[Tomptomp]

Gee, I thought I signed a contract when I became a priority member. I’m no lawyer but the contract should be enforceable until it expires.
Secondly, The villages can easily determine number of rounds played on the executive courses, by priority members, and take that money from the $791 paid for yearly membership.

[DrBrutyle109]

Easy way stop the wear and tear from the golf carts on the executive courses
KEEP THE CARTS ON THE CART PATH. If you can’t get from the path to the tee or green....play dominos

[HoosierPa]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

Over the last few months there has been more clarity brought to this situation and the inclusion of the trail fee in the priority membership.

First, the inclusion of the executive course trail fee was for the priority membership holder only, if the rest of the household wanted the executive course trail fee it was sold at 75% of the normal rate.

The inclusion of the executive course trail fee with the priority membership was a holdover from the days when the developer owned all the courses - championship and executive, the majority of executive courses are now owned by the SLCDD and the VCCDD.

The inclusion of the executive course trail fee with the priority membership derived no benefit to the budgets that maintain the executive courses. No revenue was received from the developer for these included trail fees. For lack of a better term, they were a gift from the VCCDD and the SLCDD to the developer and the residents who purchased the priority membership. The only time there is revenue received related to the priority membership is when the reduced trail fee is paid for the remainder of the household.

The only people who are benefiting from the current agreement are the minority that are receiving the "free" trail fee, the remainder, the rest of the residents, are having to (unjustly?) carry their costs associated with executive course play.

Since the developer is not paying for the inclusion of the executive course trail fee with the priority membership, there will not be a change in the priority membership rate, they have made that perfectly clear. They are not profiting from either the current or proposed Trail Fee policy.

The SLCDD and VCCDD are governmental bodies, there is no justification or requirement to provide preferential treatment to any one resident, group of residents, or business entity.

If the AAC wants to have additional public discussion on this topic, all of the information should be made crystal clear before the few who are benefiting from the current agreement start to vent their rage. If the AAC decides not to change the current policy as proposed, they should then be ready to justify and explain to the rest of the non-priority membership residents that are paying a trail fee 1) why they should continue to give this service away 2) why the non-priory residents should continue to cover the costs and 3) why non-priority resident should not also receive either free or a discounted trail fee. There is no reasonable justification for any of these.

Executive golf is still free, if you walk the course, with or without your own hand cart, you pay nothing to play. The trail fee is a convenience fee to allow you to use your own cart on the course and cover the additional wear and tear on the course these carts bring. The costs associated with cart wear are significant and were part of the justification of the change a year ago in the Reasonable Accommodations policy.

With respect to the rest of the proposed agreement, these are needed changes. Revenue sharing of trail fees is now clearly defined. The cost of providing the on-line service will now be shared based on a benefit received based calculation method - the developer will pay a higher percentage of the actual costs. The ability to pay your trail fee and/or priority membership fees on-line will finally be available. An avenue will now be available to make changes to the on-line reservation system - perhaps we can now move into the 21 centry and have a phone app to make reservations instead of having to rely on a web page. Trail fees will include a CPI adjustment to help cover the continued increasing costs of the additional course maintenance.

Thanks Don. As usual, very good explanation. I hope Residents realize how fortunate they are to have you as their volunteer representative

[banjobob]

Just good business , an old friend and successful businessman once told me , “It’s no sin to make a profit” The Villages has all the angles covered , look into how many different corporations are owned by them .

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by elevatorman

Will there be any attempt to recover lost revenue from the developer? The developer has been giving away property (trail fees) that was not his to give.

Interesting question and one that I've given thought to also.
The inclusion of the Trail Fee in the Priority membership was a part of one of the services agreements when the executive courses were acquired by the SLCDD and VCCDD with the amenity's purchases. So, in this case there is likely no legal grounds for any recovery.

Post-amenities purchase significant responsibilities for oversight were given to both the AAC and the PWAC, including budgets. Why this was not noticed by the AAC in the previous budgeting cycles is beyond me. As for the PWAC, I and the rest of the committee members are taking a critical look at everything that comes before us to ensure what is approved is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the residents that we represent.

Some on both committees seem to go about their day with the mantra of "lets screw the developer over". An unhealthy attitude that serves no one well. The developer has no say in the decisions that are made by the PWAC and has one vote in the AAC. The developer is, however, a part of what happens with the growth of the community and their input must be considered in decisions for the long-term sustainability of the community. While the developer does appoint (the correct term is landowner elected, but with only one landowner appoint is a fitting word here) the members of the SLCDD and VCCDD board and these boards are the ones that actually own the amenities, they are smart enough recognize that the residents say in what happens with the amenities is absolutely critical, hence the existence of the AAC and the PWAC. (yes, I known the AAC came about because of the lawsuit, only part of their responsibilities were a result of this legal case - management of the lawsuit funds, these funds are nearly exhausted and the responsibilities that remain are nearly identical to the PWAC's). A win-win outcome is always a better solution than what is sought by the "let's screw the developer" crowd.

