I thought the bond paid for infrastructure like rec. centers and outdoor pools.... but I could be wrong. The definition of amenity is: any feature that provides comfort, convenience, or pleasure. I am a golfer... so "free" executive golf is important to me. But why would executive golf be considered an amenity where a dog park would not? There just might be more dog owners than golfers.
And if you are required to "pay the freight" to own a dog, then should you "pay the freight" to play an executive course? (more than the trail fees?) I believe both executive golf and dog ownership are two things that many Villagers are passionate about.

:agree:

I can't see a day when the language controlling the increase in the amenity fee changes. What additional amenities have been added recently (that aren't scaled to the increase in the number of houses)?

Actually this conversation is moot because the amenities fees are not slated, at least at this time to fund another LLC. Nor am I interested in hurting anyone's feelings but it is good to have such conversation to be sure we all agree that we are going in the same and right direction. I am respectful to every individual and their position on such matters

I am not sure as to what the bond paid for nor am I sure if dog parks were a part of the deal the Developer made when he sold off such assets to the District. I believe I do but for the sake of discussion I'll acquiesce to your position.

However I would not define a dog as an amenity by any stretch of the imagination. I do recognize that dog owners take umbrage over such comments. But owning a dog isn't like throwing a softball. In point of fact many dog owners view their dog as a part of their family and I am respectful of that fact.

For the sake of discussion let's say I buy into your argument and pay my freight piece meal for any amenity available. I'll wager I'd come ahead price wise, rather than paying a monthly fee per family.

In fact this also may be of benefit paying the fees per usage for two reasons. 1) Like the internet, phone water electricity, etc the more you use the more you pay 2) cost to renters should be double what residents would have to pay.

I have heard unsolicited comments from some golfers that play golf three + times a day. I don't begrudge them but would they do so if they had to pay for each round? Some residents have frequent guess who utilized the amenities full time while other residents have no guest or guest that don't golf, etc. See where I am going with this ?


Now we come to dog parks. Again a dog owner should pay an association fee for the building and maintenance of dog parks. Your dog your responsibility. I'd also wager that if dog parks charged a monthly fee soon the dog parks would be empty.

I truly have little issue with dog , dog parks etc . And I am not rallying against the monthly amenity fee.

My focus is on the financial affect suggestions made by residents have on the amenity fee because if it is not tightly controlled and defined it can lead to disastrous results. And, over the pass 10 years that I have lived here some residents have come up with crackpot suggestions leaving me wondering if they believe money for their suggestions materializes out of thin air?

Finally the definition you offer as to "amenity" is very troubling to me because it is much too broad and ambiguous. For example some resident may find comfort, convenience and pleasure with a call girl so should we foot his bill?

Personal Best Regards:

Back to the subject, The LLC. According to testimony cited in the Ocala District Court order, the LLC was self-sustaining and even paid minimal rental for room use to the Charter School from course fees. LLC argued that having to pay for interpreters would drive course fees so high that enrollment would fall and the LLC would fail. Maybe the District, which is subject to the ADA, will try to spread the cost of interpreters over all the courses offered so that the burden is less for each course, but still low enough to attract enrollment.

The Bond paid for land improvements and the land infrastructure and utility improvements such as overall grading, water runoff, vegetation clearing, streets, sewer, sanitation, street lights, signage, etc. In most States and many areas of Florida this is rightly included in the price of the new home. By "bonding out" these costs the "selling price" of the new home appears to be less.
The cost of the rec centers, pools, executive courses, etc is carried by the Developer, and owned by it, and leased to our CDD's. They are not "owned" by the residents until actually sold to our CDD organizations. This was just done for most facilities South of HY 466 in which the residents thru our CDD organizations committed to about $30,000 of debt per residence unit to now "own" the facilities.
So, in reality, the true "cost" of the home you bought with all those beautiful amenities really cost, on average, an extra $60,000 plus interest over 15 or 20 years. (about $30,000 original "bond" and the subsequent $30,000 amenities facilities purchase).
I'm not saying good or bad, or over or under priced, but that is just how it works in TV.

I agree that the resident should incur the cost. The LLC classes are not free. There is a cost associated with each class paid by the user. This cost is not passed onto the community. Glad to hear efforts are being made to bring it back.

I don't think this is correct. The residential CDDs will not own any of the amenities within their district. All are and will be owned by the central districts. Our amenity fees cover the bonds and interest issued by the central districts to purchase the amenities from the Developer. North of 466 the AAC controls that amount of the amenity fees not earmarked to bond service, but the amenities are still owned by VCCDD.

How can you say this?
 

I have taken many courses at LLC and have paid for everyone of them. I paid for them at LLC but most were conducted elsewhere. How would a persons "burning desire to learn something new" be any different than a persons burning desire to golf, bowl, play cards, do crafts etc? These are all covered by the amenity fees. This is TV. We all moved here to remain active. The ability to take lessons or a course in many, many thins is what gives TV it;s appeal,
:MOJE_whot: Welcome back LLC

A correction and further explanation to the above:

Amenity facilities are never sold to "our" CDDs. The developer sells them to one of the three commercial CDDs that he controls. Thus, the amenity facilities are never actually owned by the residents.

In the past, those developer-contolled CDDs issued tax-exempt bonds to pay the developer. The IRS has now forbidden the issuance of tax-exempt bonds for that purpose. Consequently the bonds currently being issued are taxable.

Thus, the calculation of the true cost of buying a house is overstated. The true cost is the ostensible purchase price plus the amount of the infrastructure bond allocated that house--which is not disclosed in developer advertising. It is erroneous math to add in the amenities facilities purchase.

I think you all are missing an important point in this discussion. The previous LLC classes were being offered to the public in general. I recall there were three levels of fees with folks outside The Villages paying the most. If The Villages operate the LLC is it still going to be offered to all comers or just The Villages residents. If the classes are going to be open to all, I do want any of my amenity fees going to the LLC. It has to be self funded just like it was in the past.

I don't believe anybody is proposing to use amenity fees to cover any of the costs of the new LLC. The proposal seems to be to have the VCCDD establish an enterprise fund to run the LLC. As I understand it, an enterprise fund is merely an accounting method to allow a municipal government to set up separate books for a self-funded activity.

Since the VCCDD reportedly concedes that it is subject to the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act with regard to its programs, a more troubling question is: How will the VCCDD deal with the allegedly unreasonable demands being made by the plaintiffs under that Act? In other words, won't the VCCDD find itself in the same position as the charter school was in when the charter school was running the LLC?

Probably not because when the school was involved, there was government money (state and federal) being spent to house the program. If recreation does it, it's private.

There was also a win for the District and the Charter School in the United States District Court last Wednesday. As reported by the other news service, " Concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims, the district court held that the Resident Groups are not a service, program, or activity of the Districts, nor are they an instrumentality of the Districts, meaning that the Districts are therefore not subject to the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act based on the activities of these groups. Similarly, the district court concluded that the Districts had not run afoul of the Fair Housing Acts because Plaintiffs are not denied access to facilities covered by the FHA, and the Resident Groups are not themselves a service of the Districts". The saga will continue.

The deaf are entitled to reasonable accommodations provided in a program or service funded by Federal funds. Unfortunately due to the widely varying hearing losses, some of them cannot benefit from most listening devices but require sign language interpreters instead. They can be very costly - as much as $100-$150 per hour with a minimum of two hours. There are classes that require these services but there are also classes that would not require their constant presences.

Just because the deaf have the legal right to such services should not have to mean it is ok for them to abuse their rights by refusing to make compromises or by demanding such services when they do not really need them.

Further these interpreting services are obtained on contract only, so if the deaf student misses or drops out of a class, these interpreters are still paid to the end of the contract.