The VCCDD isn’t so sure that it wants to proceed with the formation of the Resident Authority Board (RAB). 

At least that is the sentiment of Gary Moyer, VCCDD board member and Vice President of Development for the developer’s corporation.  Mr. Moyer is also the architect of the developer’s idea for the Straw Vote as well as for the concept of the Central District governments in The Villages.

At the December 1 VCCDD meeting, Mr. Moyer showed visible irritation with comments and questions from residents about details surrounding formation of the RAB.

Current Board Members? - The first point of contention was whether the initially appointed RAB board members have to be current members of the various boards which will appoint these initial board members.  Thus, whether the appointed RAB board member from, for example CDD1, had to be a current board member of CDD1.

Mr. Moyer contends that they must be a member of the appointing board.  He contends that it was always planned that the initial appointed RAB board members would be on the boards of the appointing residential CDDs.

The POA has reviewed the pertinent material, including the original two letters printed in the Daily Sun, as well as the official ballot used in the election. 

We can see no requirement stating that the appointed board members must currently be on the appointing boards.

Some of the arguments made by residents in that December 1 VCCDD meeting were that there is such a great pool of talent here in The Villages, that the RAB could benefit from selecting the appointed board members from outside the appointing boards.

It was pointed out by audience members that current CDD board members are busy with ongoing official duties on their own boards, and that it might be an overload for them to take on the additional and probably time-consuming responsibilities of the RAB. 

The comment was made for Mr. Moyer’s argument that the appointed board members should be selected from existing board members who weren’t so busy.  It was quite disappointing to hear this insulting comment.

The POA believes that the VCCDD should be willing to accept qualified non-board candidates who come forward, show a commitment to serve on the RAB, and are in favor of the concept of resident-controlled decision-making.  The POA views this as most important. 

And, we would urge all residents to contact their CDD representatives to campaign for appointing initial supervisors who exemplify these ideals.  The alternative of having Nay-Sayers on the RAB is unacceptable.

Conflict-Of-Interest? - The second point of contention was whether Florida State Conflict-Of-Interest regulations would apply to the new RAB board members.

The basic point here was that the RAB would be created under Chapter 163 F. S. which does not have the Conflict-Of-Interest exemption as does Chapter 190 F. S., which governs and regulates Community Development Districts (CDDs).  It is this Chapter 190 exemption that allows employees and business associates of the developer to serve on the VCCDD board in what would otherwise be a Conflict-Of-Interest situation.

So, without the exemption, the question was whether developer employees and business associates would be allowed to serve on the RAB?   The residents at the December 1 meeting suggested that this should not be allowed in what at the very least would give the appearance of a Conflict-Of-Interest.

If the VCCDD agreed that the Conflict-Of-Interest issue was real and important, then VCCDD supervisors such as Mr. Moyer should not be allowed to serve on the RAB. 

This is compounded by the fact that Mr. Moyer is an employee of the developer.  If he were to serve on the RAB, he would be, in effect, negotiating with himself as a member of the VCCDD and also with his employer, the developer of The Villages.

Several in the audience recognized that as a compound Conflict-Of-Interest situation.

Mr. Moyer and other VCCDD supervisors countered that the Conflict-Of-Interest regulations are meant to address situations like, for example, embezzlement.  Since this kind of situation is not anticipated in serving on the RAB, Mr. Moyer suggested that the regulations would not need to apply to VCCDD members or developer employees serving on the RAB.

Several audience members questioned this reasoning as being flawed, too permissive, and ultimately controlling..

It was suggested that the VCCDD request a written opinion from the board’s attorney.  The attorney, Mr. Bruce Duncan, voiced the opinion that the Conflict-Of-Interest regulations would apply to the RAB and there would be no exemptions.

Mr. Moyer said at this point that “he” would not want to establish the RAB if this was the case.  He then withdrew his motion that would have started the process to form the RAB.

The attorney has been asked to research the issue and may have the written opinion ready for review at the January 5 meeting.

