[kcrazorbackfan]

Thanks for your insight on the amenity fees. Like you said, not all will be pleased with your explanation. It was very informative.

[Bogie Shooter]

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.

You can fix by sending a check of twenty dollars monthly…….until you get caught up to the $215.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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

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?.

Very good, logical, and reasonable question. The man behind the curtain certainly exercised significantly influence over the AAC to allow them the ability to offer full residential amenities so they could add apartments to Spanish Springs and build Villas where the Clubhouse used to be at Hacienda Hills.

That was in a mature area, fully built out many years ago, where the existing amenities are already fully utilized and the developer didn’t have the right to grant new amenities to residential units in the AAC jurisdiction. In addition, the northern areas are finding it increasingly more difficult to get desirable tee times on the Executive golf courses, as the southern areas continue to be built out way faster than holes per rooftop are being added.

[Indydealmaker]

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! Uninformed opinions and unverified rumors sow the seeds of needless dissatisfaction .

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Very good, logical, and reasonable question. The man behind the curtain certainly exercised significantly influence over the AAC to allow them the ability to offer full residential amenities so they could add apartments to Spanish Springs and build Villas where the Clubhouse used to be at Hacienda Hills.

That was in a mature area, fully built out many years ago, where the existing amenities are already fully utilized and the developer didn’t have the right to grant new amenities to residential units in the AAC jurisdiction. In addition, the northern areas are finding it increasingly more difficult to get desirable tee times on the Executive golf courses, as the southern areas continue to be built out way faster than holes per rooftop are being added.

I have lived south of 44 for several years now. None of us travel north to play golf. We have all the golf that we need down here. The myth that the southern expansion affects golf in the north is a myth. Perhaps more golfers are moving into TV north. Why is that not considered?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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.

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Very good, logical, and reasonable question. The man behind the curtain certainly exercised significantly influence over the AAC to allow them the ability to offer full residential amenities so they could add apartments to Spanish Springs and build Villas where the Clubhouse used to be at Hacienda Hills.

That was in a mature area, fully built out many years ago, where the existing amenities are already fully utilized and the developer didn’t have the right to grant new amenities to residential units in the AAC jurisdiction. In addition, the northern areas are finding it increasingly more difficult to get desirable tee times on the Executive golf courses, as the southern areas continue to be built out way faster than holes per rooftop are being added.

I have asked that same question of many people and never seem to get an answer, other than the Developer is a very smart and conscientious business person, who won't "kill the golden goose".

The original developer is probably the smartest developer in American history. If you believe what TV veterans says, he was a great guy, who was as concerned with his customers' quality of life, as he was with making money. We've moved farther down the family chain. Attitudes change, priorities change and market conditions change.

When Spanish Springs was build in 1994, there were about 5000 homes in The Villages.

Between the construction of Lake Sumter Landing and Brownwood Paddock, approximately 30,000 homes were added. About 35,000 homes have been added since the opening of Brownwood Paddock.

The neighborhood changes.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

I have lived south of 44 for several years now. None of us travel north to play golf. We have all the golf that we need down here. The myth that the southern expansion affects golf in the north is a myth. Perhaps more golfers are moving into TV north. Why is that not considered?

Because it's a fact, not a myth.

I don't know anything about Executive Golf (so my answer isn't related to Amenity Fees), but up until this year, there was only (1) 18 hole golf course located in what most folks consider the "south". Now there are 2. The quality of the 2 courses in the south, don't compare with the other 18 or 27 hole courses.

I get it. When the expansion to the south was going on, the golf business was in the toilet. The Developer surely saw the writing on the wall and cut back on golf course investment ... everyone did. Covid changed the world of golf.

To suggest the addition of 30,000+ homes hasn't affected access to existing golf courses, defies logic.

[biker1]

I believe the following numbers are essentially correct, someone please correct if not so. When we moved here in 2014, there were approximately 1500 homes per executive golf course. Since then, approximately 30,000 new homes have been built and 10 new executive course have been added (plus 4 Pitch and Putts). The ratio of homes to executive courses appears to have changed.

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Because it's a fact, not a myth.

I don't know anything about Executive Golf (so my answer isn't related to Amenity Fees), but up until this year, there was only (1) 18 hole golf course located in what most folks consider the "south". Now there are 2. The quality of the 2 courses in the south, don't compare with the other 18 or 27 hole courses.

I get it. When the expansion to the south was going on, the golf business was in the toilet. The Developer surely saw the writing on the wall and cut back on golf course investment ... everyone did. Covid changed the world of golf.

