[justjim]

Originally Posted by Mikeod

I think that plan creates unnecessary additional complications. The DS now has to have two different subscription rates and that adds accounting steps. And the distribution people have to have two different stacks for the delivery people. They now have to have two different bundles of papers in the car/truck and remember which house gets the insert and which doesn't.


To me, the better solution is to remove the Rec News from the paper entirely. Create an online edition that is updated weekly and publish print copies to be distributed to all the rec centers, sales offices, and any other business that wishes to have them. This allows those that have online capability to get theirs and those who prefer to hold a paper copy to have theirs.

I like your proposal.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by eyc234

And poof it just appears from the CLOUD! Get a cost of this work, then see if it feasible.

It'd take around 40 hours total to create the interactive database template for anyone who isn't already a web designer, maybe 10 hours for anyone who is.

It might take 20-40 hours total to fill in the initial data in the database, including all the clubs, contact names/numbers, any events that don't typically change and those schedules, etc.

It'd take around 1 hour per week to feed new data into the template and press the "update" button.

There's really not a lot of work involved, beyond the initial page creation.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

Why would it need its own website? The Villages has a website. It can be made a page on that site. They already own the domain.

Can't use Thevillages.com web site, that is a privately owned commercial enterprise that has no affiliation with the amenities that are owned by the local government Sumpter Landing Community Development District.

Can't mix the public and private money.

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

For the sake of accuracy the actual number in the budget for the Rec News is $208,656 north of CR466 and $448,224 south of CR466 for a total of $656,880. The remaining amount in the budget is for the printing and publication of the rest of the printed materials, forms, and paperwork necessary to run the amenities.

The Recreation News is included in the Amenity Purchase as an asset and has certain intrinsic values that add to the value of the amenities. The paper Rec News has the ability to reach 100% of the population/target audience and does not rely on the user possessing the hardware and ability access the media unlike an on-line version. Without residents using the amenities they lose much of their value, value that is of primary interest to the bond holders and the underwriters.

The Rec News is available on-line and efforts are being made to improve it as an on-line resource. Even putting it on-line has significant costs that cannot be avoided, layout and design of the publications represent a substantial portion of the costs involved in its production and distribution. The technology side of making it available on-line is also very expensive to ensure usability and reliability. While the internet may be free for the end user, the content providers pay significant costs to provide their content. Most websites rely on advertising dollars to offset this cost, no advertising is included in the districtgov.org website and therefore all costs must be paid directly.

Well said.

Something that I have not seen in the 'Great Rec News Debate of 2019' is:

1. Just how much would be saved by elimitaing a portion of the printing? Most agree that printed copies in rec centers makes sense. I wonder if the savings are as much as we might think.

2. Do the savings justify removing a service that some residents have said they use, and would like to keep. Perhaps a small percentage of residents, but they are there.

[CWGUY]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

Can't use Thevillages.com web site, that is a privately owned commercial enterprise that has no affiliation with the amenities that are owned by the local government Sumpter Landing Community Development District.

Can't mix the public and private money.

What about...... Village Community Development Districts or
VCDD Rec News

and

No P in Sumter

Do people realize it's online already. Recreation News

[anothersteve]

Originally Posted by CWGUY

Do people realize it's online already. Recreation News

I love the way you get to turn the pages

Steve

I say publish it once a month.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

Can't use Thevillages.com web site, that is a privately owned commercial enterprise that has no affiliation with the amenities that are owned by the local government Sumpter Landing Community Development District.

Can't mix the public and private money.

They already do use the Villages.com website. Or rather, that website already includes a link to it.

I didn't even notice that til just now, reading the posts directly below yours.

So it's already there. It's even updated weekly, which is awesome.

Now all that needs to be done, is a notice sent to EVERY household in the Villages, that it's available online already, and here's the link to it...

AND if they want a printout they are welcome to do so..

AND if they don't have computer access or printer access, the Rec centers themselves have physical copies available. Sales offices obviously already have access to them, since they can access the website.

I would suggest, however, that a PDF or printable version be made available to anyone who wants it. I don't think the version on TheVillages.com is printable.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

Well said.

Something that I have not seen in the 'Great Rec News Debate of 2019' is:

1. Just how much would be saved by elimitaing a portion of the printing? Most agree that printed copies in rec centers makes sense. I wonder if the savings are as much as we might think.

2. Do the savings justify removing a service that some residents have said they use, and would like to keep. Perhaps a small percentage of residents, but they are there.

From Goldwingnut's post:

For the sake of accuracy the actual number in the budget for the Rec News is $208,656 north of CR466 and $448,224 south of CR466 for a total of $656,880.

If, as you suggest, maybe only "a small percentage" of residents even appreciate and use the copy brought to them every single week, well let's say that "small percentage" is a whole 25%. That's pretty significant, and not small at all. Let's say that only $500,000 of that $656,880 is for the printed version, and the other $156,880 is for the web-based version.

$125,000 is what you'd need accommodate that 25% who actually want the Rec news delivered to them, meaning you'd save $375,000 per year, and however many pieces of paper are in one week's worth of bulletin times 3/4 of however many households are in the Villages.

Maybe it should not be part of the weekly paper but a separate subscription for those who want it, decreasing the number of copies that need to be printed and subsidizing the cost.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by fw102807

Maybe it should not be part of the weekly paper but a separate subscription for those who want it, decreasing the number of copies that need to be printed and subsidizing the cost.

I suggested that, but someone pointed out the logistics in keeping "people who want it and subscribe to the Daily sun" and "people who don't want it and subscribe to the Daily sun" separate in their trucks and remembering which package to put in front of whose house.

As it stands now, they have addresses, and everyone gets one of whatever is in the truck/car.

Personally I don't see the issue; up here people have all types of subscriptions: "monday through friday only," "weekend only, "Sunday only," "Weekend plus Thursday only." If the driver can figure out who gets what when for all those options, surely he can figure out in the Villages which house gets which package once a week.

But I can see that it would be an additional responsibility so I conceded the point.

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

From Goldwingnut's post:


If, as you suggest, maybe only "a small percentage" of residents even appreciate and use the copy brought to them every single week, well let's say that "small percentage" is a whole 25%. That's pretty significant, and not small at all. Let's say that only $500,000 of that $656,880 is for the printed version, and the other $156,880 is for the web-based version.

$125,000 is what you'd need accommodate that 25% who actually want the Rec news delivered to them, meaning you'd save $375,000 per year, and however many pieces of paper are in one week's worth of bulletin times 3/4 of however many households are in the Villages.

Delivering the rec news to 1/4 of the people would cost more than 1/4 of the current cost.

[Viperguy]

FREE Website!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

Delivering the rec news to 1/4 of the people would cost more than 1/4 of the current cost.

Nitpicking and totally obfuscating the point.

The point, is that there will be "a savings" to subscription-only. Whatever that savings is, whether $50 or $50,000 or $350,000 - can be used on other things.

Currently they cannot be used on other things, because they're busy being used on waste (meaning - the savings portion of the expense - is being used on printing and distributing something to people who don't actually want it).

[CWGUY]

Originally Posted by cgilcreast

FREE Website!

Here it is..... all 56 pages.

Recreation News

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by CWGUY

Here it is..... all 56 pages.

Recreation News

So, what is wrong with this? Does John Rohan know about this site??