[Goldwingnut]

[QUOTE=Brawnwy123;1619000]

Originally Posted by HIgolfers

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

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

[Bjeanj]

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.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

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.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

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.

[tophcfa]

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.

[JoMar]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

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.

[New Englander]

Originally Posted by JoMar

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!

[NatureBoy]

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

The Deferral Rate is an implementation of the deferral option clause included in the later deed restrictions contracts.

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

Here's the third. Let's call this one the "Gimme Clause" in the deed restriction.

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.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by NatureBoy

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.

[twoplanekid]

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.

[CWGUY]

Originally Posted by twoplanekid

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.

Or until April gets here!

[JimJohnson]

We looked at numerous retirement communities and feel The Villages is a great deal.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by John_W

Some of those items sound more like maintenance. For example on my almost 8 year old CYV there is $450 added on my annual tax/bond bill for maintenance. I don't believe amenity fees covers maintenance. Flower beds and grass replacement don't sound like amenity items. Others probably have better insight.

John,
There are maintenance in the amenities budget. For example, the areas around the pools have landscaping and building maintenance associated with them that comes out of the Amenities budgets. The gatehouses are also amenities, so the flowers and landscaping around them are covered by the Amenities budget while the landscaping at the other lane divisions and center of the traffic circle are covered under the Project Wide Fund.

The maintenance assessment that is included in your annual property tax bill covers the maintenance of your CDD properties such as the villa roads, landscaping in cul-de-sac islands, and other common areas that belong to your district. A substantial portion of the CDD budget goes into the Project Wide Fund which takes care of most of the maintenance items throughout the various districts (south of CR466).

It's difficult to see when and where one begins and the other ends because of the common maintenance contracts that are written and executed. It works in all of our's favor that it is done this way; it becomes a bookkeeping issue instead of a "who's responsible for what" issue.

As a previous poster pointed out, there are some problem areas that continue to have to be addressed. Each is handled individually and the appropriate budget(s) is charged for the work.

[kcrazorbackfan]

The amenity fees are a bargain compared to some of the extreme HOA fees that people have told me they’ve paid prior to moving here with far fewer amenities.

[stroch609@gmail.com]

Has anyone done the math of the amnetiy fees? 50,000 homes times $147.00 a month =? So where is all this money going? Hmmmm🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