[JoeC1947]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Makes sense Billy. I may have to "occupy" that park. Not. Don't like politics and don't like inflaming the masses. One can't clearly see the issues anymore.

I don't know a dingy damn thing about it first hand. I feel that with all I have seen here and how things are handled, it will be alright.

Life is too short for this to cause my knickers to get all in a twist.

Sorry Gracie but I have to disagree with you. If you "don't know a dingy damn thing about it first hand" then you should find out rather than trust that the correct decision for the residents will be made.

Life may be too short for you, but I plan on living awhile and am on a limited budget. I don't want to pay for anything that I don't have to.

[ajbrown]

Thanks all for the information. I had not caught up yet on my POA issue this month.

I must admit I have drifted along here in TV for five years without too much involvement with things like this. I need to get off my golf cart and learn a bit more about both sides of this issue to see if there is any reasonable answer to pennBF's question .... "WHY?".

Local issues are one of the few places 'we the people' have a voice that can still be heard.

[villages07]

Penn and Sal .... Thanks for your posts.

The piece missing in this puzzle, to me, is Janet Tutt's explanation on why Project wide funding made more sense than amenity fee. I haven't found any response from her on this controversy. She is usually a straight shooter who can explain the logic or legality for taking a given action.

I will reserve judgement until I hear her explanation.

PS I visited and walked through the park last week. It was all tastefully done and there were many people enjoying a picnic lunch under the shade of the huge oak trees. The result is wonderful.... The means to get there needs some 'splaining

[PennBF]

I am not sure why Janet is so invested in pushing this throuogh. At the last
SLCDD meeting the supervisors were asked to approve it BEFORE the CDD's voted and that was strange since if even one CDD objected it was over. One Supervisor asked the question as to why should they vote before the CDD's and there was no answer as to the procedure being requested and Janet was at the meeting. The Supervisors denied her request to vote then and said they should wait to see if the CDD"s were going to approve. Janet is usually logical so it is a loss to understand why she was trying to "push" this through? Who is behind it and WHY?
There is no question the Park is lovely and good for the residents. The question is paying for it! I will make an assumption. Lets assume the funding ultimately comes from Project Wide. Then a host of these could be built,
plus a number of other projects and there would be NO OVERSIGHT CONTORLS OF SPENDING. You will end up paying in your year end tax bill and they could spend as much as they want. It would be nice for Janet to get a request to spend money and not have to answer to anyone or have any controls over how much. Why would anyone want to give up a control in favor of no control. Does not make any sense. WHY??

[billethkid]

my guess is you will not hear anything from the developer or his representatives (Tutt included) regarding the potential future cost advantage....best described in an earlier post in this thread as capped expense(amenity maintenance) VS open spending (annual maintenance which becomes a budgeting item and when more $$ needed they just raise the maintenance fee).

When on a fixed income why would one not want to have life's expenses to be as fixed as at all possible?

btk

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by JoeC1947

Sorry Gracie but I have to disagree with you. If you "don't know a dingy damn thing about it first hand" then you should find out rather than trust that the correct decision for the residents will be made.

Life may be too short for you, but I plan on living awhile and am on a limited budget. I don't want to pay for anything that I don't have to.

I am satisfied with how things are done, BUT I would be far more interested in getting all upset if I had not read what Bike42 had to say.

Janet Tutt should weigh in soon. Bogie? Why don't you send her a note?

But if the angel Gabriel came and talked to some people here they would still believe in a conspiracy. I Don't...and I plan on outliving you JoeC.

[RichieLion]

Originally Posted by salpal

1. Residents wanted a dog park. Recreation Dept made it happen three times and was paid for via amenity fees, including ongoing maintenance.

2. Residents wanted improvement to Paradise Park (which was transferred to VCDDD) in the 1996 amenity transfer. The Rec Dept is working with an engineering firm to move this project along. ALL expenses are being paid via amenity fees.

3. The golf cart wayside park along Morse Bridge was transferred as an amenity facility from the Developer. It is now maintained via SLCDD with amenity fees.

Now, Live Oaks Park has been built on land donated to the SLCDD by the Developer, but now it is proposed that the $130,000 cost should be financed by your maintenance assessments instead of your amenity fees. Although a one-time may not be a big deal, it could set a precedent for all future improvements. This approach has a potential to cause annual maintenance assessments to go up for residents with NO limit to the increases. More parks south of 466 are being planned and will be paid for with this approach unless we stand against this.

VCDDD = Villages Central Community Development District

SLCDD = Sumpter Landing Community Development District which covers districts: 5 - 9.

Excellent explanation about this issue.

