If you live South of 466
 

If you live South of 466, please consider attending the next CDD meeting if you live in Districts: 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9. I will offer direct quotes from literature from the POA (Property Owners Assoc):

"A questionable precedent is on the verge of being set. It focuses on how to pay for and maintain the new Live Oaks Park located near the southwest corner of CR 466 and Morse Blvd. intersection. This precedent has the potential in the future to cause your annual maintenance assessments, which you receive via your County Tax bill each fall, to go up each time a new park is created. The independent POA believes the cost for constructing and maintaining the Live Oaks Park should be covered by your amenity fee payment which by contract cannot increase annually beyond the annual increase in cost of living. In contrast, there are no restrictions on how much the annual maintenance assessment can increase."

YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED -- THIS IS YOUR MONEY

This issue is being brought back for review at the APRIL 20th CDD MEETINGS at LAUREL MANOR DISTRICT OFFICE. (the building under the water tower near the Laurel Manor rec center). The schedule is:

CDD - 5 at 8 am CDD - 6 at 9:30 AM CDD - 7 at 11 AM

CDD- 8 at 1 PM CDD - 9 at 2 PM.

If you cannot attend, please take the time to send an email to the following district supervisors:

District 5: Ron Kaissling ron.kaissling@districtgov.org

District 6: Sally Moss sally.moss@districtgov.org

District 7: Niles Getz niles.getz@districtgov.org

District 8: Duey Cyr duey.cyr@districtgov.org

District 9: Scott Renick scott.renick@districtgov.org

Insist that Live Oak Park be paid for through amenity fees and NOT from annual maintenance assessments.

Good idea Salpal,

I sent an email to Dist. 7 representative Getz to voice my displeasure at this unprecedented shifting of amenity costs to the maintenance costs.

Thanks for the prompt.

Who is building Live Oak Park and why? Why pay for Live Oak Park via amenities vis a vis maintenace? Why not have the POA just sue the Developer, District, etc like they did with the amenities.

Another point of view
 

I think the POA is way off base on this one. Live Oaks Park is a small landscaped open space that has a path and a deck overlooking the wetlands. It is similar to Sunset Park (on the bridge on Morse Blvd), or the landscaped area south of Lake Sumter Landing at Canal and Stillwater, or the landscaped area near the cart path where Stillwater turns into Buena Vista, or some of the ponds where people can sit on a bench or fish. These are not recreation facilities -- no ball courts, pools, etc. -- why would you want your amenity fees to pay for them?

TV has very few peaceful green spaces that are open to humans; most of the open spaces are designated "preserve", fenced off with no access permitted. If people make a big stink about Live Oaks Park, we can be sure that no more beautiful spaces like this one will be planned for the new areas.

I trust every word of your post because I know you speak with a lot of experience and background in this area of city planning. I was wondering about this and now I know what to think. Thank you Bike42.

Does anyone know what funding source is used to maintain these similar projects? According to Salpal, POA said maintaining Live Oaks Park with the annual maintenance assessment would set a precedent.

Sal ....thanks for the info
 

I am greatful for the information....I will be at the meeting,and that is what is needed, for residents to attend in great masses and ask tons of questions and to have a understanding of the entire issues. I have spit the koolade out. Open government is honest government! Stay on them,, we are greatful! We might not agree at times, however an understanding of the issues keeps honest people honest!

...

Sounds to me like a bit of rational thinking while many are "rushing to judgement"
Be careful what you ask for-- you may get it.

Once you are around here for awhile and see how CDD's work you may relax and become a fan like a lot of us.

Bike42 has experience and has been in charge of planning communities all over the world and she is my neighbor. I trust her expertise and her logic and her experience.

I think you should go to the meeting, Villageshooter, it will make you feel better.

however........what if the subject has merit beyond current knowledge????

Like too many things in life the adequacy of information, unless first hand, is subject to interpretation and assurance any non first party in fact knows the latest information.

I personally have sent an email to my district 5 representative based on the premise of....in the event there should/could be......

Not personally knowing the results of any prior discussions, at the very least I have gone on record to be against such a proposal, future proposal or eventuality and would expect them to vote against it. And I may wind up being on his mailing list to keep me posted in the future.

btk

Makes sense Billy. I may have to "occupy" that park. Not. Don't like politics and don't like inflaming the masses. One can't clearly see the issues anymore.

I don't know a dingy damn thing about it first hand. I feel that with all I have seen here and how things are handled, it will be alright.

Life is too short for this to cause my knickers to get all in a twist.

