[azcindy]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

I recently received the below email concerning the Amenity Fee and provided the following responses.

“Good morning, Don
May I trouble with a couple of questions ?
1. Are there any actual HOA’s in The Villages that actually pay HOA dues instead of the usual amenity fees through their CDDs ?
2. Is there a site whereby you can type in an address and it tells you what village the home is in ?
Thanks for your reply and for your videos”

The genesis of the first question is clearly and effort to understand and avoid the rising Amenity fee, to which I provided the below response:

There are a few HOAs within The Villages community, their fees however are in addition to the Amenity Fee that EVERY homeowner agrees to pay upon purchase. What you will ultimately find is that these HOA fees will increase more than the Amenity Fee will. The Amenity Fee is tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and can go up no greater than the CPI. The HOA fees are not constrained by the CPI but instead will adjust based on the actual cost changes for the services to be provided by the HOA. The CPI has traditionally fallen short of actual cost increases, so it is a constant losing battle to keep costs down each year to ensure that Repair and Replacement Fund (R&R) money (saving account) is not used to cover the annual operating costs.

There has been a lot of talk about a "cap" on the Amenity Fee. There was never a "cap", there was what was known as a "Deferral Rate" on the Amenity Fee that was for 1 year and was subsequently renewed annually for 8 years. The purpose of the Deferral Rate was to allow an equalization of the Amenity Fee that varied widely over the community.

Just to be clear – the “cap” exists in no one’s purchase agreement and no one has a written agreement that the amenity fee would never go above a certain amount. They may have been informed of the Deferral Rate’s existence by their sales representative, but it was never guaranteed. I’ve looked through hundreds of documents and even offered a $10,000 reward for some to produce such a document. No such documents exist.
At the time of the discontinuation of the Deferral Rate, over 85% of the homes in The Villages were at or within 95% of the Deferral Rate. The budget projections at that time, based on the current trends at the time, showed a revenue shortfall within 2 years that increased more each year after. This shortfall would have necessitated expenditure of the R&R funds just to maintain the current level of services. The only way to maintain the status quo under the Deferral Rate would have been to either a) decrease the service offered by the Amenity Divisions, b) defer facility maintenance and replacements, and/or c) close facilities. None of these were deemed an acceptable alternative.

There have been many comments made to the effect of “I don’t play golf (pick an activity), I shouldn’t have to pay for it”, “I’m over 80 (pick an age) and don’t use the amenities as much anymore, I shouldn’t have to pay as much”, “the rising cost of the Amenity Fee is going to price me out of my home and I’ll have to move”, and “this is just the developer getting rich at our expense”. To these short sighted and uninformed comments, I offer the following:

I don’t play pickleball, tennis, or use the pools, and the list goes on and on. The amenities are a package deal, no one likely uses ALL the amenities, what you don’t use someone else does and vice versa. Pricing the amenities piecemeal would be both administratively burdensome and cost prohibitive due the tremendous amount of additional overhead costs and would eliminate a large number of activities available to all the residents, a large number of these activities appeal to the less active or physically able residents. Executive golf only represents about 7% of the total amenity budgets (championship golf is not an amenity, it is a privately owned business and is not funded by the amenities budgets).

On age, how much did you use the amenities when you first moved here? If you are like most, a lot more than we did as we continue to age. It’s give-and-take for each person and activity. IF the Amenity Fee was age biased, what is the magic age? It’s different for each person. How would you enforce it? You’re 75 now, you can’t play pickleball anymore or you’re now 80 you can’t use the executive golf courses because they aren’t covered by your Amenity Fee. None of this is feasible. The activities that the older segment of the population engage in may be some of those eliminated as I discussed in the pervious paragraph, those more expensive on a “per person” basis – they would be the ones paying for the rec centers (the biggest cost in the budgets) and not the golfers.