Did the PWAC catch the developer with the proverbial "hand in the cookie jar"? Perhaps. This is more akin to when Dad finds out and says No, and Mom knowing what was going on and by not saying No was giving a passive yes. Is punishment or restitution due? Perhaps not.

[Knogger]

If I've paid my Priority Membership fee which was stated to include pool access and executive golf trail fees, how is that considered a free pass on the trail fee.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by Knogger

If I've paid my Priority Membership fee which was stated to include pool access and executive golf trail fees, how is that considered a free pass on the trail fee.

I'd suggest that you read the entire thread, the bottom line is that the priority membership are giving the executive trail access which is not theirs to give and was paying the true owners nothing for it.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by DrBrutyle109

Easy way stop the wear and tear from the golf carts on the executive courses
KEEP THE CARTS ON THE CART PATH. If you can’t get from the path to the tee or green....play dominos

Lovely

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by alwann

With a few exceptions, the executive courses are not laid out with aging players in mind. And surely none of the championship tracks are.

Those are called putt-putts.

[mpcolonel]

I just got my priority and it covers trail fees. Don’t know where you got that from

[crash]

Originally Posted by collie1228

"The costs associated with cart wear are significant and were part of the justification of the change a year ago in the Reasonable Accommodations policy." Wait a minute. All executive courses have permanent concrete cart paths on which golfers must drive (unless you are handicapped). Just how much wear and tear is there on a concrete pathway? I submit there is none. Trail fees are a money making tax historically imposed by golf courses to enhance profit margins. For executive courses with concrete golf cart paths they are even more profitable.

You obviously don’t live on a golf course if you think people stay on the golf path. Most do but everyday I see people driving off the path more so if it is raining. Yes they play in the rain and at night after dark and for free after the starter shack is closed.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

I'd suggest that you read the entire thread, the bottom line is that the priority membership are giving the executive trail access which is not theirs to give and was paying the true owners nothing for it.

Per previous post: "The inclusion of the Trail Fee in the Priority membership was a part of one of the services agreements when the executive courses were acquired by the SLCDD and VCCDD with the amenity's purchases."

Did that apply only retroactively from the date they were acquired or ongoing, and if so, for what time period?

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

I'd suggest that you read the entire thread, the bottom line is that the priority membership are giving the executive trail access which is not theirs to give and was paying the true owners nothing for it.

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

Interesting question and one that I've given thought to also.
The inclusion of the Trail Fee in the Priority membership was a part of one of the services agreements when the executive courses were acquired by the SLCDD and VCCDD with the amenity's purchases. So, in this case there is likely no legal grounds for any recovery.

Post-amenities purchase significant responsibilities for oversight were given to both the AAC and the PWAC, including budgets. Why this was not noticed by the AAC in the previous budgeting cycles is beyond me. As for the PWAC, I and the rest of the committee members are taking a critical look at everything that comes before us to ensure what is approved is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the residents that we represent.

Some on both committees seem to go about their day with the mantra of "lets screw the developer over". An unhealthy attitude that serves no one well. The developer has no say in the decisions that are made by the PWAC and has one vote in the AAC. The developer is, however, a part of what happens with the growth of the community and their input must be considered in decisions for the long-term sustainability of the community. While the developer does appoint (the correct term is landowner elected, but with only one landowner appoint is a fitting word here) the members of the SLCDD and VCCDD board and these boards are the ones that actually own the amenities, they are smart enough recognize that the residents say in what happens with the amenities is absolutely critical, hence the existence of the AAC and the PWAC. (yes, I known the AAC came about because of the lawsuit, only part of their responsibilities were a result of this legal case - management of the lawsuit funds, these funds are nearly exhausted and the responsibilities that remain are nearly identical to the PWAC's). A win-win outcome is always a better solution than what is sought by the "let's screw the developer" crowd.

Did the PWAC catch the developer with the proverbial "hand in the cookie jar"? Perhaps. This is more akin to when Dad finds out and says No, and Mom knowing what was going on and by not saying No was giving a passive yes. Is punishment or restitution due? Perhaps not.

While I do see the logic the developer is giving away something not theirs to give I sincerely hope this decision is well thought out. I am not sure how you will measure a win / win. The developer carries a big stick as compared to the AAC and PWAC. The developer has many resources at their finger tips to show us who the boss is without hurting sales or their bottom line. Be careful. As they say some battles aren't worth fighting. I'm neutral on this one and trust you representatives will do the right thing for us owners in the long run. This seems to be going awful fast.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Tomptomp

Gee, I thought I signed a contract when I became a priority member. I’m no lawyer but the contract should be enforceable until it expires.
Secondly, The villages can easily determine number of rounds played on the executive courses, by priority members, and take that money from the $791 paid for yearly membership.

Seems to me, your contract expires yearly...

[dewilson58]

The VCCDD charges $100 for Priority Spouses for annual trail fee.......going to be difficult to charge the Priority more than $100.