[Lottoguy]

Don't kid yourself about the "rural setting" excuse. They didn't install the concrete ribbon on those golf cart paths because it would save lots of money. Without that ribbon those paths will not hold up over time. Sometime down the road they will have to fix them.

[merrymini]

The cement ribbons absolutely help keep the asphalt together. I used to live in a town that had a lot of road with no curbing and the asphalt starts to break away at the edges. In this climate, with plants growing 11 months out of the the year versus 3 months, this could be an issue and will be in future. I have no problem with people making money. There would be no businesses without profit and the products we want would not exist without it. There are a great many issues south of 44 that do not attract me to buy there but from what I have heard, the bonds are sky high. Admittedly, I have not done the math, but a lot of unbuildable land means higher bonds I assume.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by merrymini

The cement ribbons absolutely help keep the asphalt together. I used to live in a town that had a lot of road with no curbing and the asphalt starts to break away at the edges. In this climate, with plants growing 11 months out of the the year versus 3 months, this could be an issue and will be in future. I have no problem with people making money. There would be no businesses without profit and the products we want would not exist without it. There are a great many issues south of 44 that do not attract me to buy there but from what I have heard, the bonds are sky high. Admittedly, I have not done the math, but a lot of unbuildable land means higher bonds I assume.

Whole lot of assumptions…………

[Fastskiguy]

Originally Posted by Oldragbagger

Sis is wrong. The paths down here are perfectly fine.

Yes

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Singerlady

You said it. Unfortunately the Firm cheapened a lot south of 44: lot sizes, your MMP, shorter driveways, utilities in front yard, size of houses, narrower streets, etc.

The lot sizes are about the same. The newer homes south of 44 have shorter driveways because people wanted bigger back yards. They didn't want the "kissing lanais". They simply moved the houses closer to the street to accommodate that request...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by rsmurano

This is how propaganda starts, someone told someone told someone and now it’s true.
Before posting you should have 1st hand knowledge.
The paths in the south are much more thought out and look better than the paths north of 44. Down south here, we have curbs when needed. We don’t have grass growing in our paths, and all of our paths are made for golf carts, not like the paths north of 466a. If you go head on to a path after crossing issuing a street where the gates are north of 466a, there is a harsh dip, which you don’t have down south. How about the accid by waiting to happen path north of 466 where the golf carts share the road with Morse? We don’t have that here, we are off the major roads. (Did the county vote yet to get rid of the Morse golf cart path yet?).

Have you driven down to St Catherine? Golf carts most certainly DO share a major road (Meggison) with cars...

[John Mayes]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Have you driven down to St Catherine? Golf carts most certainly DO share a major road (Meggison) with cars...

Actually, it’s Citrus Grove but you are correct. From the CG gate down through, at least Newall, the path is shared with Meggison. I assume it will be that all the way to 470 when finished.

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Have you driven down to St Catherine? Golf carts most certainly DO share a major road (Meggison) with cars...

Looks like they switch to Diamond lanes, are they restricted for 2 lane roads?

[VApeople]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Have you driven down to St Catherine? Golf carts most certainly DO share a major road (Meggison) with cars...

It is the same thing north of 44 on Moyer, Hillsborough, and Pinellas.

At least the walking path along Meggison is not as close to the road as the concrete sidewalks are north of 44.

Another good feature in the neighborhoods south of 44 as that dogs are not allowed at the postal stations and rec areas. Every time I go to our postal station in Osceola Hills, there are people walking thru the grass letting their dogs crap.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

The lack of ribbon burning and the degradation of the MMPs was brought up 2 or maybe 3 years ago when I was serving on the PWAC. I expressed my concerns over the long term stability and costs for maintaining them. I made the point that the lack of ribbon curbing was such a concern north of 44 for the roads in the PV and CYV communities that the individual CDD ended up funding the installations in these communities. I questioned why they were not included and could we mandate that they be installed going forward.

District staff said they would investigate and get back to us…
Two responses were received:
1. They examined the MMP and didn’t find any significant degradation except in one area around Bradford where heavy trucks had damaged the path and their was being repaired. - A complete load of BS, before I made my comments at the PWAC meeting I had already ridden down miles of the MMPs and seen dozens of locations where there was degradation and encroachment of the grass into the surface, I had also spent the evening of the Water Lilly bridge movement over the turnpike at the Water Lilly RC area and saw numerous areas were the walking paths had started to degrade after only a few months. This has been, is, and will continue to be an issue with the walking and MMPs south of 44. Eventually, these paths will either have to be resurfaced/rebuilt and/or ribbon curbing installed to stabilize them like they are north of 44. Either way it will come at considerable expense to the residents.
2. The ribbon curbing was eliminated as a cost savings measure. There are many more miles of walking and MMPs in the areas south of 44 than elsewhere in our community. This is due to the geography of the area and the large number of wetlands areas that were preserved resulting in longer paths and the addition of miles walking paths throughout the newer areas. It was a trade off, more paths or ribbon curbing. Had the ribbon curbing been installed it would have had a significant impact on the bonds that were issued for construction. (The bonds south of 44 are consistent with those north of 44 on a $/acre to developer, once you account for time and inflation over the many years, you cannot compare the raw numbers without looking at the rising cost/acre caused by inflation. But I’ve had this discussion several times here so no more rehash.). The walking and MMPs meet the “state standards”, I however argued that they didn’t meet the long established, but unwritten, “Villages Standards” for these paths, so the ribbon curbing isn’t mandated, and therefore not installed. A business decision, good short term but bad long term for the residents.

