[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by rustyp

A quote from the online article:

“The agreement is complicated. The AAC will make its own decision,” said PWAC Chairman Don Wiley.

Obviously was too complicated to explain to us the residents.

Actually, if you would have taken the time to attend the meeting, most all of it was explained. I and the other PWAC members have taken the time to read, understand, and ask the needed questions to get the agreement right. Had we not, and accepted the original agreement presented in November, it would have cost us (the residents) more. There were a lot of problems in the original agreement, specifically in the way that the Trail Fee was distributed between SLCDD, VCCDD, and the developer.

I can't and won't speak for the AAC, they have their own responsibilities and agenda. I have my doubts that any of the AAC members who decided to delay the vote had even read the agreement, I know for a fact at least one of them did not. The context of the quote you've so boldly quoted has some significance. The question had come up if PWAC should delay their vote on the agreement until after the AAC decided what they were going to do and if they would have any changes PWAC understood the agreement after our discussions in the meeting and was capable and ready to make a decision, we don't need to wait for the AAC to finally read the document and try to understand it.

If you think I or any of the other primary and alternate members of the PWAC are doing such a poor job then I only have one question for you, which CDD seat are you running for in the November election so you can take our place?

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by Bilyclub

Didn't the developer refuse to negotiate and dropped this contract on them. I'm pretty sure they were paying a couple hundred thousand for the reservation system to begin with.

The genesis of the new agreement goes back to the "Amended and restated agreement for services and collateral assignment of amenities fees from future residences between The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. and Sumter Landing Community development district" of 16 November 2016 (attached below), specifically sections 3C and 4A.

3C (page 9) says The Villages (developer) will provide the tee time system for 5 years at no charge.

4A (page 15) says The Villages (developer) gets to issue Executive trail passes without cost. The justification of this "free" trail pass assignment is contained in the last sentence of $A "Sumter Landing and The Villages agree that the corresponding benefits and expenses experienced by the parties are approximately equal and no payment or charge to either is to be made to either party pursuant to this section."

Translated, the developer got to give away the executive trail passes a part of the Priority Membership at no cost for 5 years in exchange for providing and maintaining the Tee Time system platform. The 5 years is now up, we (SLAD/RAD) have to pay for the tee time system now and since there is no more "approximately equal" exchange, the developer no longer gets free Trail Passes.

The developer didn't "drop" this contract on us, nor did they refuse to negotiate, the agreement ended. Not only did the developer negotiate in good faith, they capitulated on all but one item, date ownership, and even on this item they agreed to adequate protections for the SLAD and RAD that gives them their data should the agreement be terminated.

[Rwirish]

Another TV takeaway is the bottom line. Those reduced priority rates will sure help when hell freezes over.

[thevillages2013]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Everybody be nice to one another.

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

Actually, if you would have taken the time to attend the meeting, most all of it was explained. I and the other PWAC members have taken the time to read, understand, and ask the needed questions to get the agreement right. Had we not, and accepted the original agreement presented in November, it would have cost us (the residents) more. There were a lot of problems in the original agreement, specifically in the way that the Trail Fee was distributed between SLCDD, VCCDD, and the developer.

I can't and won't speak for the AAC, they have their own responsibilities and agenda. I have my doubts that any of the AAC members who decided to delay the vote had even read the agreement, I know for a fact at least one of them did not. The context of the quote you've so boldly quoted has some significance. The question had come up if PWAC should delay their vote on the agreement until after the AAC decided what they were going to do and if they would have any changes PWAC understood the agreement after our discussions in the meeting and was capable and ready to make a decision, we don't need to wait for the AAC to finally read the document and try to understand it.

If you think I or any of the other primary and alternate members of the PWAC are doing such a poor job then I only have one question for you, which CDD seat are you running for in the November election so you can take our place?

Likewise if you would have read my response a few days ago I explained why I would not attend the meeting.