Sunshine Laws? - The third point of contention was whether the initial appointed supervisors of the RAB would be covered by Florida Sunshine laws that require full open-door discussions about all board matters.

The feeling expressed by the VCCDD was that Sunshine laws would apply.

However, the point could be made that the initial appointed board is not yet an official board under Chapter 163 F. S. and the Sunshine laws might not apply. 

It was not clear what the situation or requirement really was.

Disenfranchisement? - A fourth point of uncertainty was brought up by Mr. Chico Mir about the disenfranchisement of Villagers who are foreign nationals or did not have their voting registration in The Villages. 

These people pay their property taxes and amenity fees, but were denied the opportunity to vote.  This was because the VCCDD decided to have the three counties put the Straw Vote measure on the election ballot on which only registered Florida voters living in the Villages could vote. 

Mr. Mir may have been signaling a legal challenge based on this disenfranchisement argument.  It is curious now that the VCCDD has, so to speak, lost the Straw Vote, that one of its sympathizers tries to advance this argument.  Especially given that the VCCDD was well-advised of this disenfranchisement problem on several occasions prior to the vote.

The Florida Hometown Democracy petition aims to give the voters control of the comprehensive plan revision process at the local level.  Below is a series of questions and answers from the Hometown Democracy movement’s internet website:  www.floridahometowndemocracy.com/ .

Q. Florida Hometown Democracy is launching a petition drive behind a proposed state constitutional amendment. What does it say and why is it needed?  This amendment lets voters decide whether their city or county comprehensive land use plan will be changed or adopted. Currently, city and county commissions make those decisions.  One goal of Florida ’s 1985 Growth Management Act is to encourage citizen participation. Some citizens are active in local planning; many more do not participate in the current process. The current process has failed Florida repeatedly. Florida ’s Hometown Democracy Amendment will guarantee local “ownership” of community plans at the ballot box. Because Floridians are stuck with the consequences of comprehensive plan changes, it makes sense that they should have the final say over proposed changes that can determine the destiny of their communities for generations to come.

Q. What is a Comprehensive Plan and what is it supposed to do?  A. In 1985 Florida adopted the “Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act,” popularly known as the Growth Management Act. This law was adopted to save Florida from bad, uncontrolled development and the parade of problems that inevitably follow it:

-   overcrowded schools

-   gridlocked roads

- overwhelmed municipal services like fire, police, garbage, sewage, hospitals

-   higher taxes, fees and utility costs

-  paved over open space and the wildlife habitat

-   declining, polluted water supply

-   widespread environmental degradation

-  eroded quality of life for the average Floridian

The Growth Management Act states that a proposed development that is not consistent with a comprehensive plan should not be approved by a local government. For example, if a proposed development will contribute to the overcrowding of a road or a school, or stress a community’s water supply, or devour wildlife habitat or green space, the proposed development is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and it should not be approved.

Q: How can I learn more about my local comp plan & what it means for my future?  Each of Florida ’s counties and municipalities has a local comprehensive land use plan. Some localities post the plan on the internet. Plans are widely available at public libraries, planning departments, and commission clerk’s offices. You can contact your local planning officials by telephone for more information about your local plan.

Q. Why aren’t Comprehensive Plans working?  Each town, city and county has a comprehensive land use plan that is designed to make sure uncontrolled, bad development does not ruin Floridians’ quality of life and the environment. But comprehensive plans can’t work if they can be easily changed. That’s what has happened in Florida . Comprehensive plans are being changed willy-nilly by vote of city or county commissions to accommodate development that shouldn’t happen. Changing a plan designation from agricultural to single-family residential, or increasing density on a parcel, or changing height restrictions on beachfront parcels to allow skyscrapers - all those require comp-plan amendments. It is well documented that developers are among the biggest campaign contributors to local politicians. The result has been predictable: most elected officials have never seen a development they wouldn’t approve. They just can’t say no to bad development proposals.  Did you know that when your city or county commission votes on a comprehensive plan change, those officials are exercising the people’s power? When a city or county council votes to approve a land use change, they are supposed to do so on the grounds that the change will not harm the public interest, which is defined very broadly to include all those concerns that make a place a good community: protection of public health, safety, quality of life, the beauty of a particular place and the environment. Too often local officials in Florida define the public interest as being the developers’ economic return. And other values for the community- quality of life, uncrowded schools, managed population growth, clean water - are not being given any consideration.  Too often our local officials forget that they are standing in the shoes of the people, forget that they are supposed to represent the entire community when a proposed land use change comes up for vote. Land use decisions affect people and communities more than almost any other governmental decision.

