I am 74 years old and I have lived in many wonderful areas in my life but nothing has even come close to the way The Villages is run. I cringe to think of any change where the residents would make the decisions about this place. We would become a town like all of the ones we left, with elected mayors and too many projects where money is squandered and the amenity fees would have to go up. up. up. Everyone would get every little thing they want, we would have ten indoor pools, ten dog parks, an enormous performance center and we would be changing the street signs from hind side too and back again and there would be discussions about painting murals inside the tunnels and having five star chefs at McDonalds and pay a thousand dollars a month in amenities. We would keep changing contracts on the roadside landscaping and soon the mulch would disappear and weeds appear and the roundabouts would be changed to signs that say, every man for himself. We would squabble over speed limits and age limits and fences.


HORRORS.

Thanks for reminding me! We just left a town like that, making many poor choices with our tax dollars.:cus:

Great post.

A lot of thought went into what Gracie just wrote a lot ... Please take a second or two and think about what Gracie wrote. I have an opinion that as we all grow older we really do not get any smarter but... we all hopefully get so much Wiser . Well put Gracie, well put.

Well said. And this has nothing to do with Janet Tutt personally. From the sounds of it, she does a fine job, given the situation. Just can't imagine how this could be a healthy situation for the residents.

I have lived in TV long enough to remember what things were like before Mrs. Tutt arrived on the scene. I have found her to be very open to concerns of the residents unlike the time when the answer to residents complaints often was, if you don't like it, why don't you move. With population coming close to 100,000 it seems apparent that she can't satisfy every resident and their individual gripes. I think she and her staff do a fantastic job in making our remaining years as pleasant as possible. I am sure she was very instrumental in bringing a first class Public Safety Department to TV. So I for one, am most appreciative of Mrs. Tutt and her hardworking staff.

You make it sound like we have a problem with the way she performs her job right now. I don't believe we do.

But it is and has been,don't let your imagination run wild.
What do you mean from the sounds of it, are you not here? .....a healthy situation for the residents.......are you a resident?

Glad you brought that up. Here predecessor was a good example of exactly what a poor manager was. His decision making often left the residents needs out of the loop. Probably somewhere in the POA archives, some of his shenigans are documented.

Annual Budget
 

Many posters may not know but the annual budget that Mrs Tutt manages is

$ 254,000, 000 per year.

Having gone to the District Academy I was so very impressed with the effiency in which this whole operation is run. She will be retiring soon and I dread the day she is not at the helm.

If/when this wonderful asylum is ever turned over to a governing board elected by villages residents...there will be a sign in my yard before the vote is ratified by whomever ratifies same!!!

well, I'm not too worried about any changes in the way The Villages are run, anyway. But somebody has to be in charge and I'm glad it's someone who knows what she is doing!

I'm a full time resident. Don't let my imagination run wild? The $40 million lawsuit was not my imagination. It was the Developer taking advantage. As good as Janet Tutt is, I don't think she would have been able to talk the Developer into doing what was right. That has been my point - I would feel better if TV had freedom from the Developer. Sure things are going well now, but consider how things might have been had the POA not stood up for the residents a few years back. The Villages would look like a totally different place - no funds for maintenance of important buildings, recreational trails, etc.

Some posters seem to think that wishing for freedom from the Developer is some kind of affront to Janet Tutt. I don't get that logic. That is not the thought that is being discussed here. What is being discussed is that you have a manager that is tied by salary to her employer, the Developer, and that is not necessarily in the residents' best interest. If the Developer eventually signs off, we can hire Janet Tutt directly to work for the residents' interests, without worry about the Developer's desire to make money overriding our needs.

We had just bought here when your much brought up law suit happened. Most of us didn't have a clue. And most of us still don't. We looked all around and saw no mold or mildew, no shabby care of buildings and we were pretty leery of this being way too good to be true. We were VERY skeptical about the low cost of amenities and the free golf and all of the beautiful, well maintained buildings, and if not for old friends who had lived here who assured us that this place was the real deal we wouldn't have purchased our designer in Hadley.


What I know about that lawsuit, and YOU know about that lawsuit, and everybody knows about that lawsuit is pretty close to nothing. Neither side is allowed to speak out on it. I know that anyone can bring a lawsuit for any reason and this was brought by a few villagers including a couple of lawyers. Here is what little we know, printed in The Orlando Sentinel in 2008.


