[Bjeanj]

On Wednesday, December 9, at the meeting at Savannah Center, the online newspaper reports that the CDD1 supervisor will ask that AAC take over the maintenance costs of MMPs owned by either CDD1 or the developer. Apparently the path is overdue for significant upgrades to the tune of $100,000.

IF this report is accurate, I plan on attending this meeting to ensure that the following questions I have will be answered to my satisfaction:
1) has the supervisor (Craig Estep) discussed a cost-sharing program with the developer? If not, why not?

2) why would the supervisor think that the other districts potentially affected be open to sharing the cost of upgrading MMPs entirely within CDD1 area? Aren't they responsible for this? Why wouldn't this be included as a line item in the 2016 budget? Why would I want to increase my amenities or maintenance assessment (I am in District 2) ?

Right now, without Mr. Estep's explanations, I would NOT be open to cost sharing.

I hope I see many people who live north of 466 at this meeting tomorrow to have their questions answered.

[redwitch]

Given that almost everyone drives on the MMPs regardless of what district they live in, shouldn't the cost of maintenance be shared throughout? Seems more equitable than each district funding maintenance and ultimately having some paths be in really poor shape.

[Bjeanj]

Nope. Each district has to budget for maintenance for MMPs in their district. That is their responsibility. If they can't budget properly, they need to step aside and let someone who knows how to budget properly take the helm.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Bjeanj

On Wednesday, December 9, at the meeting at Savannah Center, the online newspaper reports that the CDD1 supervisor will ask that AAC take over the maintenance costs of MMPs owned by either CDD1 or the developer. Apparently the path is overdue for significant upgrades to the tune of $100,000.

IF this report is accurate, I plan on attending this meeting to ensure that the following questions I have will be answered to my satisfaction:
1) has the supervisor (Craig Estep) discussed a cost-sharing program with the developer? If not, why not?

2) why would the supervisor think that the other districts potentially affected be open to sharing the cost of upgrading MMPs entirely within CDD1 area? Aren't they responsible for this? Why wouldn't this be included as a line item in the 2016 budget? Why would I want to increase my amenities assessment (I am in District 2) ?

Right now, without Mr. Estep's explanations, I would NOT be open to cost sharing.

I hope I see many people who live north of 466 at this meeting tomorrow to have their questions answered.

This would not effect the amenity fee.

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

This would not effect the amenity fee.

If not amenities fees, Bogie, what pot of $$ would it come from?

[NavyNJ]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

If not amenities fees, Bogie, what pot of $$ would it come from?

Agree with Bogie that it wouldn't be the Amenity Fee that would fund this; more likely that the Annual Maintenance Fee assessed for CDD1 in the budget year they chose to have the work done would cover it. In that respect, CDD1 residents could see an increase in their Maint. Fee for a period of time to cover the repair work. I'm just guessing at this, but isn't that one of the reasons a Maint. Fee exists?

On another note, going back to the project to resurface all of the trails (MMPs) north of 466 from concrete to asphalt around '08-'09: Wasn't that primarily funded by the VCCDD, possibly in partnership with the AAC? Maybe someone who knows a little about how that work was funded can comment on this project. Having said all that, however, I also seem to recall most recently when there were estimates being tossed around for the MMP striping, those estimates were broken down by CDD, so it appears that some types of work on the MMPs within each CDD is borne by that individual CDD.

Will be interesting to see what type of reception this fellow gets at the AAC meeting on Wed.

[Mleeja]

Originally Posted by NavyNJ

Agree with Bogie that it wouldn't be the Amenity Fee that would fund this; more likely that the Annual Maintenance Fee assessed for CDD1 in the budget year they chose to have the work done would cover it. In that respect, CDD1 residents could see an increase in their Maint. Fee for a period of time to cover the repair work. I'm just guessing at this, but isn't that one of the reasons a Maint. Fee exists?

On another note, going back to the project to resurface all of the trails (MMPs) north of 466 from concrete to asphalt around '08-'09: Wasn't that primarily funded by the VCCDD, possibly in partnership with the AAC? Maybe someone who knows a little about how that work was funded can comment on this project. Having said all that, however, I also seem to recall most recently when there were estimates being tossed around for the MMP striping, those estimates were broken down by CDD, so it appears that some types of work on the MMPs within each CDD is borne by that individual CDD.

Will be interesting to see what type of reception this fellow gets at the AAC meeting on Wed.

You are correct in your comments that the cost should be borne by CCD1 and budgeted through the bond maintenance assessment. But this is the rub. The CCD1 supervisor wants to pass this cost on to the AAC. I do not agree with this request. If the AAC accepted this request, what is now stopping Districts 2 - 4 asking the AAC to become responsible for their portions of the MMPs? If the AAC were to become responsible for all the MMPs north of 466, I could see an increase in the amenity fee.

I think it is important to point out the MMP in question is not like those that parallel Morse Blvd, El Camino or Buena Vista Blvd. This path runs basically from Hacienda Hills CC to Del Mar Ave near Spanish Springs. I didn't even know this part existed until I was playing golf at Hacienda Hills and asked my playing partner why all the folks with dogs were walking on the golf course. These paths are used mainly by CCD1 residents and they should be responsible for the upkeep.

[bob47]

The source and use of monies in The Villages is complex and confusing, but I believe the following is basically correct.

Each numbered CDD assesses each property in that district, and the money is collected annually along with the county taxes. This is one of the non-ad velorum assessments on your annual tax bill. Among other things, each numbered CDD is responsible for maintaining the multi-modal paths within that district.

The AAC, north of CR466, only controls the use of the amenities fees, and only about 50% of those. For example, if your monthly fee is $140, roughly $70 is used for "debt service" to pay the principle and interest on the bonds that were issued to purchase the various facilities from the developer. The other $70 is used for the operation and maintenance and improvement of those facilities.

So if District 1 prevails, amenities fees will be used for the maintenance of their multi-modal paths and residents in CDD3, for example, will be paying for the maintenance of their own paths, without help, with their non-ad velorum tax assessment, and the maintenance of CDD1 paths with their amenities fees. It hardly seems fair.

[rubicon]

The funds used by the AAC are those funds won in the amenity lawsuit against the developer and still held by the developer and portioned out as the AAC decides on their use. These funds are available to all numbered district north of 466.

AAC used these funds to widen the multi-modal paths north of 466, paths that were poorly designed and planned by the developer. In my view the developer should have correct the mistake .

There are far too many hair brain schemes being proposed and too few of us, and I include me, attending important meetings to guard against this nonsense
Economic conditions, aging and obsolescence alone will be enough to drive up the cost of everything we certainly don't need stripping paths indoor pools, etc to exacerbate our cost of living

[Mleeja]

I was unable to attend the meeting this morning. Does anyone know the outcome of this request?