IF the Amenity Fee CPI adjustments are going to price someone out of their home, I would have to ask about the other cost increases – food, energy, medical expenses, etc. – that have increased at a far greater rate. Everyone’s financial situation is different and unique, and we all have different needs and priorities, our financial plans for retirement must include considerations for these as well as continued cost increases must be a part of one’s financial plan for retirement. To blame the Amenity Fee CPI adjustments for losing one’s home or ability to live in a location or community is simply not taking the personally responsible for not planning for one’s future. I know, understand, and am sympathetic to the fact that one’s situation may have changed through the course of one’s retirement. Plans must then change to compensate, I/we should not be held financially responsible for someone else's unwillingness to change, which is what this comment asks for.

The Developer owns only a very small part of the amenities, and that amount is about to get even smaller with the sale of the amenities in CDD 12 & 13 to the Sumter Landing Amenities Division (SLAD). Of the amenities that they don’t own, only a very small number of services are provided by the developer for these, the largest of these is IT services that are competitively bid on every few years by the District government. IT services and Communication services represent a very small percentage of $200+ million amenities budgets. The annual adjustments they make to the Prevailing Rate (the rate paid by new homes and resales purchased during the year) are a necessity for them to balance their continuously rising cost of operations. They only receive the Amenity Fee on the homes purchased in the areas where they own the amenities – currently all areas below SR44. Amenity fees north of SR44 go to the SLAD and RAD – both government bodies. The developer has the advantage of using a balance sheet to determent what the new Prevailing Rate will be and doesn’t have to live under the constraints of the CPI for new houses they sell. Yes they want to make a profit on these funds, but it is a marginal process as their costs increase each time a new amenity is open, this happens long before the revenues from new home sales cover these costs. Unlike the SLAD/RAD owned facilities, the developer has the additional expense of having to pay taxes on these properties as long as they own them. The developer isn’t getting rich on the Amenity Fee, in fact looking at the current 2025 Prevailing Rate of $199/month and the past inflation rates it would not be a stretch to say they didn’t raise it any higher to prevent breaking that glass ceiling of $200/month.

A majority of the people who have purchased in The Villages did so because of the wide variety of Amenities that are available to everyone. These amenities come at a cost that we all agreed to pay when we purchased our homes. You purchased a home in a community with an overhead expense that you agreed to pay for, you didn’t get a rich uncle to take care of your every need and want in that purchase.

For the second question, go to this page of the DistrictGov.org website:
Find My District - The Villages Community Development Districts

Many may not like what I have written here, reality sucks. I have to stay grounded in reality and not lose sight of the realities that many forget exists outside the bubble of The Villages. Many have said, accused, or inferred that I am somehow indebted or compensated by the developer, these are untrue statements and ignorant lip service, and I openly challenge anyone to provide any proof to the contrary. Bring it! I will openly discuss and disprove this in the town square without fear.

Do I love where I live? Absolutely! Is it a perfect utopia? Absolutely NOT, it has its many flaws and shortcomings that I am unafraid to openly discuss and have done so many times in the past. I did spend nearly 20 years in management within the construction industry and have seen the right and the wrong way to do construction and run a business, and The Villages is an exemplary case of the right way to do this business.

Thank you Don! Always appreciate your well thought out and factual answers. Nothing is perfect as you say, but I can't wait to move to The Villages!

Cindy

[coleprice]

Thank you Don for your thorough explanation. You addresses several of my concerns, which I sincerely appreciate. Additionally, I'd like to encourage you and others serving in a similar capacity to control costs so that Amenity Fees are minimized. For example, things like "Community Watch" and people at the Gates should be minimized or eliminated.

[rsmurano]

Our amenity fees are cheap for what we get. There is no other place that offers you the same activities for this low of a fee. We lived in a 55+ community and we paid more for 99% less activities.
If you are a coach potato and don’t do anything, there are other places you can live in that have $0 or low fees, that have 0 activities or a small subdivision might have no fees

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by rsmurano

Our amenity fees are cheap for what we get. There is no other place that offers you the same activities for this low of a fee. We lived in a 55+ community and we paid more for 99% less activities.
If you are a coach potato and don’t do anything, there are other places you can live in that have $0 or low fees, that have 0 activities or a small subdivision might have no fees

So on the subject of Amenities, here's the question that always pops into my mind.

