenity fee increases. Keep buyin' them lottery tickets, ya'all.

If people could vote on amenity fees they would vote NO and The Villages would begin to look like the rest of the country...in need of repair.

:bigbow::bigbow:

100% :agree:

Can't understand the bitching about the amenity fee. For what it gives in return, I don't see how it keeps so low.

I've lived in a non-luxury condo complex in one of the most expensive states in the country (Connecticut). Our condo fee (which is similar to an amenity fee) was around $90. That was back between 1989 and 2002 which is when we moved to our current house in a nearby town. There was no golf course, no sidewalks, no walking trails, no pool, no clubhouse, no basketball court, no sports area, no restaurants, no town square, no dancing or movie theatre or even a meeting room. We had - nothing. For our $90/month they plowed the snow, mowed the lawn, maintained the trees and shrubs, paved the road when it needed, lined the parking spaces, and maintained the lighting along the drives between buildings.

At $150 in 2018, I'd say you're getting an INCREDIBLE deal for your money. I'd say, in fact, that the only reason you're getting such an incredible deal is because they've packed you in by the tens of thousands, in a relatively small amount of space. If they gave you 1/4 acre per homesite, AND golf, clubhouses, landscaping, fire department, etc. etc. etc - they'd have to give you not even 1/4 of what you get, and charge you twice as much for the privilege.

:boom::mademyday::a040:

Your condo fee and our amenities fee are not comparable. The amenities fee is for the maintenance of the amenities (executive golf courses, rec centers, etc.). Your condo fee is for the maintenance of your condo and common properties. We also pay about $500 per year for the maintenance of the common properties. It sounds like your condo owned the roads so you were responsible for that. Here, the roads are owned by the county, except for CYVs, so they are maintained by the county. You were also probably saving up money for things like the common roof repairs. Here, each owner is responsible for their own roof.

I was also concerned by potential increases in the amenity fees when we bought in 2010. My analysis at that time said that even if they doubled the price, which far exceeds the COL limitation, they beat the heck out of any other option.

Unfortunately, timing almost always stinks, at least for some of those affected. Debt used to build and improve productivity seems to me to be justified. Debt used to maintain and pay for day to day operations is nearly always a bad idea. In these cases "pay as you go' is more prudent and less debilitating as time passes. Amenity fees should be raised in order to keep pace (with some cushion) of expenses.. There!! I said it and I am glad :a040:

Don’t really see $5.00 or $10.00 more per month bankrupting any Villager and it’s not in anyone’s financial interest to see the Community degrade in any way. All of the things we enjoy, are proud of and made us willing to invest here cost money and increase over time. After all, you can’t get a Hershey bar for a nickel anymore ;)

:bigbow:

Some people just love to bitch.

They are happier expressing Poor Me.

I've heard people bitch about getting only one pickle on their cheeseburger.

Just because you can afford it doesn't mean you're getting your money's worth . I've seen the the grass ripped out and replanted on the Northside of El Camino Real near Spanish Plaines Plaza three to four times in the past 4 years and it's still all weeds. So, I'd say the oversight and common sense is an issue with increased fees. Not to mention the LAKE at Alhambra on El Camino Real is empty, and full of sinkholes for the past year. A real jewel in the Developers crown.

It's worth it.

Considering how much people spend per year to maintain their small yard............$150 for the entire Villages properties and facilities is a deal.

Just like your yard and your flowers and your bushes.........there are bad spots.

From the 1/23/2019 presentation to the Amenity Authority Committee by Barbara E. Kays, Budget Director covering a 10 year projection and more as found on the districtgov.org web site. Interesting !

click to see the 10 year fund balance/Amenity Fee calculation and click to see the powerpoint presentation to cover other spending issues and forecasts

Coversheet

Good info TwoPlaneKid. For clarification to everyone on this, the numbers shown in the PowerPoint are for the AAC, the areas north of CR466. They show substantial cash reserves on their balance sheet, I'm assuming these are mainly from the lawsuit settlement. They (the AAC) will have to make a decision to either deplete their reserves or raise or abolish the deferral rate to compensate.

South of CR466 the numbers are much larger and not as optimistic due to less reserves and larger number of houses. In about 4 years nearly all homes will be at the deferral rate and the projected expenses will exceed the revenues. SLAD would then either have to reduce services or accumulate debt if the deferral rate isn't raised or abolished.

Costs of services, material, and labor go up every year. Nobody wants their amenities fees to go up but it's become a necessary or suffer from cutbacks.

Different payments for access to amenities
 

I believe that most complaints revolves around residents being charged different amenity fee amounts. Many residents (right or wrong) think that is wrong and the fee should be the same for everyone. Just my two cents.

...

Fees
 

[QUOTE=HIgolfers;1588960]Do the Amenity fees vary depending on when you bought your home or its purchase price?

I read an article in the paper or on THE VILLAGES NEWS (can't remember which) that said Amenity fees were going up to $159 for


Hi we met a couple selling their home,,,,,,,,,,,,, the are getting out and they said, from a good source, the increases are going to be huge, they are losing their butt on the over expansion and overbuilding in Fenney etc. So they will hit us up for more money to cover their losses?

We are planning to move as soon as we can and we know we will be selling at a loss. The all knowing Morse offspring has lost it and will be desperate as they not clearing their millions every month. So it goes, made a mistake coming here. We are sure we will lost 40 to 50 K, we bought when it was high. they are now flooding the market with homes, 'Sorry
:bigbow: :bigbow:

[QUOTE=Brawnwy123;1619000]For those that want information, please read post #7 in this thread by GoldWingNut.

Everyone has their own value system they must answer to....so no judgement on those that leave. I do know several folks that live with HOA fees of $300+ and aren't close to having the amenities that are here. So for those leaving, I wish you the best in finding the compromise that will work for you. For those staying, you can expect your fees to increase (at least lets hope so) but the bang for the buck will still be IMO, great value.

[QUOTE=Brawnwy123;1619000]I'm sorry to tell you that the couple you spoke to and their "good source" have no clue what they are talking about.

As many of you may know I am a District Supervisor for CDD-10 and on the Project Wide Advisory Committee and have first hand dealings in with the budgets for the CDD, Project Wide Fund, and the Amenities Fund. I speak from the first hand knowledge from dealing with these issues and not hearsay or going by what my barber's sister-in-law's boy friend heard in the bathroom at World of Beer. I am neither pro or anti developer in sentiment, my leaning are purely for the best interests of the residents of my district. I have nothing to gain by serving as District Supervisor except helping to keep the community I purchased my retirement home the exceptional community it was, is, and hopefully will always continue to be.

First let's get clear what is happening to your amenities fees, NOTHING. They are limited in increases to the CPI increases identified in you deed restrictions. They are not going up to $159.

The prevailing rate was raised in October to $159. The prevailing rate is the base rate that a person who buys a new home or a resale will pay. It would be subject to CPI increases, just like every one else is, based on their deed restrictions. This does not affect any current owner's cost. The prevailing rate has increased many times over the last 30 years.

There is also an amenities rate known as the Deferral Rate, currently $155. This rate is the highest rate your rate can be raised to by the CPI adjustments. This rate impacts everyone who purchased before the adjustment to the prevailing rate in October. There is a joint meeting between the PWAC and the AAC scheduled for February to address the Deferral Rate as it is quickly leading to budget shortfalls that must be addressed as I have previously discussed.

The developer does not own the amenities north of SR44, they are owned by the governmental entity known as Sumter Landing Community Development District. The Developer and SLCDD do exchange some limited funds to cover the operating costs of those amenities staffed by Recreation Department personnel in CDD-12 south of SR44. The Developer get zero for the operations and amenities fees collected from home owners north of SR44, including those paying the new $159 prevailing rate. SLCDD, PWAC, and the AAC cannot arbitrarily raise the amenity rate current residents are paying, and neither can the Developer. The Developer cannot "hit us up for more money" as they have no avenue to do so.

The sales figures and the balance sheet of the development company are private information, it is a privately held not a publicly held company. There are very few residents who would have actual access to such information, and any that do would know enough of how The Villages operates that they would not make such a stupidly inaccurate statement as you are attesting to.

Your statement is riddled with inaccuracies and untruths. It clearly shows that it was written by one who is one of the many Developer Haters that troll this and other websites. If you decide to believe the drivel you've posted and are intent on selling and leaving The Villages, I wish you all the best and hope you someday find the utopia you seek.

Don Wiley
CDD-10 Supervisor and Chairman, PWAC member

My first thought when I saw this thread (again) was “are they still beating this dead horse?”

But I am pleased this thread is still active, as Goldwingnut has clearly explained things in a detailed, accurate manner. I have noticed that some people are more interested in rumor than fact, and act and speak based on that. And, their Ill-advised actions are costing them quite a bit of money. Clearly,that can cause problems. I do suggest that those who believe that the developer has a hand in all decision-making in TV do some due diligence on what’s going on, and how things work.