Villages developer to pay $40 million for recreation upgrades to settle a lawsuit - Orlando Sentinel


I know this. That lawsuit did not have a thing to do with anything south of 466 where we lived. We lived adjacent to the Odell Center, where I saw them power wash the wall a couple times of year and repaint all of the structures at Odell once a year. I saw them weed the beds that separated us from Odell several times a year and replace two palm trees on Odell property that had died. I saw them maintain the common areas without anyone complaining. All good.


About twenty years ago Gary Morse brought his family from Michigan to help his dad, Harold Schwartz. Harold had been married more than once and Gary Morse's mom had remarried a man named Morse after her divorce from Harold and I have heard a couple of reasons why she changed Gary's name from Schwartz to Morse. No one knows for sure, but Gary and his wife Sharon moved from Michigan where they had been involved in the original Brownwood, that is still alive and well today. By tales that I have heard Harold was a people guy with the idea to sell some land in central Florida to folks with "free golf for life". And in the beginning was the area on the north east of 441/27 with nice big lots and lakes and golf course to view with mostly modular homes. Still lovely and still loved.


But sometime after Gary joined his dad the plans became more ambitious and changed. Someone, maybe Gary, consulted the designers of Disney's Main Street to see how they could build a pretty, whimsical downtown area completely NOT based in any real history but a pretty place for restaurants and businesses to serve the folks they hoped would buy land so they could build houses and sell them.


I am pretty sure that they risked most all of their money at the time to do this.


And of course it worked. And continued to work. What I THINK happened is that someone researched and found the best contractors to build and to do infrastructure and to design and to decorate and to dream up all of this loveliness. If you didn't pass muster you would be out the door. Gary Morse may not have had all the good ideas but he knew who to hire. The CDD form of government was not new to the Villages. I think Disney used it but I am not sure.


As the place gained momentum, more people were hired and more people were employed. They built golf club houses with restaurants and staffed with good people in their employ. But it appears that their business plan was to sell the business part and own the property to rent to independent business people. So someone with not a lot of money became someone who with a good plan became a business success. This 77 year old man, Gary Morse still is at the helm but the business is now mostly run by his three children, all born and raised in the Brownwood area of Michigan and doing a pretty good job with this ever growing giant that employs thousands, makes the unemployment the lowest in the state and up there with llowest unemployment area in the country. Has made this the fastest growing area in the U.S. and built ten percent of all of the homes in the United States during the awful downturn in building and real estate sales.


I do not know the Morses but I do know that making a success of your venture is the American way. It is o.k. to become hugely financially successful. Most of the developers detractors are against ...well you know the politics that we are not allowed to discuss on this forum. I say build a business, employ people, keep them off the welfare roles. I am PROUD of where I live and how it was built. I am a fiscal conservative now that I am old and I say, well done Morses. Whoever you are.


Be rich, stay rich and thank you kindly.

Gracie, thank you! Very well written.

Certainly the Developer has the right to make money, and he has done a fine job of doing that. But as residents, we are foolish if we elevate his right to make money, above our right to have a wonderful retirement community. Our needs come first, and we are paying for that right with our amenity fees. Some would say the past lawsuit is not relevant because it only involved those villages north of 466. I happen to live south of 466, and in my eyes, what happened there could be a precedent. The lawsuit alleged money had been misappropriated by the Developer and funds were not available cover improvements and repairs to recreation centers, swimming pools and other facilities that make the retirement community alluring. The people who filed the lawsuit had noticed a steady decline in building maintenance and conditions and services, and calls for action were completely ignored. The lawsuit was a last resort, and lucky for us a settlement was reached. We hope that lawsuits are a thing of the past, but I see no guarantees. And now we are embroiled in this whole IRS business, thanks to the Morses business acumen. Again, the residents could suffer financial consequences as a result.

We all have our own opinions. I am a financial conservative, and I do not like being beholden to a Developer that has this dubious record with lawsuits and the IRS. It just raises a red flag with me. I don't trust them. I personally will feel much better when we escape their omnipotence, and hire qualified people, like Janet Tutt for instance, to run things and to report to the residents directly. Our needs will come first.

Villages developer to pay $40 million for recreation upgrades to settle a lawsuit - Orlando Sentinel

:agree:
Gracie, you're a gem!

I look around me each day, and see and utilize all the amenities that this community has to offer. I see what things Ms. Tutt and her staff manage, and how they manage it. Then I judge. Based on this, three cheers for Ms. Tutt and her staff. I don't care about her relationship with the developer as long as it is a strong working relationship.