Does the Developer have the unlimited right to add residences, who will all have unlimited rights to all the existing amenities, regardless of where they're located?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Recreational Centers, can he still keep adding homes, which have unlimited rights to the already constructed Recreational Centers & Pools?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Executive Golfs courses, do the folks in those newer villages (presumably South), have the unlimited right to inundate the existing Executive Courses in the North?

Does the Developer have the unequivocal right to decide how many Executive Golf courses, pools, recreational centers, etc., are needed to serve a given population?

As near as I can see, there's no obligation for the Developer to provide "x number of Executive Golf course holes, per x number of residences" ... nor any obligation to do the same with Recreational Centers or any other amenity. It seems he's the sole judge of what's necessary or fair?

Amy I missing something, besides the obvious that some things are "market driven".

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Amy I missing something, besides the obvious that some things are "market driven".

"But Ya Doesn't Havta Call Me Amy."

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

So on the subject of Amenities, here's the question that always pops into my mind.

Does the Developer have the unlimited right to add residences, who will all have unlimited rights to all the existing amenities, regardless of where they're located?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Recreational Centers, can he still keep adding homes, which have unlimited rights to the already constructed Recreational Centers & Pools?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Executive Golfs courses, do the folks in those newer villages (presumably South), have the unlimited right to inundate the existing Executive Courses in the North?

Does the Developer have the unequivocal right to decide how many Executive Golf courses, pools, recreational centers, etc., are needed to serve a given population?

As near as I can see, there's no obligation for the Developer to provide "x number of Executive Golf course holes, per x number of residences" ... nor any obligation to do the same with Recreational Centers or any other amenity. It seems he's the sole judge of what's necessary or fair?

Amy I missing something, besides the obvious that some things are "market driven".

The developer does not have unlimited rights to add additional residential units in the existing CDD, they do however usually retain a small number. A few years ago they had approximately 300 amenity contracts associated with the RAD (north of 466) and has exercised a few of these options over the last few years.

With respect to the number of amenities provided in the new areas, yes by all means it is their sole right and judgment to determine how many new amenities they build in these areas, no the residents don't get a say in it. It's their money, their land, and their business model, and they can do whatever they legally want to, so yes, they get to be the sole judge. That being said, they've been at this a very long time and know their market better than anyone, including the residents, why would stop feeding the goose that laid the golden eggs - why would they stop building the amenities that are key to driving home sales? Sure, you can feast on goose for dinner and enjoy the feast - reap additional profits by saving on new amenities - but this is very short term and would lead to hunger/failure very quickly. All your hypothetical “IF”s are simply “what if they start mutilating the goose”, they are much better business people than that.

The developer can continue to build as long as they want and within the limits of the development agreements continue to grow The Villages. Within these development agreements there is verbiage that provides guidance on equitable amenities – “don’t kill the goose, feed the goose regularly”; most is probably unnecessary.

There is an ebb & flow to the number of homes versus number of amenities, 40+ years of history clearly indicates they clearly understand this and adjust accordingly. Golf courses are a prime example, some areas do not lend themselves to golf courses or sometimes they try something new – pitch & putts. As homes continue to be built, so do the homes. For the golf courses there are at least 5 executive and 3 more championship courses under construction or planned, with I’m sure many more to follow.

Not everything is perfect, a prime example is the small number of swimming pools north of 466 in CDD 3 & 4. Perceptions are also not perfect, the number of golf courses compared to the actual number of homes (not the perceived number) is much closer to the norm than most perceive.

Bottom line is, until you pony up and put your money at risk like they have, you don’t get a say in what the future holds and what they build, and they get to make all the decisions. Until then, just like in the financial ads, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance and cannot be guaranteed. I’m no gambler and don’t like taking unnecessary risks, in the case of The Villages, to me it’s as close to a sure thing as I can get for the place I’ve retired.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

So on the subject of Amenities, here's the question that always pops into my mind.