To suggest the addition of 30,000+ homes hasn't affected access to existing golf courses, defies logic.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by biker1

I believe the following numbers are essentially correct, someone please correct if not so. When we moved here in 2014, there were approximately 1500 homes per executive golf course. Since then, approximately 30,000 new homes have been built and 10 new executive course have been added (plus 4 Pitch and Putts). The ratio of homes to executive courses appears to have changed.

You would also need to know how many homes there were when you moved in order to calculate the new ratio.

In 2014 the Brownwood area was still being built out. Perhaps the desired ratio was 1,700 homes per course and would be reached when Brownwood was complete. If that was the case then the 14 courses you mentioned would support 23,800 of the 30,000 homes. The additional 6,200 homes would represent the completion of the Brownwood area and the additional 200 homes per course planned for when you arrived.

[biker1]

When we moved in, there were, IIRC, 32 executives and about 49,000 homes. Today, I believe there are about 80,000 homes and 42 executives. I am not counting the Pitch and Putts. So, we have gone from about 1500 homes per executive to about 1900 homes per executive. You can certainly do the calculations using the Pitch and Putts but I doubt there are many people putting in requests for the Pitch and Putts based on the large number of tee times available on the Pitch and Putts 3 days in advance. The net impact is tee times are noticeably harder to obtain for the executives via the request system during snowbird season. My requests are denied frequently with a large number of courses and a wide time window. There really aren't any issues outside of snowbird season. In an ideal world, we would have about 52 executives but it is what it is. I have been running large groups for over 10 years. We play the Pitch and Putts when the executive requests are denied; that is typically 3 out of 4 weeks per month during snowbird season.

Originally Posted by Bill14564

You would also need to know how many homes there were when you moved in order to calculate the new ratio.

In 2014 the Brownwood area was still being built out. Perhaps the desired ratio was 1,700 homes per course and would be reached when Brownwood was complete. If that was the case then the 14 courses you mentioned would support 23,800 of the 30,000 homes. The additional 6,200 homes would represent the completion of the Brownwood area and the additional 200 homes per course planned for when you arrived.

[Mark57]

I think you explain our amenities system very clearly and thanks for that.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by biker1

When we moved in, there were, IIRC, 32 executives and about 49,000 homes. Today, I believe there are about 80,000 homes and 42 executives. I am not counting the Pitch and Putts. So, we have gone from about 1500 homes per executive to about 1900 homes per executive.

Population of TV: The Villages New Home Sales: 2003-Present | Inside the Bubble

There were about 33 Executive Golf courses in TV, in 2014. (Executive Course Ratings "Friendly" to "Challenging")

In 2016 there were 36 Executive courses (see attached, the document won't download for me).

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by biker1

When we moved in, there were, IIRC, 32 executives and about 49,000 homes. Today, I believe there are about 80,000 homes and 42 executives. I am not counting the Pitch and Putts. So, we have gone from about 1500 homes per executive to about 1900 homes per executive. You can certainly do the calculations using the Pitch and Putts but I doubt there are many people putting in requests for the Pitch and Putts based on the large number of tee times available on the Pitch and Putts 3 days in advance. The net impact is tee times are noticeably harder to obtain for the executives via the request system during snowbird season. My requests are denied frequently with a large number of courses and a wide time window. There really aren't any issues outside of snowbird season. In an ideal world, we would have about 52 executives but it is what it is. I have been running large groups for over 10 years. We play the Pitch and Putts when the executive requests are denied; that is typically 3 out of 4 weeks per month during snowbird season.

Good and accurate information. This is our tenth winter owning a home in the Villages and our experience getting t times during busy season on the Executives is the same. The last three years or so are not even comparable to 9 or 10 years ago. This winter seems no worse than last year, but things will change when it warms up.

[BrianL99]

In the interest of full disclosure.

Not the same as the Executive Courses here, but illustrative of what others face.

I went to Naples to play golf last week, it was about 10-15 degrees warmer.

I played all private golf courses, all of which cost over $10,000/year in dues.

My friends who hosted me are lucky if they can get 2-3 Tee Times per week, if they want to play golf before 1 PM. Almost every club uses the Chelsea System for allocating Tee Times (as does The Villages, I believe).

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Almost every club uses the Chelsea System for allocating Tee Times (as does The Villages, I believe).

The Villages golf system is a home grown and unique system. Because of the number of courses, the point system, shared system of Executive & Championship, and the voulme of Tee times it is very complex. About 5 years ago when PWAC was dealing with the contract for it and put it back out to bid, they received no bids except for TSG (designer and provider of the system), the feedback they received from the other bidders was 1) it was too complex for their system, 2) the volume of reservations was more than they could sustain, 3) too many courses, and 4) too many variable for scheduling.

TSG still maintains the system, their contact has an annual CPI adjustment, and they have become more receptive to changes to the software - the first change made was to allow paying of annual trail fees online instead of having to go to a Regional Rec Center.