Just a little History
 

1. Residents wanted a dog park. Recreation Dept made it happen three times and was paid for via amenity fees, including ongoing maintenance.

2. Residents wanted improvement to Paradise Park (which was transferred to VCDDD) in the 1996 amenity transfer. The Rec Dept is working with an engineering firm to move this project along. ALL expenses are being paid via amenity fees.

3. The golf cart wayside park along Morse Bridge was transferred as an amenity facility from the Developer. It is now maintained via SLCDD with amenity fees.

Now, Live Oaks Park has been built on land donated to the SLCDD by the Developer, but now it is proposed that the $130,000 cost should be financed by your maintenance assessments instead of your amenity fees. Although a one-time may not be a big deal, it could set a precedent for all future improvements. This approach has a potential to cause annual maintenance assessments to go up for residents with NO limit to the increases. More parks south of 466 are being planned and will be paid for with this approach unless we stand against this.

VCDDD = Villages Central Community Development District

SLCDD = Sumpter Landing Community Development District which covers districts: 5 - 9.

What is the Difference
 

I am disappointed that some can"t see the wisdom of ensuring the park is
paid for from Amenity Fee's. First, it is very simple: Cap on spending vs no cap on spending. Setting the payment up under Project Wide eliminates any "cap on spending" and the residents are at the mercy of what projects some want built regardless of expense. YOU WILL PAY AT TAX TIME. The other way, (Amenity Fees) has a cap on spending at CPI or 3% and therefore there are controls as to how much can be spent and you the resident must pay for. Next: Project Wide contract called for spending only for maintenance and repair NOT NEW. New comes under your "CONTROLLED" Amenity Fee Rules. A general attitude that "it feels good" to follow some suggesting that Project Wide funds be used is aborting the rules and good financial controls. It must be remembered that by allowing Project Wide funds to be used you have no controls over your year end taxes and may/will start paying for a host of things you never agreed to. Ask yourself, why is it important to some Village management to get you to give up on control over their spending. It is unbelievable that some actually think it is a good idea??? You look to the POA to watch out for your interests and then when they do you "shun" them. I am sure a lot of work went into their looking into this practice and establishing the risk it brings to the residents. Please look more deeply at what the Management is asking for and then ask yourself why since the payment can come just as well from Ameity Fee's and not violate and set a precendent for Project Wide spending !! WHY??:read:

True
 

PennBF and Sal,
You said it very well.

Sorry Gracie but I have to disagree with you. If you "don't know a dingy damn thing about it first hand" then you should find out rather than trust that the correct decision for the residents will be made.

Life may be too short for you, but I plan on living awhile and am on a limited budget. I don't want to pay for anything that I don't have to.

Precedence is a big deal in these matters....
 

Thanks all for the information. I had not caught up yet on my POA issue this month.

I must admit I have drifted along here in TV for five years without too much involvement with things like this. I need to get off my golf cart and learn a bit more about both sides of this issue to see if there is any reasonable answer to pennBF's question .... "WHY?".

Local issues are one of the few places 'we the people' have a voice that can still be heard.

Penn and Sal .... Thanks for your posts.

The piece missing in this puzzle, to me, is Janet Tutt's explanation on why Project wide funding made more sense than amenity fee. I haven't found any response from her on this controversy. She is usually a straight shooter who can explain the logic or legality for taking a given action.

I will reserve judgement until I hear her explanation.

PS I visited and walked through the park last week. It was all tastefully done and there were many people enjoying a picnic lunch under the shade of the huge oak trees. The result is wonderful.... The means to get there needs some 'splaining

Why
 

I am not sure why Janet is so invested in pushing this throuogh. At the last
SLCDD meeting the supervisors were asked to approve it BEFORE the CDD's voted and that was strange since if even one CDD objected it was over. One Supervisor asked the question as to why should they vote before the CDD's and there was no answer as to the procedure being requested and Janet was at the meeting. The Supervisors denied her request to vote then and said they should wait to see if the CDD"s were going to approve. Janet is usually logical so it is a loss to understand why she was trying to "push" this through? Who is behind it and WHY?
There is no question the Park is lovely and good for the residents. The question is paying for it! I will make an assumption. Lets assume the funding ultimately comes from Project Wide. Then a host of these could be built,
plus a number of other projects and there would be NO OVERSIGHT CONTORLS OF SPENDING. You will end up paying in your year end tax bill and they could spend as much as they want. It would be nice for Janet to get a request to spend money and not have to answer to anyone or have any controls over how much. Why would anyone want to give up a control in favor of no control. Does not make any sense. WHY??:read:

my guess is you will not hear anything from the developer or his representatives (Tutt included) regarding the potential future cost advantage....best described in an earlier post in this thread as capped expense(amenity maintenance) VS open spending (annual maintenance which becomes a budgeting item and when more $$ needed they just raise the maintenance fee).