Does the Developer have the unlimited right to add residences, who will all have unlimited rights to all the existing amenities, regardless of where they're located?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Recreational Centers, can he still keep adding homes, which have unlimited rights to the already constructed Recreational Centers & Pools?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Executive Golfs courses, do the folks in those newer villages (presumably South), have the unlimited right to inundate the existing Executive Courses in the North?

Does the Developer have the unequivocal right to decide how many Executive Golf courses, pools, recreational centers, etc., are needed to serve a given population?

As near as I can see, there's no obligation for the Developer to provide "x number of Executive Golf course holes, per x number of residences" ... nor any obligation to do the same with Recreational Centers or any other amenity. It seems he's the sole judge of what's necessary or fair?

Amy I missing something, besides the obvious that some things are "market driven".

Sure seems obvious after reading a couple posts after this one or was this just a little trolling………

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

So on the subject of Amenities, here's the question that always pops into my mind.

Does the Developer have the unlimited right to add residences, who will all have unlimited rights to all the existing amenities, regardless of where they're located?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Recreational Centers, can he still keep adding homes, which have unlimited rights to the already constructed Recreational Centers & Pools?

IF the Developer opted to stop building Executive Golfs courses, do the folks in those newer villages (presumably South), have the unlimited right to inundate the existing Executive Courses in the North?

Does the Developer have the unequivocal right to decide how many Executive Golf courses, pools, recreational centers, etc., are needed to serve a given population?

As near as I can see, there's no obligation for the Developer to provide "x number of Executive Golf course holes, per x number of residences" ... nor any obligation to do the same with Recreational Centers or any other amenity. It seems he's the sole judge of what's necessary or fair?

Amy I missing something, besides the obvious that some things are "market driven".

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

The developer does not have unlimited rights to add additional residential units in the existing CDD, they do however usually retain a small number. A few years ago they had approximately 300 amenity contracts associated with the RAD (north of 466) and has exercised a few of these options over the last few years.

With respect to the number of amenities provided in the new areas, yes by all means it is their sole right and judgment to determine how many new amenities they build in these areas, no the residents don't get a say in it. It's their money, their land, and their business model, and they can do whatever they legally want to, so yes, they get to be the sole judge. That being said, they've been at this a very long time and know their market better than anyone, including the residents, why would stop feeding the goose that laid the golden eggs - why would they stop building the amenities that are key to driving home sales? Sure, you can feast on goose for dinner and enjoy the feast - reap additional profits by saving on new amenities - but this is very short term and would lead to hunger/failure very quickly. All your hypothetical “IF”s are simply “what if they start mutilating the goose”, they are much better business people than that.

The developer can continue to build as long as they want and within the limits of the development agreements continue to grow The Villages. Within these development agreements there is verbiage that provides guidance on equitable amenities – “don’t kill the goose, feed the goose regularly”; most is probably unnecessary.

There is an ebb & flow to the number of homes versus number of amenities, 40+ years of history clearly indicates they clearly understand this and adjust accordingly. Golf courses are a prime example, some areas do not lend themselves to golf courses or sometimes they try something new – pitch & putts. As homes continue to be built, so do the homes. For the golf courses there are at least 5 executive and 3 more championship courses under construction or planned, with I’m sure many more to follow.

Not everything is perfect, a prime example is the small number of swimming pools north of 466 in CDD 3 & 4. Perceptions are also not perfect, the number of golf courses compared to the actual number of homes (not the perceived number) is much closer to the norm than most perceive.

Bottom line is, until you pony up and put your money at risk like they have, you don’t get a say in what the future holds and what they build, and they get to make all the decisions. Until then, just like in the financial ads, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance and cannot be guaranteed. I’m no gambler and don’t like taking unnecessary risks, in the case of The Villages, to me it’s as close to a sure thing as I can get for the place I’ve retired.

Until I (we) pony up ?
Paradise Center $40 mil lawsuit
Brownwood water tower
Lake Sumter shoreline reclaim
Lake Sumter boardwalk

As long as there is money in the pot someone will figure out how to spend it.

Want a sure thing ? Here is my sure thing. There will never be another deferral rate. We will index amenities to CPI index and never miss a beat. We will fall behind and institute special bailout funds.

