[salpal]

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.

[RichieLion]

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.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by salpal

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.

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.

[bike42]

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.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by bike42

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.

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by bike42

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.

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.

[Villageshooter]

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!

[Bogie Shooter]

...

[Challenger]

Originally Posted by bike42

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.

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.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Villageshooter

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!

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.

[billethkid]

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

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by billethkid

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.

[salpal]

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.

[PennBF]

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??

[lovesports]

PennBF and Sal,
You said it very well.