Not meaning to stir the pot nor argue, but could you please explain some of your statements?

1) Putting his right to make money over our needs to have a wonderful retirement community? Is that not what we have now? If not, why not?

2) Did you know about any of this or do any research before moving here? If not, why not? If you did, why didn't you have problems with the 'history' then and the way things are run now?

3) Since the Developer pays her check, why wouldn't she consider him over what every Tom, Dick, and Harry here wants to change?

4) The IRS issue has a long history with TV and has either lost or backed off in the past. If it had the substance that many think it has, don't you think it would have been resolved years ago. They (IRS) already have some issues themselves, so.....

5) Did you not read my post about how it is here north of 466 with the AAC? I believe I also said, "Be careful what you wish for..."

6) "The lawsuit alleged" you said and could set a precedent. As for residents being totally ignored, no. In the case of the cart paths, they wanted newer and wider ones. Patches to existing ones were all that was going to still be available. The suit was settled rather than fight because it was deemed by the defendants to "be in the best interest of the Villagers". The terms are also sealed and cannot be discussed by either side. Why live in the "what if" this happens/that happens?

7) Last, and most importantly, what of your needs are not being met by Ms. Tutt and the Developer; and if things are so bad, why do you stay? With that question I am not suggesting that you don't need to be here. Everyone is welcome. I just know that I do not settle for things that I have a major problem with or are not acceptable. Just ask my ex.

Facts
 

It is one thing to support the Developer regardless of his/her actions. It is another to claim the $40M awarded was somehow a miscarriage of justice of the courts. The courts heard all of the evidence and ruled. To say I don't have the "Court Facts" regarding the suit but challenge the results is really a show of such bias as to defy any logic. Regarding Ms. Tutt. Whether of not she does a good job is not the question. The question is it is right to allow the Developer to appoint a person who rules everything for the Villages. Of course she can and does effect the actions of the CDD's as she has great power over them plus the influence. If you read the law governing the Condo management you will see a signifiant difference, (Fl Law 718). In that case the Developer MUST turn the operations/government of the Condo over to an independent board and cannot have ANY influence over the Condo. A majority of the residents under the influence of the Developer really have no idea regarding what is done to foster his influence and revenue. How many actually know the difference between "Project Wide" and the "Ammenity Rules". How many actually know the alleged 'abuse of these two at the disadvantage of the residents and the advantage to the Developer? All of this is not a judgement on the performance of Janet Tutt but rather openings for abuses
and the lack of control of the residents. :read:

The above is such a good post. Finally someone actually uses logic. :BigApplause:

I note, the original poster started this thread and asked who Janet Tutt reports to. Asked and answered - THE DEVELOPER. Since the thread has veered off into another realm regarding the pros and cons of the developer, which has been hashed and re-hashed a gazillion times in other threads, perhaps its time this thread is closed. Moderator?

You are right.

But looking at the situation differently, I would like to stipulate that the Developer is a genius in planning, building, and operating a retirement community. The Villages is well run, I like living here, and I have no intention of leaving.

However, there is an old saying to the effect that if you are dealing with either an idiot or a genius, you had better be careful and watch what is going on. That adage applies here, and the the Developer's actions underlying such situations as the class-action lawsuit and the IRS investigation prove it. But, I think that if Villagers keep an eye on the situation and if the Developer is unsuccessful in his efforts to undermine the only real check on his actions that residents have--the POA, I think everything will probably turn out just fine for everybody-- including the Developer.

The Short Answer Is she Is In a tough Position(Spot)
 

mickey 100: you are spot on. I have had dealings with Janet Tutt. she does appear to be a capable person but the position she is in leaves little room for creativity. The Developer as the IRS has learned is quite clever in that he claims an arms length distance when it comes to the bond issue but then has the ability to shape the villages to his economic advantage. Its all about timing and the manner in which business is transacted. Keep in mind that we are separated as CDD's but that controlling are the VCCDD and SLCCD much of what the Developer controls and has the assistance of 5 county commissioners under the heading Sumter One. It may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing or it may just be? You choose

To me its all about expectations and those expectations were derived from a resident's understanding of what he/she bought into. Did you believe you were buying into a retirement community or a vacation destination? Did you believe that this was a gated community? Did you believe that the town squares and champions course were mainly for residents and family? Did you understand that although they call this a town it is not a town because it is simply comprised of villages? Did you approach buying into this development with rose colored glasses (ie. Disneyworld for Adults)?etc. etc. etc . I do not find fault here but lay the base for why such things as Janet Tutt's position and performance may mean different things to different people. And I wish her well and have always thrown my support behind her

I have in the past, and will defend Janet, I have known here for years, have had many business dealings with her, she is straightforward, extremely knowledgable, and doubt if there is another person that could do the job she does, with so much on her plate.
Just my opinion as an elected official in the municipality of Lady Lake.