No horse in this race, since I think $159 is a reasonable fee for the amenities y'all get. But I have a question about "fairness." Why do new homeowners have to bear the higher cost, thus covering the entire added expense, and not distributed evenly among all homeowners? Do people who bought in TV the day before the changes became effective, cost less than the people who bought the day after the changes became effective? If not, then why aren't they being made to pay the increase as well? I get that "old timers" might be grandfathered in. But that would be people who bought in Orange Blossom, or similar. Anyone south or west of Spanish Springs would not be considered "old timers." And at this point, most people living north or east of Spanish Springs aren't original owners either.

In every condo I know of, everyone pays the same condo fee, unless there's a skyscraper with a luxury home on the top 3 penthouse floors with concierge service. They'd pay more, because they get more amenities. The same for coops, and the very few limited planned communities that I've actually looked into, or know people who live in them.

But if everyone who owns in the Villages is entitled to the same amenities, I don't understand why they aren't all equally responsible for the fees. This is only partly a criticism. But mostly it's just being very confused, because I've never heard of such a thing before.

Your question is both interesting and reasonable, it's also very difficult to answer. I'll apologize now for this post being so long winded but it's complected to address and gain an accurate prospective on.

Based on all I've read and the discussions that have been had at CDD and PWAC meetings I've attended in the last 5 years I offer the following observations and information.

All the deed restrictions (that I'm aware of back to 1973) contain a Consumer Price Index adjustment (CPI) clause that allows for the adjustment of the amenities rate paid by a home owner every year. This is the first of only three ways that your amenities rate can be changed.
This serves two purposes; a) most importantly, it protects us, the home owners, from uncontrollable increases by the governing body (previously the developer and now the AAC and SLAD/PWAC), and b) allows for some adjustment in revenues collected to offset rising operating costs for the amenities.

Overtime the CPI adjustment limits has lead to some differences in the rates paid by home owners in the various areas. The CPI does not always reflect the real world and the realities of how prices and costs change. Remember, the CPI comes out of Washington DC and is subject to their changes and interpretations, and we all know how accurate and truthful the politicians in DC are. As the CPI adjustment clause dates back to 1973 in the original deed restrictions of the first units of The Villages and has fundamentally remained unchanged, we are left with 46 years of cumulative error or under adjustments in amenities rates. (the oldest deed restrictions contract I've found dates back to 1973 - 46 years ago)

The real world chimes in as it often does when it comes to operating the facilities and amenities and their costs. The CPI adjustments don't cut it and adjustments are periodically made to the Prevailing Rate to reset the starting point. This "reset clause" in the deed restrictions allows the rate to be adjusted and eliminates the CPI errors when a house is sold or resold. This is the second way in which your rate is adjusted. It generally doesn't affect you until you die or move on and then it actually affect the new owner. Who would have known that so many Villages would be affected by this as they moved into their second or third home in The Villages, I had one neighbor who was in their 5th home and has now moved on to their 6th.

The Deferral Rate was established several years ago to help smooth out some of these differences and limit the upward growth of the monthly rates. The Deferral Rate is an implementation of the deferral option clause included in the later deed restrictions contracts. The good and the bad of this rate have been argued many times and both sides have valid points of view. The ultimate realities of this voluntary cap in rate increases is quickly coming upon us as we look into the next few years and see the adverse impact it will have on future budgets. This is a topic that is scheduled for discussion in a joint meeting of the AAC and PWAC as we enter into the cycle to establish the operating budget for the next fiscal year.

The Prevailing Rate determination, while I don't have much insight into its determination process, is a reflection of the actual operating costs of the current amenities and it's implementation on resales using the reset clause relieves some of the pressure caused by the CPI clause.

It's not a perfect system, but it does protect the residents from runaway rate increases, an important issue for all on a predominantly fixed income. Ultimately, one way or another most home owners pay very close to the same amount each month for the amenities. Is it a "fair" system? Based on the current numbers, contracts, and agreements in place, it's about as fair as it can be.

I mentioned that there are three ways that the amenities rate can be adjusted. Here's the third. Let's call this one the "Gimme Clause" in the deed restriction. In a nutshell, if enough residents demand some new amenity then the rates can be raised to cover the cost to build and operate this additional amenity. So when a group of residents start to say "Gimme more golf executive golf courses, Gimme a covered pool, Gimme more pickle ball courts, or Gimme a new rec center with X, Y, & Z in it" the response from the other side of the table (from AAC/PWAC/SLAD) has to be "Gimme some more money every month", the conversation usually dies at that point. If you want something new you have to pay for it, there is no rich uncle out there doling out dollars and fee stuff, and the Developer doesn't owe anyone anything that isn't written in their signed contract.