Still it is close to Utopia here however some people make it sound like the king just keeps on giving and the peasants keep on taking. No the peasants are paying their share just as they agreed to do.

[kkingston57]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

I recently received the below email concerning the Amenity Fee and provided the following responses.

“Good morning, Don
May I trouble with a couple of questions ?
1. Are there any actual HOA’s in The Villages that actually pay HOA dues instead of the usual amenity fees through their CDDs ?
2. Is there a site whereby you can type in an address and it tells you what village the home is in ?
Thanks for your reply and for your videos”

The genesis of the first question is clearly and effort to understand and avoid the rising Amenity fee, to which I provided the below response:

There are a few HOAs within The Villages community, their fees however are in addition to the Amenity Fee that EVERY homeowner agrees to pay upon purchase. What you will ultimately find is that these HOA fees will increase more than the Amenity Fee will. The Amenity Fee is tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and can go up no greater than the CPI. The HOA fees are not constrained by the CPI but instead will adjust based on the actual cost changes for the services to be provided by the HOA. The CPI has traditionally fallen short of actual cost increases, so it is a constant losing battle to keep costs down each year to ensure that Repair and Replacement Fund (R&R) money (saving account) is not used to cover the annual operating costs.

There has been a lot of talk about a "cap" on the Amenity Fee. There was never a "cap", there was what was known as a "Deferral Rate" on the Amenity Fee that was for 1 year and was subsequently renewed annually for 8 years. The purpose of the Deferral Rate was to allow an equalization of the Amenity Fee that varied widely over the community.

Just to be clear – the “cap” exists in no one’s purchase agreement and no one has a written agreement that the amenity fee would never go above a certain amount. They may have been informed of the Deferral Rate’s existence by their sales representative, but it was never guaranteed. I’ve looked through hundreds of documents and even offered a $10,000 reward for some to produce such a document. No such documents exist.
At the time of the discontinuation of the Deferral Rate, over 85% of the homes in The Villages were at or within 95% of the Deferral Rate. The budget projections at that time, based on the current trends at the time, showed a revenue shortfall within 2 years that increased more each year after. This shortfall would have necessitated expenditure of the R&R funds just to maintain the current level of services. The only way to maintain the status quo under the Deferral Rate would have been to either a) decrease the service offered by the Amenity Divisions, b) defer facility maintenance and replacements, and/or c) close facilities. None of these were deemed an acceptable alternative.

There have been many comments made to the effect of “I don’t play golf (pick an activity), I shouldn’t have to pay for it”, “I’m over 80 (pick an age) and don’t use the amenities as much anymore, I shouldn’t have to pay as much”, “the rising cost of the Amenity Fee is going to price me out of my home and I’ll have to move”, and “this is just the developer getting rich at our expense”. To these short sighted and uninformed comments, I offer the following:

I don’t play pickleball, tennis, or use the pools, and the list goes on and on. The amenities are a package deal, no one likely uses ALL the amenities, what you don’t use someone else does and vice versa. Pricing the amenities piecemeal would be both administratively burdensome and cost prohibitive due the tremendous amount of additional overhead costs and would eliminate a large number of activities available to all the residents, a large number of these activities appeal to the less active or physically able residents. Executive golf only represents about 7% of the total amenity budgets (championship golf is not an amenity, it is a privately owned business and is not funded by the amenities budgets).

On age, how much did you use the amenities when you first moved here? If you are like most, a lot more than we did as we continue to age. It’s give-and-take for each person and activity. IF the Amenity Fee was age biased, what is the magic age? It’s different for each person. How would you enforce it? You’re 75 now, you can’t play pickleball anymore or you’re now 80 you can’t use the executive golf courses because they aren’t covered by your Amenity Fee. None of this is feasible. The activities that the older segment of the population engage in may be some of those eliminated as I discussed in the pervious paragraph, those more expensive on a “per person” basis – they would be the ones paying for the rec centers (the biggest cost in the budgets) and not the golfers.