Q. How does Florida ’s Hometown Democracy Amendment work?  Florida ’s Hometown Democracy Amendment simply replaces county or city commission votes to adopt or change a comprehensive plan with votes by the citizens in a referendum election to be held at the same time as the general election. No special elections will be necessary. If a community so desires, a referendum could even be held by mail. Florida ’s Hometown Democracy Amendment gives greater stability and certainty to comprehensive plans by locking in existing land use categories and giving the keys to the voters.

THE VOTERS WILL DECIDE IF A PROPOSED CHANGE WILL MAKE THEIR COMMUNITY A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE. IF THE MAJORITY VOTES YES, THE CHANGE HAPPENS. IF THE MAJORITY VOTES NO, THE CHANGE DOESN’T HAPPEN.

Q. Doesn’t the Amendment conflict with our representative form of government—under our system aren’t these types of decisions supposed to be made by our elected officials?  The United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court have consistently held that there is no conflict between direct democracy and our representative form of government, and that the two have co-existed throughout our history. Voters are often called to vote directly on issues, e.g., bonding and taxing issues. It makes sense that voters should have the final say over decisions that will directly impact their community for years to come. Moreover, voters have a right to protect themselves when their elected officials make harmful decisions that do not reflect the public interest.

Q. What can be done about existing bad Comprehensive Plans?  Any citizen can propose a good comp-plan amendment now. Citizens will be able to use the Florida Hometown Democracy amendment pro-actively to protect or improve their area in some positive way, not simply to allow for more density. People will be interested in these proposed comp-plan amendments, though they feel disenfranchised in their own communities now. The public doesn’t view the exercise of their democratic rights as a burden. Comp plan amendments are “where the rubber hits the road”, and have a direct and daily impact on the lives of the people. People will be able to take responsibility for their communities. Florida is living proof of what happens when there's no accountability for what goes on. To get real growth management, the power structure is going to have to change, and there's going to have to be more accountability for decision-making.

I recently received a copy of the POA Bulletin and, as always, look forward to reading it as it sometimes provides information not available elsewhere. 

On the first page of the December Bulletin, it states in effect, the POA position is that anyone who was not for the change as indicated by the Straw Vote should not be included in the setting up the program. 

I am very offended by this and feel the POA owes those who do not follow your "party line" an apology.  This attitude reeks of the very concepts the POA had expressed themselves against over the years, and those being "Following the Party Line" and "Taxation without Representation." 

One of the most-asked series of questions at the Open Forum part of the POA monthly membership meetings is about the financial statements of the VCCDD.  The questions typically focus on the use of the Amenity Fee and asks: “Where does all the money go?”

We have followed the financial information going back to 2002 and present the VCCDD financial statements on the page at the right for your review.

This table shows the VCCDD Receipts and Disbursement details from the 2002-2003 fiscal year (ending September 30) all the way through the proposed budget for the 2006-2007 fiscal year.

This table is for the Recreation Amenities Division of the VCCDD.  It is this division that the recently-passed Straw Vote addresses.  In addition to the Recreation Amenities Division, there are additional parts of the overall VCCDD financial consolidation for Utilities and the Fire Rescue Service which are not shown here.

Twelve line items are shown for Recreation Amenity Division Receipts.  Notice that Amenity Fees account for $31.1 million, or 86% of total revenue of $36.2 million. 

The next biggest revenue line item is for the Management and Maintenance Supervisory fees for services provided by VCCDD staff. 

The third biggest line item is for guest fees charged on the executive golf courses.

