[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by twoplanekid

While I can understand the reasons for the Project Wide fees, District 10 Project Wide fees account for some 64% of the projected District 10 spending for 18-19. That’s taking $2,195,000 out of the budget. I also am aware that District 10 has one representative on the Project wide committee. So, we have a little say as to how the Project Wide fees are spent.

Still, the maintenance fees we pay in our District should be spent in our District. That’s what the State of Florida originally intended when they established CDDs. It’s hard for me to get over that feeling.

The Project Wide Fund actually works in all of our favor in the long run. Because of the way the allocation process is set up nearly all of the monies contributed by each district are utilized to maintain the areas within the respective district.

What the PWF allows for is simplification of budgeting and allows the combined districts requirements to take advantage of the economies of scale of letting one large contract for a service instead of 10 smaller contract. This also allows for a consistency of service between the districts. The fact that the majority of the maintenance funding for each district goes to the PWF shows that we are able to take advantage of these economies for a majority of the services.

The other way that the PWF works in each districts' favor is for the maintenance of common properties and special projects. If a piece of district property has an expense the cost is distributed among all the districts. For example, if a pumping station in your district, CDD10, were to take a lighting hit that destroyed the pump, building, and emergency generator causing $500K of damage, CDD10 would not absorb all of this cost, it would come out of the PWF and all the districts would in essence would pay a proportionate share of the costs. An example of a special project would be the golf cart traffic light at the Colony area, this is in CDD7 but obviously residents from other districts reap the benefits of the traffic light, so the costs are shared by all. Year-for-year, each district does not receive back 100% of their contribution to the PWF, some years it will be more than 100%, some years less.

The need for the PWF goes back to the essential requirement that all no district (and its residents) would be unfairly burdened or advantaged at the expense of another. Without these interlocal governmental agreements the need for special maintenance assessments in each district would become commonplace every time an additional expense comes up.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by twoplanekid

in my post ->

While I can understand the reasons for the Project Wide fees,

It’s hard for me to get over that feeling.


I understand your point yet hate to see larger amounts taken out of the local CDD every year going to the Project Wide fund where our local control is minimal.

64% of CDD 10 funds are now going to the Project Wide fees. Some might say that we should do away with CDDs and dump all of the monies into a city wide The Villages fund. However, that would take an act of the Florida State Legislature which will never happen.

And that is a good thing...………………………………...

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

The Project Wide Fund actually works in all of our favor in the long run. Because of the way the allocation process is set up nearly all of the monies contributed by each district are utilized to maintain the areas within the respective district.

What the PWF allows for is simplification of budgeting and allows the combined districts requirements to take advantage of the economies of scale of letting one large contract for a service instead of 10 smaller contract. This also allows for a consistency of service between the districts. The fact that the majority of the maintenance funding for each district goes to the PWF shows that we are able to take advantage of these economies for a majority of the services.

The other way that the PWF works in each districts' favor is for the maintenance of common properties and special projects. If a piece of district property has an expense the cost is distributed among all the districts. For example, if a pumping station in your district, CDD10, were to take a lighting hit that destroyed the pump, building, and emergency generator causing $500K of damage, CDD10 would not absorb all of this cost, it would come out of the PWF and all the districts would in essence would pay a proportionate share of the costs. An example of a special project would be the golf cart traffic light at the Colony area, this is in CDD7 but obviously residents from other districts reap the benefits of the traffic light, so the costs are shared by all. Year-for-year, each district does not receive back 100% of their contribution to the PWF, some years it will be more than 100%, some years less.

The need for the PWF goes back to the essential requirement that all no district (and its residents) would be unfairly burdened or advantaged at the expense of another. Without these interlocal governmental agreements the need for special maintenance assessments in each district would become commonplace every time an additional expense comes up.

Thank you for your fact based posts. It is refreshing to not read, "I think" or "maybe" based posts.
BTW your videos are fantastic!!

