[billethkid]

Originally Posted by justjim

OP ask if the amenities fee would raise following build out. Answer: no more than the CPI (consumer price index) which is the cap.

As a side bar, OP the maintenance fee could be raised as needed by the District. Overall, I don't think the change in fees will be significant following build out.

The answer assumes the replacement governing body (of the developer.....most likely residents) may well change those rules to allow increases beyond the CPI.

The maintenance fees will be a function of whether the structure of TV current amenities remains the same.

Experience has shown that when residents do in fact take over managing the developement, cost do increase as they allow for more non budgeted "wants" of residents. The developer kept that in check while under his jurisdiction.

As the wants increase, and they will, the costs increase and as a result there will be rate and fee increases or even special assessments.

Under resident rule the game changes from meeting the devlopers objectives to one that is more political and special interest driven.

[bagboy]

So therefor, the increase(s) won't be to fund the wants of the people, but the wants and whims of the district supervisors. They are already dipping their toes into the amenities fund pool, testing the waters to see just how far they can go.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by JoMar

We don't have an HOA so no HOA fees here.

Originally Posted by biker1

Is that really necessary? You know what he meant.

Yes, necessary. There are people reading TOTV that have no idea. It was a misleading statement that was corrected.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by bagboy

So therefor, the increase(s) won't be to fund the wants of the people, but the wants and whims of the district supervisors. They are already dipping their toes into the amenities fund pool, testing the waters to see just how far they can go.

So, vote them out!

[rubicon]

Residents are also taxpayers and all one has to do is reflect on what the history of federal and state government programs and then brace yourself for the ride. I get very nervous when a resident(s) demand indoor pools, stripping of multi-modal paths etc.

I am sure there are some folks here that are well healed and spending is not an issue. While others live the philosophy of my last dime gone on my last breath. But I believe for the majority living on saved income that does little or nothing to replenish itself requires discipline and sound money management. I mean I didn't sacrifice my entire working life to foolishly throw my money away on nonsense or based on "I want"rather than "I need"

Some may think me foolish but my financial goal is to leave my kids much of my estate and for what I view as good reason.

So I would hope that those in charge also embrace this concept.

And to add to this unsettling equation is the possibility of some economic disaster that could wipe out retirees savings .

Personal Best Regards:

[Shadow8IA]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Looked at my invoices. My amenities fee is $145.66/month, so the 87 million/year figure is about right. The maintenance fee is on the tax bill with the bond, was about $700 for the year, which would add 35 million/year to the pot. I assume this type of maintenance goes for the public roads/sewers/water/electricity and not "amenities" like recreation

I'm looking at my tax bill and I don't see anything for maintenance. I live in Lake County/historic side. Is it possible we don't pay for it? We don't have the bond either.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Shadow8IA

I'm looking at my tax bill and I don't see anything for maintenance. I live in Lake County/historic side. Is it possible we don't pay for it? We don't have the bond either.

I don't know. Maybe Lake Co is different than Sumter. Maybe the maintenance goes with the bond and goes away once bond paid off. Good question, I'm sure someone will weigh in with the answer

[biker1]

If they really wanted to correct it they would have explained that it is called an "amenities fee" and not an HOA fee. Also, that there is an annual "maintenance" fee paid with the Nov tax bill. Instead we got a terse answer.

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Yes, necessary. There are people reading TOTV that have no idea. It was a misleading statement that was corrected.

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by Shadow8IA

I'm looking at my tax bill and I don't see anything for maintenance. I live in Lake County/historic side. Is it possible we don't pay for it? We don't have the bond either.

Correct - no maintenance fee or bond.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Just an idea...........not a fact!

Don't know what you mean. This happens regularly with developments. If you are saying it won't happen in TV, you may be right. But to say it isn't true of any developments is wrong. I believe, as in any captive market, the business entity will charge what the "customers" will bear. The business will tend to maximize profit. I have no problem with this scenario, because I think I am willing to bear more expense than most in TV, if it means fewer people using the amenities. As an example, if the developer decided, after the imaginary build out, to charge a green fee for playing on the executive courses, I would be ok with it, up to a point, if it meant there would be more tee time availability and the speed of play would pick up. If the developer started charging a participation fee for, let's say, water volleyball, I would be ok with that if it meant I didn't have to get there 45 minutes early and wait in line just to get a spot. The developer is already doing this with the tennis clubs, championship golf courses, country club pools, trail fee on executive courses, and fitness centers. No one really knows what will happen, and some just rely on this developer benevolence concept that may have existed when the original developer was alive. But now we have the children running things, and we will have to wait and see. I have heard from more than one business owner regarding their dealings with the developer, and "benevolent" is not used in their description.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by rustyp

Correct - no maintenance fee or bond.

I don't think it's called a maintenance fee. Do you have a charge that says non-ad valorem?

[OCsun]

Originally Posted by biker1

If they really wanted to correct it they would have explained that it is called an "amenities fee" and not an HOA fee. Also, that there is an annual "maintenance" fee paid with the Nov tax bill. Instead we got a terse answer.

biker1, you are right with this response. More and more responses on this blog come across as short, curt and down right nasty. Straighten up people or face getting detention.

[outlaw]

Reading some of the comments, it appears many think the districts have a say in the amenities fee. After being schooled yesterday regarding the powers of the districts, I came away with the understanding that the amenities and fees are owned and controlled by the developer, until the developer sells off a majority of its commercial property, which I doubt will ever happen. So why the discussion regarding the resident elected district representatives catering to special interests, etc., and driving up the amenities fees?

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by OCsun

biker1, you are right with this response. More and more responses on this blog come across as short, curt and down right nasty. Straighten up people or face getting detention.

That's what happens to old unhappy people. Ergo the term "grumpy old farts".

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by outlaw

I don't think it's called a maintenance fee. Do you have a charge that says non-ad valorem?

Yes - two of them. Waste collection fee and The Villages Fire District.