[Bobfar1]

I looked at the Maintenance Assessments for the various districts to compare what is being proposed for CDD 14 for 24-25 budget year. Looking at the forum comments about this issue it appeared many thought the 56% increase was due to the more spread-out nature of CDD 14, additional turnovers of maintenance areas not included in the prior year, and inflation. I created the attached analysis (I know I need a life).

In reviewing the attached analysis;
1. The spread-out nature of CDD 14 is not true, there are 5.06 homes per acre in district 14 basically the same or denser than other districts.

2. In the 23-24 maintenance assessment for CDD 14, the same unit numbers (units 40 thru 84) were charged a maintenance fee as in 24-25 so I don't see an increase in acreage or lots.

3. Inflation cause is true as most districts indicated an increase in costs but were able to cover this increase with other revenues like interest income. However, districts 12 thru 14 were not able to cover the increase with other revenue since they are new districts without a lot of reserves.

In my opinion, the 56% increase for CDD 14 was due to an incorrect allocation of EMAC costs between CDD 15 and 14. CDD 14 EMAC costs increased from $449,418 to $1,225,585 without an increase in area.
I am grateful the developer is considering a $2 million contribution to EMAC to offset this which is admirable. However, for next year this should be looked at.

[Altavia]

Very interesting synthesis - thanks!

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Bobfar1

...
In my opinion, the 56% increase for CDD 14 was due to an incorrect allocation of EMAC costs between CDD 15 and 14. CDD 14 EMAC costs increased from $449,418 to $1,225,585 without an increase in area.
I am grateful the developer is considering a $2 million contribution to EMAC to offset this which is admirable. However, for next year this should be looked at.

The video linked in the other thread gives a different explanation for the increase. It is not that the area of the District increased but the area requiring maintenance increased. According to the video, much of the area being maintained by the ECDD/EMAC was dirt in 23-24 which does not cost anything to mow. In 24-25 that same area is now turf which requires mowing and maintenance and higher contributions to the EMAC fund.

You point out that that the number of homes/acre (or acre/home) is approximately the same across many of the CDDs while the cost is significantly higher in CDD14 and CDD15. In other threads there have been complaints that the lots the homes sit on are actually smaller: homes are closer to the street, lanais are closer together, etc. If that is true then that means there is more common space in CDD14 and CDD15 which means more maintenance by someone other than the homeowner. This could explain why the cost of landscaping maintenance is higher in those districts.
EDIT: Comments in a post below explain that the acre numbers we have seen are the amount of land that homes are built on, not the entire size of the CDD. While CDD14 has homes on 639 acres, the area encompassed by the CDD might be much larger. The additional land is the land that must be maintained and the larger it is the more expensive maintenance will be. What we need to compare is physical extent of the CDD less the assessable acreage but unfortunately, I don't know where to find that.

You looked at the CDD14 costs but not at the CDD15 costs. CDD15 also did not grow in land area and CDD15 also paid approximately $450K to EMAC in 23-24. However, CDD15 is paying $2.5M to EMAC in 24-25, twice what CDD14 is paying for the same overall land area. If anything, the CDD15 allocation might be high though this may not be the case and may be due to CDD15 having more common area to maintain.
EDIT: While the EMAC assessment to CDD14 grew substantially, the assessment to CDD15 is twice as much. Though both CDDs show approximately 639 acres, the allocation table found later shows CDD15 was assessed as having 1,318 acres. A guess at this point is there will be a CDD15 Phase 2 which adds 680 acres and probably another 4,000 homes. Until those homes are built and sold, the Developer will be paying the maintenance fee for that area.

[Bobfar1]

I did find an allocation schedule for the EMAC cost that I missed. Your comment that perhaps CDD 15 was being over allocated was valid. However, per the attached sheet, the allocation of EMAC costs is based upon "Assessable Acres". For 24-25 the allocation was 50.08 acres for Eastport Downtown (2.49%), 639.75 acres for District 14 (31.85%), and 1,318.94 acres for District 15 (65.68%). Not sure what the "Assessable Acre" really means.

District 15 Maintenance Assessment was based upon 639 acres. Not sure why the difference between 1,318.95 assessable acres and the 639 acres. The district 15 "Facts" page indicates 1,378.40 total acres.

District 14 Maintenance Assessment was based upon the same 639.75 acres as the EMAC allocation. The Assessable Acres for District 14 was 639.60 for 23-24 EMAC allocation. So not much increase between the two years, yet a 56% increase? What am I missing?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Bobfar1

I did find an allocation schedule for the EMAC cost that I missed. Your comment that perhaps CDD 15 was being over allocated was valid. However, per the attached sheet, the allocation of EMAC costs is based upon "Assessable Acres". For 24-25 the allocation was 50.08 acres for Eastport Downtown (2.49%), 639.75 acres for District 14 (31.85%), and 1,318.94 acres for District 15 (65.68%). Not sure what the "Assessable Acre" really means.