I hope this and my previous posts on the subject help you understand what is going on and why with the amenities. My attempt is not to agree or disagree with the current happenings but to try to lay out the facts as I've learned them and provide some accurate insight for everyone else to try to understand them also.

Don/goldwingnut, thank you for your most informative and insightful posts, as well as all your volunteer work. Because of you I feel like both a more knowledgeable and well represented Villager.

I agree....we are fortunate to have Don and those like him that bring sanity to this place.

For sure, and he has one nifty drone too!

Excellent post GWN. And it of course raises some questions for me.

You used "deferral" too many times there for me. :) Reusing the same word doesn't explain to me what's going on.

How does this work in a place like TV where houses are constantly being built and amenities are constantly being added? So the fee may be $X/house/executive course + $Y/house/pool, etc.
As the Developer adds houses & amenities there should be times where there are more amenities than houses to support them (it'd be nice to think the opposite never happens). Does the Developer eat this imbalance until there are enough houses to support the amenities & the amenities are transferred to the local government?

Does the "gimme" clause cover items like the archery & air rifle ranges, & the RC track? i.e. The number of pools & other standard amenities stays proportional to the number of houses, but now there are additional new amenity types, so the overall ratio of houses to amenities goes down (houses/amenities), requiring the fee to go up. This seems like it would get tricky given the size of TV; I doubt people in Orange Blossom want to pay for the RC Track way at the other end of TV.

Fascinating stuff. And bless you for wallowing around in all this sausage-making.

The deferral option in the deed restrictions allows increases to be delayed until a later date if the regulating party so decides. The uncertain portion of the deferral is when it stops. For example, if rate increases were deferred for 3 years and had a cumulative increase of $10 that was not implemented. The 4th year the increase for CPI works out to be $2 and the decision is made to end the deferral. At this point the decision has to be made about what to do with the delayed increases. The options appear to be:
1) just apply the $2 increase and continue to defer the other $10,
2) implement all or a portion of the $10 deferral and the $2 planned increase with any unimplemented deferral held again to a later date,
3) implement 1 or 2 above and discharge the deferral so it can't be implemented at a later date.
Confused yet?

The new construction area amenities are under the control of the Developer's company, not the local government. They add what amenities they feel are in the best interest of developing the community and ensuring a viable market for their product. They are responsible for all of the operating costs. They also own the amenities contracts with the home owners in the new areas, which they use to pay for the operating costs. As they have agreements with the SLCDD/SLAD to staff and operate the facilities (this ensures seamless continuity of operations across the entire development) they pay the SLAD an agreed to amount to cover the costs incurred by SLAD.

When the amenities north of SR44 were purchased 2 years ago by SLCDD they also purchased the amenities contracts for all the impacted roof tops. So SLCDD/SLAD now collects the amenities fees from the home owners and pays for the costs of operating the amenities. None of these funds pass through the developers hands except for paying for contracted services that they may be performing. This goes back to dispelling the false notion that the developer is getting rich off our the amenities north of SR44 and any increases.

Getting back to the "Gimme" clause. This applies to additions driven by residents not to items being put in during the construction process. So if the developer originally decides an area needs 2 pools and later decides to add an additional pool when the build another unit of housing, the cost is on them, not the residents. If the residents were to decide that an additional pool is needed/wanted and asks for the developer or a 3rd party to install it, this cost then falls to the residents to cover as it wasn't a part of the developers project plan. Again, this is where the conversation normally stops, nobody wants to pay for it.

As a point of clarification, the resident north of CR466 wouldn't be impacted by a Gimme additions south of CR466 and vice-versa as the are operated by two different amenities district - VCRAD and SLAD. The agreements in place between the amenities districts prohibit differential treatment of residents based on the location of their home or amenity.

It's been the practice for many years now, and I've seen no changes in this practice in the 5 years I've been here and been watch dogging the goings on, to build the amenities and have them available before homes are sold in an area. Sometimes they appear to be racing neck-n-neck but the residents haven't ever been on the loosing side.

Sometimes they appear to be racing neck-n-neck but the residents haven't ever been on the loosing side.

Just a little behind the curve today with active pickleball courts until all the new planned PB courts are built.:icon_wink: