[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

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.

Bogie Shooter: My comments were not directed at Janet Tutt;albeit my wording could have been clearer. It is the difficult situation she often finds
herself. so I do apologize to Janet for an inadequate comment

[PennBF]

No one ever said Janet was anything but a fine person. As I look at what some say are some examples of what will not be done if Oak Park is not funded by your future tax bills..just look at what has been done and not charged to your annual tax bill. In one note it was said, if there is a stink over Oak Park no more beautiful spaces like this one. That has no basis in fact. We have lots of places like this and NONE PAID FOR BY YOUR FUTURE TAX BILL ASSESSMENTS. All were done under the control of Amenity Fee spending cap'd at CPI or 3% and paid for by that line item in your monthly bill. No one said there is a "conspiracy" to change spending from control to no control . This is just a scare tatic to convince residents to disreagard good financial controls in favor of unrestricted out of contol spending. Would anyone like the ability to spend the other persons money and not have to account for it.
I sure would !! Unfortunately we are talking about spending YOUR MONEY!
Wouldn't life be easier for those spending not to have a CPI or 3% control. Darn right!! This is not rocket science. Just the need to recognize the practical side of these simple economic facts.

[JoeC1947]

Originally Posted by jsw14

Can I be the Treasurer?

As long as you're not smoking that Easter grass stuff!

[jsw14]

Originally Posted by JoeC1947

As long as you're not smoking that Easter grass stuff!

I Quit smoke'in that stuff an hour ago, Cough, Cough........

[Happy Villager 1]

Originally Posted by PennBF

I am disappointed that some can"t see the wisdom of ensuring the park is
paid for from Amenity Fee's. First, it is very simple: Cap on spending vs no cap on spending. Setting the payment up under Project Wide eliminates any "cap on spending" and the residents are at the mercy of what projects some want built regardless of expense. YOU WILL PAY AT TAX TIME. The other way, (Amenity Fees) has a cap on spending at CPI or 3% and therefore there are controls as to how much can be spent and you the resident must pay for. Next: Project Wide contract called for spending only for maintenance and repair NOT NEW. New comes under your "CONTROLLED" Amenity Fee Rules. A general attitude that "it feels good" to follow some suggesting that Project Wide funds be used is aborting the rules and good financial controls. It must be remembered that by allowing Project Wide funds to be used you have no controls over your year end taxes and may/will start paying for a host of things you never agreed to. Ask yourself, why is it important to some Village management to get you to give up on control over their spending. It is unbelievable that some actually think it is a good idea??? You look to the POA to watch out for your interests and then when they do you "shun" them. I am sure a lot of work went into their looking into this practice and establishing the risk it brings to the residents. Please look more deeply at what the Management is asking for and then ask yourself why since the payment can come just as well from Ameity Fee's and not violate and set a precendent for Project Wide spending !! WHY??

WHY is the question I would like to see answered. I fear the answer is to set a precedent so that when or if the IRS Bond issue goes against The Villages then there is now a funding source to tap that will be used to cover the possible non-tax free bonds. I am definitely writting in protest because I agreed to the annual maintenance assessment being used to pay for the ongoing cost of maintaining the infrastructure not for new build. We really don't know what the future holds as far as the IRS outcome and if we don't open the door for
anything other than the annual maintence money being used for the infrastructure maintenance I'm hoping we will be safe.

[graciegirl]

Another tempest in a teapot.

This too will pass and no harm will be done.

[Pturner]

Sounds to me like there are legitimate points on both sides. Asking questions, getting answers and communicating our thoughts and concerns to our CDD representatives is a sensible approach. It's that good-old responsible middle ground between "loosing sleep over it" and "burying your head in the sand".

[JoeC1947]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Another tempest in a teapot.

This too will pass and no harm will be done.

That's what I said about my gall stone.