[twoplanekid]

Caring that thought further, what % of funds should local CDDs control if master contracts and centralized budgeting are more efficient. It’s stated on the District web site that the Project Wide Advisory Committee, one supervisor from Districts from 5 thru 11 will provide input, explore issues and provide advice and recommendations to the SLCDD on issues related to the maintenance of Project Wide Improvements and to provide input, explore issues and provide recommendations on issues related to SLCDD owned Amenity facilities. So, real control still rests with SLCDD?

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Thank you for your fact based posts. It is refreshing to not read, "I think" or "maybe" based posts.
BTW your videos are fantastic!!

Thanks I try to provide the facts on the real issues, what I put in the videos is based on investigation, observations, a little deductive reasoning, and a sprinkling of logic. The videos are on hold for a week or two until I get the drone back from repair. Had a little accident and did some damage to the camera gimbal, let's just say that "the stupid shall be punished".

[golf2140]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

Thanks I try to provide the facts on the real issues, what I put in the videos is based on investigation, observations, a little deductive reasoning, and a sprinkling of logic. The videos are on hold for a week or two until I get the drone back from repair. Had a little accident and did some damage to the camera gimbal, let's just say that "the stupid shall be punished".

Great posts. I just have one question I hope you can answer. Why are all the districts not included?

[Barefoot]

Goldwing, a lot of us depend on people like you to provide us with insightful comments.
Thank you.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by twoplanekid

Caring that thought further, what % of funds should local CDDs control if master contracts and centralized budgeting are more efficient. It’s stated on the District web site that the Project Wide Advisory Committee, one supervisor from Districts from 5 thru 11 will provide input, explore issues and provide advice and recommendations to the SLCDD on issues related to the maintenance of Project Wide Improvements and to provide input, explore issues and provide recommendations on issues related to SLCDD owned Amenity facilities. So, real control still rests with SLCDD?

Great questions TwoPlane, I'll try to answer them.

What percentage will depend on the composition of the district, how much of the district property fall under Project Wide directions, how much burden is put on the central district office for services, how many deed compliance issues and ARC submissions there are, utility costs (think street lights here), district specific engineering services, irrigation water and maintenance costs (think in cul de sacs and villa entrances), and budgetary reserves and working capital status. There is no set percentage but the big determiner will be the amount of public/green areas. Because of the amount of green space in CDD12 one can assume that it will be a higher percentage that the other districts. It is not unreasonable for the majority of the funds to go towards the PWF to cover the majority of the big ticket items in the budget.

Resolution 13-05 established the PWAC in 2013 to provide direction on project wide issues. To date there has not been an instance were SLCDD did not follow the direction given by PWAC, but yes, SLCDD still has the ultimate power on the Project Wide Fund and issues.

Similarly Resolution 17-11 empowered the PWAC with the same responsibilities as the Amenities Authority Committee for amenities south of CR466 as the AAC has north of CR466. The charter for the AAC was the blueprint for the PWAC amenities responsibilities, in fact they read almost identical. One of the most important changes that PWAC implemented to R17-11 at the request of the CDD10 representative is the final statement of section 3 of R17-11 "Should the SLCDD not agree with the PWAC recommendations and if a delay will not adversely affect the Amenity Fund or operations, a joint meeting shall be scheduled between SLCDD and PWAC to discuss the Amenity recommendation prior to final action of the SLCDD." It's not as strong a mediation requirement as was desired but it does give PWAC an avenue of redress over a SLCDD veto, something we did not have before.

In both these responsibilities of the PWAC, yes SLCDD does have the ultimate control.