When on a fixed income why would one not want to have life's expenses to be as fixed as at all possible?

btk

I am satisfied with how things are done, BUT I would be far more interested in getting all upset if I had not read what Bike42 had to say.

Janet Tutt should weigh in soon. Bogie? Why don't you send her a note?

But if the angel Gabriel came and talked to some people here they would still believe in a conspiracy. I Don't...and I plan on outliving you JoeC. ;)

Excellent explanation about this issue.

I don't live south of 466 but I have read the article in the POA news and I have to agree with bike42. This is a specific park that was built in a certain CDD district and should be covered by the maintenance fees in that district.

If that park had been designed and built when the area was developed it would have been part of the maintenance fees for that CDD. However, it that park was built after the fact, which I think it was based on a request from someone, the proposal should have gone before the members of that CDD at a CDD meeting where it should have been voted yea or nay to even build the park. It seems to me that it is a Missions of Haciendas Hills specific park.

Just my two cents.

Z

But, don't residents other that those from Hacienda Hills use the park?

Anyone can send an email to Janet Tutt. I'm sure she will answer the questions at the public meeting. There is no need for her to come on here and debate the pros/cons of the issue.

I hope that means that you're going to live to 110!:thumbup:

Then you can't use it and, we're going to put up a toll booth on that section of cart path!

Can I be the Treasurer? :D

PennBf: PennBF: Janet's reasons are no mystery. You know why and you know how. Its politically correct name is "the long invisible hand."

I know your accusation is your opinion but, this lady has a very good reputation of putting us villagers first. Both the POA & HOA speak highly of her and the job she is doing.

Bogie Shooter: My comments were not directed at Janet Tutt;albeit my wording could have been clearer. It is the difficult situation she often finds
herself. so I do apologize to Janet for an inadequate comment

Clarity
 

No one ever said Janet was anything but a fine person. As I look at what some say are some examples of what will not be done if Oak Park is not funded by your future tax bills..just look at what has been done and not charged to your annual tax bill. In one note it was said, if there is a stink over Oak Park no more beautiful spaces like this one. That has no basis in fact. We have lots of places like this and NONE PAID FOR BY YOUR FUTURE TAX BILL ASSESSMENTS. All were done under the control of Amenity Fee spending cap'd at CPI or 3% and paid for by that line item in your monthly bill. No one said there is a "conspiracy" to change spending from control to no control . This is just a scare tatic to convince residents to disreagard good financial controls in favor of unrestricted out of contol spending. Would anyone like the ability to spend the other persons money and not have to account for it.
I sure would !! Unfortunately we are talking about spending YOUR MONEY!
Wouldn't life be easier for those spending not to have a CPI or 3% control. Darn right!! This is not rocket science. Just the need to recognize the practical side of these simple economic facts. :read:

As long as you're not smoking that Easter grass stuff!

I Quit smoke'in that stuff an hour ago, Cough, Cough........:icon_wink::icon_wink::)

WHY is the question I would like to see answered. I fear the answer is to set a precedent so that when or if the IRS Bond issue goes against The Villages then there is now a funding source to tap that will be used to cover the possible non-tax free bonds. I am definitely writting in protest because I agreed to the annual maintenance assessment being used to pay for the ongoing cost of maintaining the infrastructure not for new build. We really don't know what the future holds as far as the IRS outcome and if we don't open the door for
anything other than the annual maintence money being used for the infrastructure maintenance I'm hoping we will be safe.

Another tempest in a teapot.

This too will pass and no harm will be done.

Sounds to me like there are legitimate points on both sides. Asking questions, getting answers and communicating our thoughts and concerns to our CDD representatives is a sensible approach. It's that good-old responsible middle ground between "loosing sleep over it" and "burying your head in the sand".

That's what I said about my gall stone.

Some Will Be Hurt
 

I just don't understand how this is a "tempest in a teapot" since it directly
effects the future economics of new buildings. The costs and expenses will not be under any control or oversight. It should be a major concern for those under a fix'd income where expense increases directly effects their standard of living. The increases will probably not effect my standard of living but that does not mean I don't have some feelings for those who will be impacted by this out of control spending. Harm will be done. That is just factual and not a guess.:mad:

Obviously opinions differ greatly on this issue. SalPal has helpfully offered the
email address of each District Supervisor so we can make our opinions known.:024: