What about establishing a separate fund, for the purpose of increasing enforcement, what would be the process and a referendum could be taken first.

You make several good points. I suggest we raise the monthly amenity fee to $10,000 for each and every homeowner so that we can keep out the total of four people who gate crash our over 100 pools. That way we can have zero tolerance. Since you have NEVER used any of our pools, why are you imagining what an 80 year old woman feels when a younger person is in the pool? So, be ready to cough up the money that your ill informed proposal would cost us.

I will restrain myself from posting what I really think of that nonsense. So, with great difficulty I will politely respond:

If you think it is only 4 people, you haven't been paying attention. Community watch stats, although somewhat ambiguous, stated that there 158 CAUGHT in a 5-month period, which implies there were many more NOT caught.

If you think it would cost $10,000/home/month, you might need to recalculate. 70,000 homes x $10,000/month x 12 months = $8.4 BILLION/year. Now, if you would pay me that yearly I'd be happy to organize a zero-tolerance program.

I don't have to imagine what an 80 year old woman thinks about freeloaders, they have posted it on similar threads multiple times, all one has to do is READ.

So, who is "ill-informed" now??????

True I think we really need to crack down
 

I agree Golfingeagle. Most would be willing to pitch in 5 to 10 dollars a month to prevent misuse of our facilities. The other guy was definitely stretching it with exaggeration.

There is no "pitch in 5 to 10 dollars a month". There is only reallocating funds within the existing amenities' budget, which increases by the CPI each year on the anniversary of when each house was sold. You may wish to consider sending your thoughts to the CDDs.

Speak for yourself and count me as one who will not be supporting that..

MANY (perhaps not most) have complained about their yearly amenity fee increase. MANY are calling for a cap on the amenity fee to stop the increases from eating Into their fixed income. MANY will not be happy to hear about an exceptionally large increase to fix a problem that MANY do not experience.

The size of the increase that MANY see as too large: $4
Your proposal: A $5 to $10 increase ON TOP OF the $4 increase which would be the largest increase in recent history.

BTW: Wasn't the number 168 over the five months? 168 non-residents over a 150 day period or about 1.1 non-residents each day or less than 0.011 non-residents per pool each day (or 0.33 non-residents per pool each month). Sure, that number is an undercount, but it needs to be a LOT larger before I would be willing to pay an extra $100 just for pool monitoring.

Pool monitors *could* be considered an additional amenity. In that case, the amenity fee could be adjusted to cover the additional amenity.

Otherwise, if it is simply taken out of the existing amenity fee budget, I believe now would be the time to attend the budget workshops and present this idea.

I don’t believe that would pass the sniff test and I doubt it would have much, if any, support. In the 11 years I have lived here, I have not seen such a thing done. According to my deed restrictions, you would need 1/2 the people to vote “yes” on an amenities’ fee increase for a new amenity and, again, I don’t think more people checking IDs is a new amenity. As I already stated, reallocating funds within the existing amenities’ budget is presumably a possibility.

No, you haven't seen that done even when amenities have been added (Black Lake walking path) or proposed (Lake Sumter Landing Recreational Boating Facility). But that doesn't mean the clause doesn't exist.

4.1(c): Each Owner agrees that as additional facilities are requested by the Owner, and the erection of such additional facilities is agreed to by the Developer, that upon a vote of 1/2 of the Owners approving such additional facilities and commensurate charges therefore, the monthly Contractual Amenities Fee provided for herein shall be increased accordingly. For the purposes of all votes, the Developer shall be entitle to one (1) vote for each Homesite owned by the Developer.

As Community Watch and gate manning are considered amenities, the pool monitoring could be considered an amenity and that clause could be exercised. I doubt it would come to that, but it's there.

There is currently pool monitoring. Additional monitoring is hardly a new amenity. As you already suggested, any amenities’ fee increase beyond the deed restriction limit of the CPI would not be popular and I doubt it would have support from the CDD board members.

What is being proposed is a significant increase in monitoring including dedicated, full-time staffing. *That* would be a new amenity.

But I agree with you, an increase in the amenity fee (beyond the annual, CPI-based increase) is very unlikely to happen.

You are entitled to your opinion on what constitutes a new amenity but I doubt it passes the sniff test. Secondly, when you use the word “proposed” that could be interpreted as something that was seriously being considered by the decision makers. As far as I can tell, that is not the case. Anyone “proposing” such a thing on this forum should consider contacting the CDDs, otherwise it is all for not.

Rec center employees and community watch already do a few checks every day. The idea is to do more than a few. Maybe as many as several. And not on a schedule. Do a few scheduled every day, and add a few more as random spot-checks.

For pools that are adjacent to the rec centers, there could be a little extra construction to add a door leading from the rec center directly to the pool area. That way, anyone ENTERING the pool area, will have already had to show their ID to a rec center employee. A buzz-lock could be put on that door, so someone would have to buzz you in to the pool area.

You'd need an exit gate, and that gate could be made a one-way gate. A turnstile, perhaps - wide enough for a wheelchair to accommodate those who need it.

These would be one-time expenses, not including occasional maintenance to oil the turnstile or repair wiring on the buzzer system.

That would solve the problem of all pools adjacent to rec centers.

For the OTHER pools, you could have roaming rec employees working in concert with Community watch for the usual checks, and since they wouldn't need to go to the rec center pools anymore, they'd have that time freed up for extra trips around the other pools.

I've seen 'pool crashers' become a severe problem over time at one of our previous communities. It started slowly, but as others heard about the lack of security many more began using the pool, the tennis courts, etc. until the community funded cameras and a security guard to randomly check for IDs. Either the amenities are for the sole use of the residents who pay for them or they aren't. I vote for non-Villagers to go elsewhere.

Has The Villages considered using the same Gate Cards to enter pool areas and pickleball / tennis courts? It would be a significant cost initially as well as ongoing maintenance, but likely cheaper than hiring several full-time personnel. I've seen this done at apartment complexes.

Problem with this idea: people who live alone, get more gate cards than they need. In addition, you can read right here on this forum of people who find it easy and inexpensive to bypass the need for those cards, with stick-on thingies they can get on Amazon, or from any of a half dozen people in the community. You stick it on a laminated card that has no significance to you at all, and use it to get in and out of anything requiring that gate code.

Because - it's so readily advertised here, boasted about how EASY it is to do, and how it's not a big deal since those gates are for traffic control and not security, those gate cards don't provide any security at all.

They could have, once upon a time. But not anymore, because those few folks who worry about raindrop stains on their fine leather upholstery just refuse to open their windows to press a red button or pass a card across a card reader. The same mentality as those who would never pull a weed out of their own garden because they wouldn't want to break a fingernail.

You wouldn't need full time personnel. You'd need part-timers.