John 8:7 (KJV)

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Amen

I think that you'll find that when we all signed all of those papers when we we're buying our homes here, we agreed to allow the developer to appoint someone who rule everything for The Villages.
The Villages, by the way, is not a condominium.

Thank you for your post. I'd like to point out, however, there is no need to defend her. I really don't know where this is all coming from, but no posts say Janet is not doing a good job. In fact, just the opposite. There seems to be universal approval of her job performance.

But There are questions regarding the way her position is aligned with the Developer that raise concern. This has nothing to do with Ms. Tutt, but rather the way she reports to the Developer and ultimately is required to act in the Developer's interest, rather than the interests of the residents. As mentioned before, those interests generally coincide, but when they don't, the residents could get the short end of the stick.

Spot on. :BigApplause:

This is the statement that keeps raising the issue of condeming Mrs. Tutt.
Your implication that she will act in the Developer's interest is what posters are challenging. You say she will....................

Acting in the Developer's interest is not an implication that she doesn't do a good job. That is a misinterpretation on someone's part.

No one is condemning her or implying anything negative regarding her work skills. As mentioned numerous times, she is doing a good job given the framework she has to work within.

But, for the last time - the point of my post, is that I would prefer to have a manager that is not tied to the Developer. The Developer pays her salary. When the interests of the Developer and residents coincide, all will be well. When they don't, Ms. Tutt can make a recommendation in the residents' favor, but the Developer can and will and override it if it is not in his business interests. She will be forced to go along with the Developer i.e. act in his interests, or she will lose her job. That is reality.

I'm gone on this one..........................

I'm out too.


One last thing.


If it ain't broke, please don't fix it. And if you have the need to fix something, please go somewhere else and fix it. This place is doing fine and if the developer messes up, there will be 100,000 mean old people all over him.

Hi dillywho: Let me preface my remarks by explaining that to me to suggest that if someone doesn't like it they should move is not a cogent argument, its an emotional reaction. Secondly, I am perplex by people who seem to defend the reputation of the Developer. Now going down your list:

1) do we have a retirement community or has it turned into a vacation destination?

2) As to its history you would have to apply the "What did they know"and "when did they know it". so it depends on when someone moved here and what transpired before they arrived?

3) you don't see a problem with the Developer paying the check for the one person who has the responsibility for protecting our interest? I mean you don't see this as a "conflict of interests"?

4) I strongly suggest that you read the Notice of Proposed Issue #1, #2, #3 filed by the IRS .

5) The ACC was a result of the Amenity settlement that was suppose to give residents freedom to decide on how to spend amenities. Janet Tutt and others aligned with the developer sit on that council. I am not saying it is right or wrong, in fact I believe some of the decision coming from the ACC are not well thought out. But I won't manage from beneath because I do not know what they are dealing with

6) This lawsuit was settled but why was it sealed and why didn't the residents north of 466 have an opportunity to hear the proposals before they settled. It was styled a class action and residents were told the suit was going to be settled and if they want to opt out they had to file on their own behalf. Did the plaintiff lawyers settle this suit too quickly? Ask yourself why would the developer make an offer only after 15 months? As to precedent how can we ever have one because the settlement was settled for that reason among others. Had the plaintiffs in this case made it more difficult for the POA or residents in the future t bring suit against the Developer? We simply don't know

7) You know my feeling about telling people to move. What are we not getting. I suggest residents begin with understanding the financial statements and follow through with daily transactions. I mean we don't know what we don't know.