IF the Amenity Fee CPI adjustments are going to price someone out of their home, I would have to ask about the other cost increases – food, energy, medical expenses, etc. – that have increased at a far greater rate. Everyone’s financial situation is different and unique, and we all have different needs and priorities, our financial plans for retirement must include considerations for these as well as continued cost increases must be a part of one’s financial plan for retirement. To blame the Amenity Fee CPI adjustments for losing one’s home or ability to live in a location or community is simply not taking the personally responsible for not planning for one’s future. I know, understand, and am sympathetic to the fact that one’s situation may have changed through the course of one’s retirement. Plans must then change to compensate, I/we should not be held financially responsible for someone else's unwillingness to change, which is what this comment asks for.

The Developer owns only a very small part of the amenities, and that amount is about to get even smaller with the sale of the amenities in CDD 12 & 13 to the Sumter Landing Amenities Division (SLAD). Of the amenities that they don’t own, only a very small number of services are provided by the developer for these, the largest of these is IT services that are competitively bid on every few years by the District government. IT services and Communication services represent a very small percentage of $200+ million amenities budgets. The annual adjustments they make to the Prevailing Rate (the rate paid by new homes and resales purchased during the year) are a necessity for them to balance their continuously rising cost of operations. They only receive the Amenity Fee on the homes purchased in the areas where they own the amenities – currently all areas below SR44. Amenity fees north of SR44 go to the SLAD and RAD – both government bodies. The developer has the advantage of using a balance sheet to determent what the new Prevailing Rate will be and doesn’t have to live under the constraints of the CPI for new houses they sell. Yes they want to make a profit on these funds, but it is a marginal process as their costs increase each time a new amenity is open, this happens long before the revenues from new home sales cover these costs. Unlike the SLAD/RAD owned facilities, the developer has the additional expense of having to pay taxes on these properties as long as they own them. The developer isn’t getting rich on the Amenity Fee, in fact looking at the current 2025 Prevailing Rate of $199/month and the past inflation rates it would not be a stretch to say they didn’t raise it any higher to prevent breaking that glass ceiling of $200/month.

A majority of the people who have purchased in The Villages did so because of the wide variety of Amenities that are available to everyone. These amenities come at a cost that we all agreed to pay when we purchased our homes. You purchased a home in a community with an overhead expense that you agreed to pay for, you didn’t get a rich uncle to take care of your every need and want in that purchase.

For the second question, go to this page of the DistrictGov.org website:
Find My District - The Villages Community Development Districts

Many may not like what I have written here, reality sucks. I have to stay grounded in reality and not lose sight of the realities that many forget exists outside the bubble of The Villages. Many have said, accused, or inferred that I am somehow indebted or compensated by the developer, these are untrue statements and ignorant lip service, and I openly challenge anyone to provide any proof to the contrary. Bring it! I will openly discuss and disprove this in the town square without fear.

Do I love where I live? Absolutely! Is it a perfect utopia? Absolutely NOT, it has its many flaws and shortcomings that I am unafraid to openly discuss and have done so many times in the past. I did spend nearly 20 years in management within the construction industry and have seen the right and the wrong way to do construction and run a business, and The Villages is an exemplary case of the right way to do this business.

Created a lot of posts for a fee that has gone up to approximately $175 a month from $155 in 4 years. 10 years ago we looked into buying a townhome. Grass cutting and pool was the biggest expenses and cost was $300

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

The developer does not have unlimited rights to add additional residential units in the existing CDD, they do however usually retain a small number. A few years ago they had approximately 300 amenity contracts associated with the RAD (north of 466) and has exercised a few of these options over the last few years.

Wasn't my question, Don. I understand the rights the Developer maintains with the existing CDD's and some may have room for expansion. My question revolves around adding additional property and CDD's to "The Villages".

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

With respect to the number of amenities provided in the new areas, yes by all means it is their sole right and judgment to determine how many new amenities they build in these areas, no the residents don't get a say in it. It's their money, their land, and their business model, and they can do whatever they legally want to, so yes, they get to be the sole judge.

I'm not questioning the realities of the market nor the Developer's track record. My basic question is, does the Developer have an unlimited right to keep adding CDD's all the way to Tampa or Orlando, all of which are entitled to use the existing amenities?