One has to of course ask the final question, why even have PWAC if they have no "authority". The answer to this, in my opinion, is simple and lies with the election process of the SLCDD Supervisors. In the residential CDDs at a given point the supervisors are elected by the registered voters of the CDD, prior to this point they are "land owner" elected. In the commercial CDDs there are no residents so all the Supervisors are land owner elected. This means that each land owner is give 1 vote for each acre or portion there of in the election, a land owner with 4 1/4 acres of land has 5 votes in the election. In the case of SLCDD the majority land owner is The Villages of Lake-Sumter (or one of their many other companies) or as they are commonly known as "the developer". So the developer basically, within the bounds of state laws, controls the SLCDD and as such controls the Project Wide responsibilities and the amenities between CR466 and SR44. Back to the original question, why even have the PWAC? Simple, they do what PWAC tell them to do, if something goes amiss they can look back and say "it's not our fault, this is what PWAC told us to do". Since PWAC comes from the elected officials of the residential CDDs, they are carrying out the residents wishes. They can pass the buck when things go bad. This is just my opinion, but if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...

[twoplanekid]

As others have stated, thanks for the great replies and insight!

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by golf2140

Great posts. I just have one question I hope you can answer. Why are all the districts not included?

Another good question, this one I'm not 100% sure on the answer as I focus my efforts on the areas south of CR466.

As I understand it, the districts north of CR466 at some point in their history made the decision to be responsibility for their own district properties and not have a interlocal government agreement for common maintenance and benefit. CDD4 being in Marion County may have had some play in this decision due to all the road residential road maintenance fall to the district unlike in Sumter County were only the villa roads fall to the district for maintenance.

As for amenities, the original amenities sale (north of CR466) was followed by a law suit with some damages awarded and the establishment of the AAC.

Again, I'm no expert on the north end, I only looked into the history and studied it's workings for a short while 4 years ago after I moved to The Villages. I didn't dwell on it much after I realized it organization and operations were basically irrelevant to the working south of CR466 where I live. No offense is meant to the residents north of CR466 but it is sufficiently different and separate to south of CR466 that it didn't matter much to me to learn. I have too many other thing rattling around in my head to try to recall all these old details at this point.

What is important to all of the residents both north and south of CR466 is that there are agreements in place requiring equal treatment and access regardless of the amenity and residence location. The easy example of what cannot happen is that someone golfing on the opposite side of CR466 of where they own a home cannot be charged a $5 cart fee while someone from the amenity side of CR466 is only charged $4. This kind of treatment cannot occur.

If someone knows the facts (not an opinion or an "I think") on exactly what transpired and why north of CR466 please educate us all.

Sorry I can't provide a better answer.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by twoplanekid

As others have stated, thanks for the great replies and insight!

My pleasure.

Do you have any new flyover pictures yet? Would love to see them.

[Marathon Man]

Goldwingnut is a breath of fresh air. I attend PWAC meetings and my district meetings to get information directly from the source. I DO NOT rely on the on-line "news" or discussions on TOTV for information (I can assure you it is often incomplete and inaccurate). I wish more would take the time to:

1- Attend Resident Academy and learn how this place actually works.
2- Attend their monthly CDD board meetings.
3- Attend a few PWAC or ACC meetings.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by twoplanekid

While I can understand the reasons for the Project Wide fees, District 10 Project Wide fees account for some 64% of the projected District 10 spending for 18-19. That’s taking $2,195,000 out of the budget. I also am aware that District 10 has one representative on the Project wide committee. So, we have a little say as to how the Project Wide fees are spent.

Still, the maintenance fees we pay in our District should be spent in our District. That’s what the State of Florida originally intended when they established CDDs. It’s hard for me to get over that feeling.

I missed part of your comments earlier, CDD10 has exactly the same say at the PWAC meeting as every other district represented there. All are equal and all only have one representative. Remember, the project wide funds are spent mainly on work common to all the districts. This collective sourcing provides for better pricing and consistency of services across the development.

[EPutnam1863]

Goldwing Nut says "...mob rule mentality will surely ruin both this community and our retirements"

It already has.

[JSR22]

Originally Posted by EPutnam1863

Goldwing Nut says "...mob rule mentality will surely ruin both this community and our retirements"

It already has.

This community is no where near ruined. I have a wonderful home, plenty of activities and terrific friends. Why would you criticize The Villages when you don't live here?