[zcaveman]

Originally Posted by bike42

I think the POA is way off base on this one. Live Oaks Park is a small landscaped open space that has a path and a deck overlooking the wetlands. It is similar to Sunset Park (on the bridge on Morse Blvd), or the landscaped area south of Lake Sumter Landing at Canal and Stillwater, or the landscaped area near the cart path where Stillwater turns into Buena Vista, or some of the ponds where people can sit on a bench or fish. These are not recreation facilities -- no ball courts, pools, etc. -- why would you want your amenity fees to pay for them?

TV has very few peaceful green spaces that are open to humans; most of the open spaces are designated "preserve", fenced off with no access permitted. If people make a big stink about Live Oaks Park, we can be sure that no more beautiful spaces like this one will be planned for the new areas.

I don't live south of 466 but I have read the article in the POA news and I have to agree with bike42. This is a specific park that was built in a certain CDD district and should be covered by the maintenance fees in that district.

If that park had been designed and built when the area was developed it would have been part of the maintenance fees for that CDD. However, it that park was built after the fact, which I think it was based on a request from someone, the proposal should have gone before the members of that CDD at a CDD meeting where it should have been voted yea or nay to even build the park. It seems to me that it is a Missions of Haciendas Hills specific park.

Just my two cents.

Z

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by zcaveman

I don't live south of 466 but I have read the article in the POA news and I have to agree with bike42. This is a specific park that was built in a certain CDD district and should be covered by the maintenance fees in that district.

If that park had been designed and built when the area was developed it would have been part of the maintenance fees for that CDD. However, it that park was built after the fact, which I think it was based on a request from someone, the proposal should have gone before the members of that CDD at a CDD meeting where it should have been voted yea or nay to even build the park. It seems to me that it is a Missions of Haciendas Hills specific park.

Just my two cents.

Z

But, don't residents other that those from Hacienda Hills use the park?

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I am satisfied with how things are done, BUT I would be far more interested in getting all upset if I had not read what Bike42 had to say.

Janet Tutt should weigh in soon. Bogie? Why don't you send her a note?

But if the angel Gabriel came and talked to some people here they would still believe in a conspiracy. I Don't...and I plan on outliving you JoeC.

Anyone can send an email to Janet Tutt. I'm sure she will answer the questions at the public meeting. There is no need for her to come on here and debate the pros/cons of the issue.

[JoeC1947]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I am satisfied with how things are done, BUT I would be far more interested in getting all upset if I had not read what Bike42 had to say.

Janet Tutt should weigh in soon. Bogie? Why don't you send her a note?

But if the angel Gabriel came and talked to some people here they would still believe in a conspiracy. I Don't...and I plan on outliving you JoeC.

I hope that means that you're going to live to 110!

[JoeC1947]

Originally Posted by zcaveman

I don't live south of 466 but I have read the article in the POA news and I have to agree with bike42. This is a specific park that was built in a certain CDD district and should be covered by the maintenance fees in that district.

If that park had been designed and built when the area was developed it would have been part of the maintenance fees for that CDD. However, it that park was built after the fact, which I think it was based on a request from someone, the proposal should have gone before the members of that CDD at a CDD meeting where it should have been voted yea or nay to even build the park. It seems to me that it is a Missions of Haciendas Hills specific park.

Just my two cents.

Z

Then you can't use it and, we're going to put up a toll booth on that section of cart path!

[jsw14]

Originally Posted by JoeC1947

Then you can't use it and, we're going to put up a toll booth on that section of cart path!

Can I be the Treasurer?

[rubicon]

PennBf:

Originally Posted by PennBF

I am not sure why Janet is so invested in pushing this throuogh. At the last
SLCDD meeting the supervisors were asked to approve it BEFORE the CDD's voted and that was strange since if even one CDD objected it was over. One Supervisor asked the question as to why should they vote before the CDD's and there was no answer as to the procedure being requested and Janet was at the meeting. The Supervisors denied her request to vote then and said they should wait to see if the CDD"s were going to approve. Janet is usually logical so it is a loss to understand why she was trying to "push" this through? Who is behind it and WHY?
There is no question the Park is lovely and good for the residents. The question is paying for it! I will make an assumption. Lets assume the funding ultimately comes from Project Wide. Then a host of these could be built,
plus a number of other projects and there would be NO OVERSIGHT CONTORLS OF SPENDING. You will end up paying in your year end tax bill and they could spend as much as they want. It would be nice for Janet to get a request to spend money and not have to answer to anyone or have any controls over how much. Why would anyone want to give up a control in favor of no control. Does not make any sense. WHY??

PennBF: Janet's reasons are no mystery. You know why and you know how. Its politically correct name is "the long invisible hand."

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by rubicon

PennBf:

PennBF: Janet's reasons are no mystery. You know why and you know how. Its politically correct name is "the long invisible hand."

I know your accusation is your opinion but, this lady has a very good reputation of putting us villagers first. Both the POA & HOA speak highly of her and the job she is doing.