I have a good feeling about Janet Tutt but business is business and far too many residents ignore the business goings on here


Personal Best Regards

Rules.Governing
 

If anyone is interested in knowing how a community, whether it be a Condo or HOA/Villages, etc. should be controlled they should familiarize themselves with Florida Law 718 which is the law Condo's and Condo Boards must follow and the limitations of the Developer. It controls the Developer from continuing to rule the community once the homes/condos have been built and places very tough laws for the Boards to follow. It is amazing the difference in the way the developer is controlled and the prevention of "Developer Abuses". In addition there is pretty a long schedule of fines for violating the rules. Somehow it has been possible for a group to convince the Florida State Reps. to allow almost unlimited abuses by the Developer when they call it an HOA? It is clear that under 718 there would not be an IRS abuse as is the case with The Villages. It would be checked at the very start of the practice! Boards are not only held accountable to the residents but the Government and both fines and criminal charges can be brought forward if there are certain violations. There is no accountability to the "Board" in The Villages as the "Psedo"Board" is the Developer. Checks and balances do not exist. The developer is a business and too many want to give a business a "soul". A business is a "profit making organization" and does not have a soul no matter how many want to pretend it does. :read:

I hesitate to weigh in here, but isn't the point of a manager to work for the owner and keep his "company" well oiled and running smoothly? Take over the day-to-day ops and free him up to work on bigger things?

Yes, but the job of a government official is to represent the interests of her constituents. That is very hard for anybody in Janet Tutt's position to do in cases where the interests of the Developer conflict with those of her constituents and the Developer can fire her at any time. From what I have seen, Ms. Tutt does a reasonably good job of dealing with the situation. But residents should be aware of the fact that she can never cross the Developer when his interests are at odds with those of the residents.

I said I was done. But we are a CDD not a condo or an HOA.
http://activerain.com/blogsview/2401...pment-district

Again
 

The purpose was to point out that both cover communities and both should have the objective to do what is best for the resident consumer. One prevents abuses of the consumer resident by law and fines and criminal charges the other avoids protection of the consumer resident in favor of the Deverloper. These are facts and not arguable. CDD's are protections of the resident only to the degree the developer wants to support the CDD. They are in the main totally influenced by the Villages manager who has the power to constrain/direct their behavior. It is possible to cloud the facts and over look reality. It is a shame to do that since it is unfair to the residents who need protection. In today's world the POA is the only one which the resident have to protect them from abuse. There should be laws on the books which do that and not ask the POA to carry that burden.:read:

First, let me say thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. Let's get one thing out of the way first. Please read my post again because I stated that I am not telling anyone to leave. Quite the contrary. I merely asked why someone would stay if they were so unhappy, dissatisfied, and bothered by what they signed on for. Some, if not most, of the issues that have been brought out are old and general knowledge, so do people not do any research beforehand? There are no bones made about how The Villages operates.

What I'm about to say is and isn't along the same lines, so please don't be offended. I am noticing more and more that people are moving here and then immediately want to start changing things to what "they are accustomed to back home". They don't like this, they don't like that, etc. Once again, do they not check it out first? Everything is not about what I like/don't like, you like/don't like, etc. That's why there is so much here....something for everyone. We knew when we moved here that there are no fences, no hedges above a certain height allowed, pet limits, etc., and accepted it.

Don't know who remembers, but Sumter One came about because our county taxes were being used everywhere in the county but here, because there was no representation for our part of the county. I don't see that being the case with the Developer because we do benefit from our own monies and always have. Maybe not like some would prefer, but we do reap the benefits.

I agree with your question about whether this is still a retirement community or more a vacation destination. I have seen it evolving since I've been here into more of a vacation spot for people who have no family or friends here. I don't like that. Maybe the hope is that they will like it and move here, but I don't really see that happening because so many are young families.

This is already too long, but as to the lawsuit, I agree with a lot of what you were saying about the lack of transparency. I don't agree with some getting personal settlements, either. I don't agree with some of the decisions made by the "Board (AAC)", but some good has come out of all of it. They were not refused by the Developer to do anything about the cart paths, but patches only were in the offing. Once the AAC was established, new paths were constructed. Much better.

As for the IRS, if their case were as strong as they would have others believe, it would not still be a lingering issue. This is only the 3rd or 4th time for this fight.

Thanks again for engaging me. We may not see completely eye-to-eye, but you and I both have some valid points. I do love discussions.

Re your point 6. We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. On what basis do you say the settlement terms were sealed? The court summary is here: The Villages, FL - Class Action Settlement Notice - www.thevillagesfl.us
That "Notice of Settlement" clearly states that all records related to the case may be inspected at the courthouse.

In earlier posts, I have suggested that those critics who think that the class action against the Developer was unjustified can cleanse their consciences by refunding, to the Developer, their prorata share of the settlement proceeds. To the best of my knowledge, none of the critics has done so.