[Bowtorc]

The raising of fees brings to mind a few questions:

There was no mention of such a need two years ago when we purchased. Now they can see 10 years ahead?
What are the monies used for by item?
With a 70 million dollar budget I was expected to have a cost reduction program. What has been done in the villages?
Will we all be paying for new facilities south of 44?
The contract we signed when purchasing was no good? So I can decide also what I want to change, like bond?
The presentation for raising rates stated that failure to raise would result in a loss of 50 million. It could very easily be taken to mean we would be 50 in the hole. This should be a prediction of our current status in 10 years.
I seriously doubt that anyone can predict ten years ahead!
Are we allowed to see a line item of past and future budget and actual?
Are we being asked for such a large raise in anticipation of all settling for something less?
I understand that 40 50 dollars per month would be no problem for some but a significant problem for others A 25 % increase for such a short term seems a little much.
I also understand that some will take issue with my concerns but I think several others would also agree.
Just my opinion.

A

[collie1228]

Your questions are mostly valid and I share some of your concerns, but I'm curious as to where the "25% increase" comes from. I'm no expert, but it is my understanding that the overall cap on amenity fees was being considered for elimination. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the amenity fee cannot be increased in any year by more than the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which at current CPI rates, would take over ten years to increase by the 25% you mention.

[rjm1cc]

I think when you move into a community you have to understand how it works and I would expect costs to increase over time. Both due to inflation and increased wants by the residents. Look at the fees as real estate taxes helping to support just your community (Villages) and not the whole county.

[Bowtorc]

I was intending to compare the increase for ten years for the increase over the last ten years . A poor choice of words on my part

[Bowtorc]

I don't disagree about cost going up just the amount that could possibly come to be.

[graciegirl]

It is my understanding that this is being considered only in the area that sued the developer and won control of running that area.

Not in any area south of 466. Champion, Bogie Shooter, CWGuy? Am I wrong or right?

[tophcfa]

I have no problem with the cap being removed as long as annual increases are limited to the CPI. Expenses go up, it's life. I just wish that other costs like health care, food, gas, data plans, greens fees, insurance, etc... could also never go up more than the CPI.

[dewilson58]

Simple, if you cap the fees and costs continue to grow..........the assets are going to go down in quality.


I guess some want this.

[Clubberjones]

If the executive golf courses are an amenity and I believe they are. The quality has already diminished.

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

It is my understanding that this is being considered only in the area that sued the developer and won control of running that area.

Not in any area south of 466. Champion, Bogie Shooter, CWGuy? Am I wrong or right?

Nope. It is being considered by both areas.

[Madelaine Amee]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

It is my understanding that this is being considered only in the area that sued the developer and won control of running that area.

Not in any area south of 466. Champion, Bogie Shooter, CWGuy? Am I wrong or right?

https://www.**************.com/2019/...deferral-rate/

Increase is for SOUTH of 466. There is a meeting this week to discuss the need to increase fees north of 466.

[anothersteve]

Originally Posted by Clubberjones

If the executive golf courses are an amenity and I believe they are. The quality has already diminished.

And here we go again...................
Maybe that's one of the reasons why?
Steve

[Mikeod]

Please remember that without the current cap, many households would already be paying more than currently. The cap was originally established to address a large disparity in amenity fees between residents and because revenue was adequate to cover expenses.

Why the change? The disparity has diminished as those below the cap have seen their fee rise toward that amount while those already there have enjoyed stable fees. The district has now adjusted projected expenses to include necessary refurbishment and/or replacement of amenities. (The original lawsuit that resulted in the AAC north of 466 was filed because there was insufficient funds allocated to adequately maintain amenities.)

Removing or increasing the cap does not remove the limit to how much your amenity fee can rise each year. You are not facing a 25% rise in one or two years.

[l2ridehd]

I would need to better understand what the funds are spent for currently. What cost savings efforts have been put in place? Places that get their funds from the public coffers have a history of never trying to save money, but to make sure they spend 100% of their budget. 100% of all Federal agencies speed 100% of the budget every year. Never once have they spent less. Now I am sure there is probably one exception to that.

Business on the other hand get budget challenges every year. When I managed a business I had an 8% budget challenge on existing business every year. How to automate, standardize, and consolidate all aspects every year.

Does our amenities control folks do anything to cut their costs? Have they done bulk purchases, reduced staff per unit if work? Bid each job they sub out? The money available grows as the Villages grows. But what are they doing to contain and lower cost.

Before I would ever support an increase they would need to prove they have done everything possible to reduce cost.

[JoMar]

Originally Posted by l2ridehd

I would need to better understand what the funds are spent for currently. What cost savings efforts have been put in place? Places that get their funds from the public coffers have a history of never trying to save money, but to make sure they spend 100% of their budget. 100% of all Federal agencies speed 100% of the budget every year. Never once have they spent less. Now I am sure there is probably one exception to that.

Business on the other hand get budget challenges every year. When I managed a business I had an 8% budget challenge on existing business every year. How to automate, standardize, and consolidate all aspects every year.

Does our amenities control folks do anything to cut their costs? Have they done bulk purchases, reduced staff per unit if work? Bid each job they sub out? The money available grows as the Villages grows. But what are they doing to contain and lower cost.

Before I would ever support an increase they would need to prove they have done everything possible to reduce cost.

It would be great if this was run as a business and they could cut costs as required however, in a business when you cut costs you are concerned with other impact factors....where will your customers go to when they find your quality decreases, where will your employees go when you can't maintain wages etc. Here, a bit different, people came here for a lifestyle expectation. Do you really believe those of us that live here will pack up and leave when the amenities we expect are reduced? Do you really think the labor market will be here when wages are locked or decrease? Do you believe that the suppliers give a darn about a CPI? Have you looked at Home Owners Associations rates in other communities? Have you attended The Villages Academy? Have you contacted the financial folks? Do you attend the PWAC or your CDD meetings? The answers to all your questions are available....go find them. But you know that.