Because of the wetlands areas and grasses that abut the walking and MMPs the need for the stabilization provided by the ribbon curbing is needed more so in the areas south of 44 than they are needed in the existing areas north of 44.

There is a lot of validity to their side of the argument, however it comes down to pay-me-now-or-pay-me-later; well it looks like “now” is the long anticipated “later”.

As the MMP maintenance falls under the PWA as common infrastructure, all the residents south of 466 will eventually have to foot the bill for the PWF costs of repairs/upgrades. This was one of the many discussion points and reasons why PWAC2 was so favored by all the signatories of the PWA, well almost all. When the bill comes due for this, as it will eventually, all of us north of 44 must be sure to thank the board of CDD7 for their efforts in railroading the agreement with false and misguided intentions and not even taking the time to vote on the new agreement. Sorry for this side track, but it is a valid point that needed to be said.

The real question at hand needs to be will the CDD 12 & 13 boards and PWAC take the necessary actions now, to “fix” this issue now or will these paths be left to fester, rot, and decay until someone gets injured and they are forced to take decisive action to upgrade, at a much higher cost. Let your voices be heard now or let your wallet be hurt later.

Once again, thank you, Don for taking the time to enlighten us with actual facts. I have a couple of questions from this part of your post:
"As the MMP maintenance falls under the PWA as common infrastructure, all the residents south of 466 will eventually have to foot the bill for the PWF costs of repairs/upgrades. "

I looked but couldn't find what PWF stands for. Sorry if I missed it in the post, but couldn't locate it.
And to be sure I understand correctly, ALL MMPs, including the newer ones fabricated without concrete ribbons, are under one entity when it comes to maintenance ? So, even though I live between 466 and 466A, when the newer, more cheaply constructed MMPs built south of 44 deteriorate to the point of requiring intervention, I will be among those who will be charged in order to finance the repairs. Is that correct?

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Have you driven down to St Catherine? Golf carts most certainly DO share a major road (Meggison) with cars...

Also Marsh Bend Trail.

[vintageogauge]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

It still baffles me why someone who doesn’t live south of 44, probably never visits south of 44 feels the need to bash everything south of 44 every chance he gets.

It might not be jealousy but it sure looks like some sort of personal insecurity.

I agree, is there anyone living down here complaining about the lack of "ribbons" I think not. I do know there is a lot of complaining about a new million dollar path that is too narrow to walk comfortably on but wait, that's north of 44 and those that are complaining live up there, those that live down here are not bashing it at all.

[RCMill531@comcast.net]

We love the beauty south of 44, including the golf paths.

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by Fastskiguy

Yes

No. The paths are not fine. I spoke with my sister again today and she said she started to notice the grass growing into the asphalt pretty much right away after the paths were built. This is the reason she says the paths look awful now.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by Laker14

Once again, thank you, Don for taking the time to enlighten us with actual facts. I have a couple of questions from this part of your post:
"As the MMP maintenance falls under the PWA as common infrastructure, all the residents south of 466 will eventually have to foot the bill for the PWF costs of repairs/upgrades. "

I looked but couldn't find what PWF stands for. Sorry if I missed it in the post, but couldn't locate it.
And to be sure I understand correctly, ALL MMPs, including the newer ones fabricated without concrete ribbons, are under one entity when it comes to maintenance ? So, even though I live between 466 and 466A, when the newer, more cheaply constructed MMPs built south of 44 deteriorate to the point of requiring intervention, I will be among those who will be charged in order to finance the repairs. Is that correct?

PWF - Project Wide Fund, it is the fund that all the members CDDs of the PWAC pay into from their respective maintenance assessments. These funds are combined and used to pay for the maintenance of the common areas. Things like cutting the grass and maintaining the storm water retention ponds. The Project Wide Agreement and its associated Project Wide Fund allow for substantial savings in contract and administrative costs by letting larger more comprehensive contracts and achieving economies of scale. Without the PWA/PWF each individual CDD would have to seek individual maintenance contracts. A few years ago while serving on the PWAC & CDD10 board, I did some digging, comparing, and calculating of the costs with and without the PWA in place, the results were that each member CDD is saving between 12% and 16% in their operating costs due to the PWA economies of scale and reduced administrative costs.

Regarding your second & third questions, the answer is Yes you will get to help pay for any of the upkeep costs, and you can thank CDD7's board for that privilege. Had they approved the 4th revision of the PWA, a PWAC2/PWA2 would have been formed south of 44 and that cost would have been carried by CDDs 12, 13, 14, and beyond and not the CDDs north of SR44. But of course, CDD7's chairman was smarter than the 42 other supervisors who approved of the new agreement and decided not to even allow it to be put it to a vote.