District 15 Maintenance Assessment was based upon 639 acres. Not sure why the difference between 1,318.95 assessable acres and the 639 acres. The district 15 "Facts" page indicates 1,378.40 total acres.

District 14 Maintenance Assessment was based upon the same 639.75 acres as the EMAC allocation. The Assessable Acres for District 14 was 639.60 for 23-24 EMAC allocation. So not much increase between the two years, yet a 56% increase? What am I missing?

Assessable acreage *should* mean the total number of acres in the CDD.

If Assessable acreage increased it means the size of the CDD increased. Normally, this would be impossible. However, since CDD15 is still under construction it could still be growing. There are 639 acres currently included and platted for CDD15 but perhaps there are about 740 more acres that will eventually become part of CDD15. It could be that this land is expected to be added in 24-25 and so it is part of the maintenance assessment but since it is not yet platted it is not included in the list of "units" and their assigned assessments.

The 56% increase has nothing to do with an increase in area, it has to do with an increase in maintenance costs, particularly landscaping. If in 23-24 it was anticipated that very little land in CDD14 and CDD15 would be planted and require maintenance then the cost to EMAC for that work would be low and the allocation to the CDDs would be low. Now that the land *is* planted there is more recurring landscaping work (mowing?) required so the cost to EMAC increased and the allocation to the CDDs increased.

CDD14 required a 56% increase in maintenance revenue in order to cover increased costs including the increased allocation to EMAC. Since CDD14 was completely platted, each home saw this 56% increase.

CDD15 saw a 230% increase in costs over 23-24. However, since this is the first year CDD15 homes will be paying maintenance fees and since CDD15 appears to be not fully platted, there will be an average charge of $707 per home.

The $707 amount in CDD15 will only raise about half of the required funds but your numbers above imply that only about half of CDD15 has been included in the maintenance fee calculation. The other half of the required funds is coming from the Developer (NOT part of the $2M additional contribution). This makes sense since the Developer is still in the process of developing the second half of CDD15. I would expect that by the end of 24-25 CDD15 will show a Phase 2 with an additional 740 acres and 3,600+ homes.

NOTE: This is all my take on what I see in the budget documents and the allocation document you linked above. A good portion of it may be incorrect, but it seems to make sense with what we've seen today.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The video linked in the other thread gives a different explanation for the increase. It is not that the area of the District increased but the area requiring maintenance increased. According to the video, much of the area being maintained by the ECDD/EMAC was dirt in 23-24 which does not cost anything to mow. In 24-25 that same area is now turf which requires mowing and maintenance and higher contributions to the EMAC fund.

You point out that that the number of homes/acre (or acre/home) is approximately the same across many of the CDDs while the cost is significantly higher in CDD14 and CDD15. In other threads there have been complaints that the lots the homes sit on are actually smaller: homes are closer to the street, lanais are closer together, etc. If that is true then that means there is more common space in CDD14 and CDD15 which means more maintenance by someone other than the homeowner. This could explain why the cost of landscaping maintenance is higher in those districts.

You looked at the CDD14 costs but not at the CDD15 costs. CDD15 also did not grow in land area and CDD15 also paid approximately $450K to EMAC in 23-24. However, CDD15 is paying $2.5M to EMAC in 24-25, twice what CDD14 is paying for the same overall land area. If anything, the CDD15 allocation might be high though this may not be the case and may be due to CDD15 having more common area to maintain.

Now that is analysis. The attached pdf is only DATA! People trying to pass off data collection as analysis irked me when working. I have a server full of data, it doesn't magically become analysis by being retrieved. 10K filling MD&A analysis falls into this category as well, regurgitation of data presented as analysis. . bs

Big difference!

Nice explanation Bill!

[BlueStarAirlines]

I strongly suggest you watch GoldWingnut's video on this topic ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rs8CxAwiKA ). He explains it all and is easily understandable. The fact that this post was made after his video seems to indicate the video has yet to be seen.

[Goldwingnut]

Assessable acres are the properties that actually pay taxes; so, things like the roadways, right-of-way, walking paths, retention ponds, storm drains, storm drain lift stations, and any other properties owned by a governmental body are not Assessable Acres. With the exception of the roadways, all of these non-assessable properties are what the Maintenance Assessment is there to pay to maintain.