Originally Posted by Mikeod (Post 1668873)

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.

Originally Posted by eyc234 (Post 1669024)

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

Originally Posted by Jazuela (Post 1668991)

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.

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut (Post 1668901)

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.

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut (Post 1669048)

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.

Originally Posted by CWGUY (Post 1669051)

:)
Do people realize it's online already. Recreation News

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut (Post 1669048)

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.

Originally Posted by Marathon Man (Post 1669049)

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.

Originally Posted by fw102807 (Post 1669077)

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.

Originally Posted by Jazuela (Post 1669066)

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.

Originally Posted by Marathon Man (Post 1669160)

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

Originally Posted by cgilcreast (Post 1669170)

FREE Website!

Originally Posted by CWGUY (Post 1669181)

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

Recreation News :)