It's only a conceptual question, as I don't play golf on the Executive Golf courses, nor have I ever stepped foot in a Recreational Center, other than to pick up a Guest Pass.

I've developed Condominium projects in other states. In many cases, when selling units, we retain the right to add additional land and phases to the project, all of which will become "part of the whole" when complete and entitled to use any amenity constructed with the original phase.

At least in the states I've developed Condominiums, the possibility of adding other (future) land (phases) to an existing Condominium, has to be specifically addressed in the Declaration and it typically isn't unlimited.

Is that how The Villages is structured? Is there no limit to the potential expansion of The Villages and all homes added, become part of the whole and entitled to use of any and all amenities?

I'm not asking if the Developer would, might, shouldn't or wouldn't build all the way to Tampa and not build any amenities. I agree that market conditions are self-limiting and a determining factor.

My question is, does the Developer have the unlimited right to to grant access to the existing amenities, to as many homes as he wants.

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

Bottom line is, until you pony up and put your money at risk like they have, you don’t get a say in what the future holds and what they build, and they get to make all the decisions.

Therein lies the crux of the dichotomy.

The Developer no longer owns the majority of the amenities (assuming the recent sale has been consummated), yet they have the exclusive right to determine the intensity of use the Amenities (they no longer own) are subjected to? They get to decide the "pools per person ratio" for their new CDD's and at the same time, change the current "pools per person ratio" in the existing CDD's? I have to be missing something here.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by kkingston57

Created a lot of posts for a fee that has gone up to approximately $175 a month from $155 in 4 years. 10 years ago we looked into buying a townhome. Grass cutting and pool was the biggest expenses and cost was $300

It's $199 now for amenity fees. We don't have that grass cutting or pool expense, since we mow our own lawn and don't have our own pool. So I guess that means we're living $101 less expensively than you are.

[Maker]

DON: Can this be fixed?
If someone pays $215/month, and someone else pays $195/month....
Can anyone list the extra amenities that extra $20/month pays for?
Seems unfair that there are different rates for identical amenities.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by rustyp

Until I (we) pony up ?
Paradise Center $40 mil lawsuit
Brownwood water tower
Lake Sumter shoreline reclaim
Lake Sumter boardwalk

As long as there is money in the pot someone will figure out how to spend it.

Want a sure thing ? Here is my sure thing. There will never be another deferral rate. We will index amenities to CPI index and never miss a beat. We will fall behind and institute special bailout funds.

Still it is close to Utopia here however some people make it sound like the king just keeps on giving and the peasants keep on taking. No the peasants are paying their share just as they agreed to do.

100% correct.

Not only does the team absorb the penalty yards the Ref's impose, the goal line keeps moving farther away.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Maker

DON: Can this be fixed?
If someone pays $215/month, and someone else pays $195/month....
Can anyone list the extra amenities that extra $20/month pays for?
Seems unfair that there are different rates for identical amenities.

Does anyone pay $215/month?

I pay a bit less than the new rate of $199 but my rate will be increasing around April and will put me pretty close. All rates should be close to the new contractual rate or will adjust to be close to the rate. (If yours is less then lucky you).

My rate was set to the contractual rate when I purchased, just s my deed restrictions said it would. My rate adjusted every year with the CPI just as the deed restrictions said it would. What more can I ask for other than the rate follows the restrictions I agreed to when I purchased?

[Dilligas]

Originally Posted by jimhoward

Is there some sort of backstory here that we newcomers need to understand?

If the OP is just a regular resident and has no connection with the developer, why are people emailing him questions about the amenity fees?

And why the justification of the fees by the OP? I mean its fine, the TOTV can be a soapbox, and his logic is probably right, but he has nothing to do with them right?

Don Wiley has been the source of "the facts" for several years. His thorough knowledge of TV and TV government along with his voice of reason and fact has been the desperate need of any website, and especially TOTV's soapbox. He has been a VCCD commissioner and County Commissioner.

He manages to remove the personal, political, and emotional aspects of many OPs and gives the facts. We all need that now.