Revenues show a 4% increase for the 2007 fiscal year.  Going back to the 2003 fiscal year, revenues have shown an average annual increase of 13% (15% for Amenity Fees and 5% for All Other).

The listing of Cash Disbursements shows a total of  31 line items.  Disbursements show a increase planned for 2007 of 8% and an average annual increase going back to 2003 of 13%.

Debt Service for 2007 is the largest item of Disbursements, accounting for $16.5 million, or 53% of the Amenity Fees total of $31.1 million.  Debt Service includes principal and interest on the bonds sold to finance the purchase of common properties from the developer.  This also includes debt service on the $4 million debt assumed by the VCCDD for the renovation of the Paradise Center .

The POA has long focused on the percentage of the Amenity Fees going for Debt Service, now standing at 53% after being as high as 59% in recent years.  The basic POA belief is that our Amenity Fees could be a lot lower if the money paid for common property purchases from the developer wasn’t so high based on inflated valuations for the property.   

After Debt Service, the next largest disbursement, at $5.2 million for 2007, is for Salaries and Benefits for the VCCDD staff.

After these items, large disbursements are planned for Repair and Landscape Maintenance ($2.6 million) and for Golf Course Maintenance ($2.5 million).

One of the concerns the POA has is that the VCCDD is not properly providing reserve funding ($1.2 million for 2007) for the inevitable Repairs and Replacements that will be needed in the future.  We saw with the Paradise Center that the VCCDD had no funds available for the renovation and had to borrow about $4 million for the job. 

Had the VCCDD properly planned for Repairs and Replacements in past years, the additional debt load might not have been needed.  Had the VCCDD not paid so much to the developer for the purchase of the common properties in earlier years, the additional debt load might not have been needed. 

If you have a problem related to financial losses due to scams by dishonest vendors or salespeople, you should consider contacting the Senior Sleuths for help at these Villages locations:

   Sumter and North Lake Counties

       Sheriff’s Annex -- Sumter County

       8035 E. County Road 466

       The Villages, FL  32162

Three POA members were inducted into the POA Hall of Fame at the December 20 general membership meeting.  The new honorees are:

Charlie Harvey

Carol Kope

Frank Renner

These three join six members of the POA Hall of Fame inducted previously.  These six previous honorees are:

Russ Day                Glen Swindler

Eva Hawkins           Jean Tuttle

William Rich, Jr.     Sadie Woollard

This honor is given annually to members, past or present, living or passed, who have made a significant contribution to the POA through the years. 

This is a substantial honor for a select few of the more than 20,000 members of the POA in the 31 years since its founding. 

In commenting on the contribution of this year’s honorees, POA President Joe Gorman said of each:

Charlie Harvey - Charlie has been a member of the POA for over 15 years.  He served as a Director for many years.  He was one of the many really committed volunteers who delivered the Bulletin in the early days on a “door to door” basis.  He was always there to help on any activity of the POA.  He is still active in the POA and has volunteered again to help with Bulletin delivery.  Charlie can be seen at many of the monthly VCCDD meetings with his wife Rose commenting on conditions in his community and the Rights of Residents. 

Carol Kope - Carol passed away in 2001, but her cheerful personality and dedicated work for the POA are remembered.  A long-term member, she served as POA Secretary and was the editor of the POA Bulletin for many years.  She coordinated the writing of Bulletin articles and the proofreading task.  She loved to polish and rearrange articles submitted by members, much to the chagrin of the submitters.  We had many late-night meetings at her home.  She was always smiling and pleasant and was a likeable person.  She was a significant factor in the recruitment of Joe Gorman as a POA member.  Her husband Mike continues to be active in the POA for the 50-50 drawings at our meetings.

The VHA will soon have an election for its officers.

Well, not exactly.

The VHA will soon have the appointment of its officers.

The VHA administrative board will actually select and appoint the new officers of the VHA.

To start this process, a slate of directors, hand-picked by the VHA hierarchy, will be elected unopposed by the membership in March. Then, these directors will meet in a closed door, backroom session to pick the new officers.  The VHA membership will not be invited to or allowed into this meeting.