As for the terse remark directed at me at the end:
- I have no desire for a seat on the CDD. The system allows me to vote for a candidate that I believe will represent my best interest. If I lived in district 10 I probably would not vote for the incumbent in November.
- I'm sure the AAC members are anxious to work in harmony with the PWAC after your professional critique of their service. I doubt the blue Vs gray will serve us all well.

[Papa_lecki]

The priority golfers are the Villages best customers (in terms of revenue)- they pay $600 to $1000 for the membership and probably golf 2 to 3 times a week - paying another $100 to $150 a week in greens fees.

I don’t how many priority members (or their spouses) play executive golf. But I will bet paying another $100 to $150 for the trail fee won’t break the priority golfer’s bank. Even if only spouse plays executive, they’re buying the trail fee.

I also guess, The Developer knows the priority golfer is their best customer - so while they may not lower the price of the priority golfer enhancement - there will be some other benefit for the priority golfer - I just don’t know what that is.

[bmt618]

If wear and tear on the executive course is the problem, then I'd say just keep the carts on the paths, problem solved

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by bmt618

If wear and tear on the executive course is the problem, then I'd say just keep the carts on the paths, problem solved

Are you stating that your belief is that the only costs involved in maintaining a golf course are from carts driving on the grass?????

[donassaid]

I don't mind separating the trail fee from the priority fees since, apparently, this money was not accruing to the benefit of tge Executive courses. But now, the trail fee should be deducted from the priority fee since priority members will be paying it directly for tge benefit of tge Executive courses. Fat chance of that happening.

[bmt618]

Apparently someone does, if you walk it's free, if you ride a cart you pay to help with the additional wear and tear the carts cause.

[rtrav711]

There was an "Amended and Restated Connecticut Property Report of The Villages" (34 pages).... attached to my sales agreement at our closing many years ago. It had been prepared by The Developer of the Villages. The developer was responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the report. It clearly states....the Priority member either can use his/her cart, or rent one for $5.00 per round for those who do not have a golf cart. No trail fees are included or mentioned to be assessed....this is all in writing and part of my sales agreement.

I am not an attorney, but was involved in a lot of legal issues during my career. The report prepared by the developer and attached to my "Villages Sales Agreement" at the closing...can be considered a contract of adhesion. Briefly....if it contains any ambiguity, the court would always decide in the signor's favor. But....
the language is clear.

Cannot see how the developer can ignore what has been promised "in writing"...and appears might be open to a possible Class Action Lawsuit...based on their written promises. Regardless of how the business has developed the developer cannot escape what was promised in writing.

In addition....if there was intent to what they propose to do...the developer may be subject to "punitive" damages in addition to compensatory damages.

Again...I am not an attorney...but believe there can be future problems for the developer.

[Kgcetm]

So. Trail fees have always been a part of the 800$ or so we pay for membership each year. This is another move by the the developer to squeeze money from a golden goose. I’ll reconsider mu priority membership and perhaps play better courses with better restaurants elsewhere. Relative to golf, this generation has added nothing to the golfing experience.

[DaleDivine]

Originally Posted by Kgcetm

So. Trail fees have always been a part of the 800$ or so we pay for membership each year. This is another move by the the developer to squeeze money from a golden goose. I’ll reconsider mu priority membership and perhaps play better courses with better restaurants elsewhere. Relative to golf, this generation has added nothing to the golfing experience.

No one is making you get a priority membership and no one is making anyone play golf in TV. Lots of courses you can play off campus.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by bmt618

Apparently someone does, if you walk it's free, if you ride a cart you pay to help with the additional wear and tear the carts cause.

But that's more for the cost of maintaining the paths themselves, not necessarily the grass, so keeping all carts on the path does not "solve the problem". Plus there are a lot of RA tag holders who would object, and possibly the ADA as well.

[Annie66]

I'm a bit confused. It has been said that roughly $220,000 is the cost of the reservation system per year. Since the first 5 years were absorbed by the developer, how does our $8 per month charge to access the system factor into that equation both before and after the expiration?