[PennBF]

I just don't understand how this is a "tempest in a teapot" since it directly
effects the future economics of new buildings. The costs and expenses will not be under any control or oversight. It should be a major concern for those under a fix'd income where expense increases directly effects their standard of living. The increases will probably not effect my standard of living but that does not mean I don't have some feelings for those who will be impacted by this out of control spending. Harm will be done. That is just factual and not a guess.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by salpal

If you live South of 466, please consider attending the next CDD meeting if you live in Districts: 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9. I will offer direct quotes from literature from the POA (Property Owners Assoc):

YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED -- THIS IS YOUR MONEY

This issue is being brought back for review at the APRIL 20th CDD MEETINGS at LAUREL MANOR DISTRICT OFFICE. (the building under the water tower near the Laurel Manor rec center). The schedule is:

CDD - 5 at 8 am CDD - 6 at 9:30 AM CDD - 7 at 11 AM

CDD- 8 at 1 PM CDD - 9 at 2 PM.

If you cannot attend, please take the time to send an email to the following
district supervisors:

District 5: Ron Kaissling ron.kaissling@districtgov.org

District 6: Sally Moss sally.moss@districtgov.org

District 7: Niles Getz niles.getz@districtgov.org

District 8: Duey Cyr duey.cyr@districtgov.org

District 9: Scott Renick scott.renick@districtgov.org

Insist that Live Oak Park be paid for through amenity fees and NOT from
annual maintenance assessments.

Obviously opinions differ greatly on this issue. SalPal has helpfully offered the
email address of each District Supervisor so we can make our opinions known.

[Villageshooter]

Taking the attitude of don't worry, is what is counted on here by the powers that be,, inflitrate the policies to set up for the big kill when the big dollars are needed..this is like giving a blank check to the future,, and it is OUR blank check! Fingers and feelers are put out with precedents are established',, then with the entwinement in place ,,the fist closes and u have been set up,, and then comes the huge assessments. I have spit the koolade out!

[thistrucksforyou]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

.

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

LMAO...she said KNICKERS....

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Villageshooter

Taking the attitude of don't worry, is what is counted on here by the powers that be,, inflitrate the policies to set up for the big kill when the big dollars are needed..this is like giving a blank check to the future,, and it is OUR blank check! Fingers and feelers are put out with precedents are established',, then with the entwinement in place ,,the fist closes and u have been set up,, and then comes the huge assessments. I have spit the koolade out!

Villageshooter: Very insightful. Some well intended residents continue to ignore the economic realities here. Its akin to politically correct speech. Speak out or up and you will be diminished, ridiculued, accused of some petty jealousy, or a hater of Villages Lake-Sumter, Inc and told you can leave at anytime.

TOTV has given residents its only true sounding board and to be sure both TV government and the Developer monitor it which delights me. Because the VHA, POA and Daily Sun filter much information to reflect their reality positions or bias..... Pick and choose one,all or none of the aforementioned

[villages07]

Unless I'm missing something here, any project expenditure from the Projectwide fund would have to be voted on and approved by the Supervisors from the numbered CDDs. These supervisors are now a mix of appointed and elected persons but eventually will be all residents elected by residents. So, I don't see how spending can run amok unless we don't hold our elected officials accountable.

The Projectwide fund seems to make sense.... There are projects, located in one CDD, that benefit all residents so all CDDs should contribute to its upkeep.

The main issue here appears to be the classification of the new park as a general infrastructure upgrade and not a recreational amenity and getting its funding from CDD maintenance assessment fees and not amenity funds.

Seems to me a topic and precedent worthy of discussion and debate. I am waiting to hear what the resident CDD supervisors and Janet Tutt's have to say.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Villageshooter

Taking the attitude of don't worry, is what is counted on here by the powers that be,, inflitrate the policies to set up for the big kill when the big dollars are needed..this is like giving a blank check to the future,, and it is OUR blank check! Fingers and feelers are put out with precedents are established',, then with the entwinement in place ,,the fist closes and u have been set up,, and then comes the huge assessments. I have spit the koolade out!

What does this mean??